LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
No bio...
User ID: 657
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
17hr ago
I don't use social media that much and don't intