Current owner of Judges Guild is a Neo-Nazi

[Quasinatural]

Is Dutch not considered "white"? Or in his language, "white" = "white American" ?

"White" was a lot more narrow back in the day. Germans, dutch, irish, scandinavians, slavs, wouldn't be considered white a hundred years ago. Considering everyone in Europe was gleefully slaughtering each other from the dawn of history until WWII, it didn't make sense to consider them the same race.

Yeah, I get that, but that was back in the day. So it seems white supremacists still hold that view in the present day...

They don't. Most don't even know about the Irish being not white. They're trying to escape a charge of racism. To do this, they redefine racism as "Liking your race, which is a singular race, above all other races in your personal life." If you have multiple races, you can't be racist. If you have friends from another race, you can't be racist.

This is patently obvious bullshit that does nothing but offer palbum to the pathetically wounded egos in white supremacist ranks, but because they get high on their own supply, they trot out this idea amongst the decent from time to time as well. Establishment media will often go along with it, but your average person will simply point out that that definition of racism is self-servingly wrong. Like most of the guy's post, this was just another self-pwn.

[Libertad]

They don't. Most don't even know about the Irish being not white. They're trying to escape a charge of racism. To do this, they redefine racism as "Liking your race, which is a singular race, above all other races in your personal life." If you have multiple races, you can't be racist. If you have friends from another race, you can't be racist.

This is patently obvious bullshit that does nothing but offer palbum to the pathetically wounded egos in white supremacist ranks, but because they get high on their own supply, they trot out this idea amongst the decent from time to time as well. Establishment media will often go along with it, but your average person will simply point out that that definition of racism is self-servingly wrong. Like most of the guy's post, this was just another self-pwn.

I talked about it on another site covering the news, but this is part of why Bledsaw's "official response" had so much anecdotal evidence. A lot of bigots (and right-wingers in general) insist upon focusing on individual cases over systemic and generational issues as a get out of jail free card when empiricism isn't on their side. The whole "I'm an individualist libertarian" excuse plays into this, too.

[Pseudo Stupidity]

Yeah, honestly, uncircumcised is better.

I disagree. I don't have a very strong preference, but I prefer the kind of dick that's going to heaven, thank you very much. However, uncircumcised ones sometimes look like they're wearing tiny jackets and that's cute.

And doesn't circumcision reduce transmission rates of a bunch of STDs? Safe dicks.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

If at any point you condone the genital mutilation of babies who cannot consent, you should heavily reconsider your position and take out the (circumcised) cock that's lodged into your brain.

[deaddmwalking]

If at any point you condone the genital mutilation of babies who cannot consent, you should heavily reconsider your position and take out the (circumcised) cock that's lodged into your brain.

I don't consider it genital mutilation, and I don't expect babies to be able to consent to medical procedures. I didn't ask my 4 month old if she wanted to have her tongue clipped - we talked with the doctor about whether it was medically necessary or not - and what the most likely outcomes were both with or without the procedure.

Specifically regarding circumcision, it is an important tenant of a well-established religion. Efforts to ban circumcision always strike me as suspect regarding Anti-Semitism.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

So what's your stance on female genital mutilation? If your doctor said they had to start chopping away at your daughter's vagina, which has nothing wrong with it, would you still be okay with that?
Circumcision is horrifying, no matter the gender. Even if it's medically necessary for some people, that doesn't make it any less awful. Imposing it onto children in the modern era is, frankly, disgusting.

Yes, I do wish I still had my foreskin. Can you tell?

[Pseudo Stupidity]

If at any point you condone the genital mutilation of babies who cannot consent, you should heavily reconsider your position and take out the (circumcised) cock that's lodged into your brain.

As compared to all those babies who can consent to things.



Me: "I prefer circumcised dick to uncircumcised dick"

AA: "You condone genital mutilation"

I get you're mad that your dick isn't wearing a jacket, mine isn't either and like, maybe it would have looked fucking sweet in a jacket and I could sew patches on it or something, but maybe chill the fuck out? I said I prefer circumcised dick, I didn't say anything about whether or not people should circumcise their kids. I don't care about whether parents give their kid's dick the snip snip, I just think it makes dicks more fun.

[Omegonthesane]

If at any point you condone the genital mutilation of babies who cannot consent, you should heavily reconsider your position and take out the (circumcised) cock that's lodged into your brain.

I don't consider it genital mutilation,

It is literal mutilation of the literal genitals. This is like saying you don't consider a Skoda 4WD to be a car.

and I don't expect babies to be able to consent to medical procedures

Then you shouldn't be performing medical procedures on babies except in the last extreme to save their life. Current NHS advice is that tongue-tie shouldn't even be treated in babies unless it's causing difficulty feeding, and the NHS doesn't begin to go far enough respecting the human rights of underage patients.

Specifically regarding circumcision, it is an important tenant of a well-established religion. Efforts to ban circumcision always strike me as suspect regarding Anti-Semitism.

I can understand why you might be suspicious, since e.g. demands to slaughter animals in an "ethical" way if at all are often a dog whistle for Islamophobia. But genuinely, circumcision of babies is fucking evil, whereas halal slaughter is not astoundingly horrific as methods of killing animals for food go (and I had a chicken burger for lunch, so I can't judge meat eaters morally speaking).

[Quasinatural]

So what's your stance on female genital mutilation?

Motherfuck, motherfuck, goddamit, motherfuck, I was hoping we could have a thread where someone mentioned circumcision without having someone bring up this bullshit comparison, but we can't, so here goes.

Female genital mutilation is a billion times worse than male circumcision. It's worse on every level, by every measure, including ITS FUCKING INTENT which is as evil as its operation and its result. Male circumcision can actually have a beneficial effect. Is it worth said beneficial effect? As has already been pointed out, signs point to no, but one could make a plausible argument for it without being prima facie in bad faith; hell, it would even have a shot at reasonable in a different medical milieu (e.g., without modern hygine practices).

Female "circumcision" has no purpose save for evil ones. That's. Fucking. It.

If you think male circumcision is wrong: ok. There's not going to be a lot of pushback there since, as already mentioned, that side won in much of the world and seems to be trending towards complete success. But if you have to drag in a practice that causes far more horrific damage on every level to make you're case, you're not just bad at argument, you're a fucking asshole. Don't do that. The best argument against you is an anti-STI one that's actually in your favor as well, imo. Don't be an asshole, just take the win.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

Fuck off, asshole, I'll tell you when I'm arguing in bad faith. I'm against children being fucking mutilated, you don't have to get your panties in a twist because I asked him a question. I'm glad there's pushback against this barbaric practice, I just wish there was more.

I've never even seen anyone get mad at that comparison before. Yes, female circumcision is obviously worse. They're still both fucking evil and breed contempt in children.

Me: "I prefer circumcised dick to uncircumcised dick"

AA: "You condone genital mutilation"

This, but unironically. You saying you prefer circumcised dick means you are accepting of genital mutilation. That's sick.

[Leress]

You know as blatantly racist the tweet thread was, it was missing the cherry that is the triple parentheses.

[Thaluikhain]

It is literal mutilation of the literal genitals.

Well, yes, it is, but then so are cosmetic producers, and they somehow don't count.

That is not to say I support circumcision (or cosmetic procedures, including ear piercings, as a rule) of children.

[Quasinatural]

Fuck off, asshole

Eat shit you disengenous pile of sick.

I'll tell you when I'm arguing in bad faith.

Apparently, you won't, dipshit.

I'm glad there's pushback against this barbaric practice, I just wish there was more.

And you're undermining both positions by making a false equivalence. Stealing a nickel from a billionaire and stealing the life savings of an elderly invalid are both stealing. If someone taps you on the shoulder and another person stabs you in the sternum with a knife, both commited assault -- an unwanted touching. Only a complete asshat would say that those have the same practical and moral effects.

I've never even seen anyone get mad at that comparison before.

Then your perception is as blinkered as your moral sense.

They're still both fucking evil and breed contempt in children.

The damage of one is far worse than the other, up to and including straight-out risk of fucking death, and yet you still paint them as functionally similar.

This, but unironically. You saying you prefer circumcised dick means you are accepting of genital mutilation. That's sick.

I'll tell you when I'm arguing in bad faith.

You didn't there, so let me help you out: there's that bad faith. I never said "prefer circumcised dick means you are accepting of genital mutilation" or anything like it and pointed out that the case against male circumcision easily carries the day. And then I pointed out that using female genital mutilation as support makes you a disengenuous shitstain. . . and you doubled down.

***

You know as blatantly racist the tweet thread was, it was missing the cherry that is the triple parentheses.

a) The triple paranthetical is a young man's game; it's meme-tier, and this is an old bigot. It may not be part of his repertoire.
b) He's trying to be on his best behavior. The jew-signifier would break his piss-poor kayfabe.

That's the pathetic part. He's desperately trying to NOT dogwhistle. The problem is that, apparently, his entire life story read out would force a kennel to howl.

[owlassociate]

Anyone else find it hilarious that quasi seems to be equating cutting off an infant's foreskin with tapping a stranger on the shoulder?

[deaddmwalking]

If at any point you condone the genital mutilation of babies who cannot consent, you should heavily reconsider your position and take out the (circumcised) cock that's lodged into your brain.

I don't consider it genital mutilation,

It is literal mutilation of the literal genitals. This is like saying you don't consider a Skoda 4WD to be a car.

I am circumcised and I think my genitals are very nice, thank you very much. They are not 'ruined' or 'cosmetically damaged' or 'disfigured' or 'irreparably harmed'. Consequently, I do not think they are 'mutilated', and I do not consider circumcision to be mutilation. As I said, the groups that seek to limit male circumcision often seem to have anti-semitic connections. I don't have a problem with parents making the decisions that they think are best for their children regarding health and well-being, and bringing someone up in a faith community is certainly a parent's one factor in that.

In Anglo culture, it's not very common to pierce baby ears, but in Latinx culture it is. I also don't consider piercing to be mutilation though I do discourage my children from doing it.

Parents get a lot of leeway in my book to make choices that they think are best for their children - even decisions I think are obviously bad like home schooling. The alternative seems much worse. Parents, right or wrong, are supposed to want what's best for their children. Participating in a superstitious tradition doesn't bother me in the slightest.

@The Adventurer's Almanac - I'm sorry you feel that you didn't have a say in an important decision that impacts your life on a daily basis. As an adult, I'd be leery of making that choice myself, so I'm glad it was made for me. I prefer circumcised penises (including my own) and it isn't simply due to familiarity. My father and I have discussed this decision (he made the decision when I was born) and I agree with his reasoning. Your experience can't invalidate my experience. These are surprisingly weighty topics, but I don't think you can make the claim that there is a universally superior way and everyone should be compelled to follow it.

[owlassociate]

I am circumcised and I think my genitals are very nice, thank you very much.

That's fine and I'm very happy for you, but many people wish they weren't circumcised and it should be up to the consenting individual to decide what's best for their body, if it only affects themselves.

I don't have a problem with parents making the decisions that they think are best for their children regarding health and well-being...

That's missing some nuance. For example, there's getting your children vaccinated, and then there's forcing an intersex infant to get a medically unnecessary surgery so they conform to gender norms.

[Dean]

Yeah American circumcision is and should go the way of the dodo. Even if any of us happen to be cut it still doesn't mean this stupid weird and frankly perverse practice should continue.

Pretty much anyone looking at a practice started by an old awful pervert who pumped yogurt into boys asses and wanted sex to hurt and be as awful as possible is probably something we should re-evaluate and ditch. The moment the surgeon general said that circumcision has no medical benefit should probably have been the last time anyone in America talked about continuing the practice seriously.

[Omegonthesane]

I don't consider it genital mutilation,

It is literal mutilation of the literal genitals. This is like saying you don't consider a Skoda 4WD to be a car.

I am circumcised and I think my genitals are very nice, thank you very much. They are not 'ruined' or 'cosmetically damaged' or 'disfigured' or 'irreparably harmed'. Consequently, I do not think they are 'mutilated', and I do not consider circumcision to be mutilation.

To quote an infamous political enemy of mine, facts don't care about your feelings. If you were circumcised before you were old enough to express verbally your own true desire one way or another, that was an obscene violation of your bodily autonomy no matter how it panned out.

In Anglo culture, it's not very common to pierce baby ears, but in Latinx culture it is. I also don't consider piercing to be mutilation though I do discourage my children from doing it.

Things don't stop being medically unnecessary, non-consensual surgery because of what you "feel" about the matter. The specific low risks mean I wouldn't expect a child to have to be that old to make an informed decision with either ear piercings or AMAB circumcision, but that is no fucking excuse to do it to babies.

Parents get a lot of leeway in my book to make choices that they think are best for their children - even decisions I think are obviously bad like home schooling. The alternative seems much worse.

The alternative is actually much better in many cases. Not just because many parents genuinely do not want the best for their children, but also because of how many parents' idea of "best" is diametrically opposed to peer reviewed evidence. This attitude is also utterly disdainful of the rights of children to express autonomy.

Parents, right or wrong, are supposed to want what's best for their children. Participating in a superstitious tradition doesn't bother me in the slightest.

The "superstitious tradition" isn't the problem; the "openly violates the child's human rights" is the problem, and it's compounded by the genuine medical risks.
And, again, many parents genuinely do not want what is best for their children, and would e.g. rather have a dead child than a gay or trans child.

As an adult, I'd be leery of making that choice myself, so I'm glad it was made for me. I prefer circumcised penises (including my own) and it isn't simply due to familiarity.

Is it not? You never had the chance to see the alternative. You were factually objectively the victim of a human rights violation.

My father and I have discussed this decision (he made the decision when I was born) and I agree with his reasoning. Your experience can't invalidate my experience. These are surprisingly weighty topics, but I don't think you can make the claim that there is a universally superior way and everyone should be compelled to follow it.

So compulsion isn't fine when a peer reviewed research committee does it in everyone's best interests, but it's absolutely fine when individuals do it to the most helpless of humanity in the name of their own personal fucking biases. Got it.

It's genuinely obscene to see you describe "all humans should have the right to decide what permanent changes happen to their body" as imposing a single universally superior way.

[MGuy]

This took an odd turn. It doesn't matter really that one form of unnecessary bodily mutilation is considered less bad than another. Especially in the case where you're deriding childhood body mutilating period. Bringing up the worst case scenario is 100% fine. Unless you're going to make an argument that one is more ok than another there is no reason to fly off the handle.

Second, being ok with being circumcised 'now' that you're older and can consent is very clearly not an argument for really anything. I'm circumcised, am ok with it, but that's not an argument for anything at all. It was done before I can consent to it for reasons that seem trumped up (in my case the medical concern thing) or for other people out of tradition. People outraged about it doesn't invalidate your dick.

[Mord]

The moment the surgeon general said that circumcision has no medical benefit should probably have been the last time anyone in America talked about continuing the practice seriously.

Times change:

There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%.

https://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

If you think of circumcision as a partial HIV vaccine, does that make it more acceptable as a thing to do to babies?

Story time: a distant relative of mine was born some decades ago in a hospital where a new motorized circumcision tool had just entered use. You know where this is going. His circumcision was botched, resulting in approximately half his penis being severed. His family sued the hospital and received approximately ten shitzillion dollars in the ensuing settlement. I feel like this by itself is enough to justify continuing the practice, because that means every boy's foreskin is like a Powerball ticket that you don't even have to pick any numbers for.

[Prak]

Yeah, honestly, uncircumcised is better.

I disagree. I don't have a very strong preference, but I prefer the kind of dick that's going to heaven, thank you very much. However, uncircumcised ones sometimes look like they're wearing tiny jackets and that's cute.

And doesn't circumcision reduce transmission rates of a bunch of STDs? Safe dicks.

I prefer softer skin texture on my dicks, personally.

Also, don't you know? Dicks never go to heaven. They're not allowed.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Yeah, honestly, uncircumcised is better.

I disagree. I don't have a very strong preference, but I prefer the kind of dick that's going to heaven, thank you very much. However, uncircumcised ones sometimes look like they're wearing tiny jackets and that's cute.

And doesn't circumcision reduce transmission rates of a bunch of STDs? Safe dicks.

I prefer softer skin texture on my dicks, personally.

Also, don't you know? Dicks never go to heaven. They're not allowed.

If Heaven doesn't have futa angels then I don't want to go.

[Koumei]

I didn't foresee this thread going in this direction when I mentioned circumcision, but I'm glad it did. In a "I have no skin in this game" (if you'll pardon the pun) sort of way, this is fascinating to watch.

In other news, this is the first I have heard of tongue-tie other than in the colloquial sense of "he got all tongue-tied on stage".

Count: if you want Futa Angels, I can recommend Ishuzoku Reviewers, an anime set in Generic Fantasy World where the main characters, including a futa angel, go about visiting all the brothels and reviewing sex with all the different species. It asks and answers the questions you want answered, in a Gaming Den "do elves eat their own shit? How many tits does a Shokan/Machamp have?" kind of way.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I'm not really sure whether or not I want to know if elves eat their own shit. I mean, I really don't want to hear about elves eating their own shit, but if elves existed I'd like to be warned beforehand that they eat their own shit before I make out with one...

[Koumei]

That was a think Frank put forward. It isn't a thing in Ishuzoku. But they mention how harpies have an "all in one" cloaca, and how cyclopes think of eyes the way we think of boobs (specifically, the bigger the better, with some getting a complex over their small size), and build-a-bitch golem brothels existing.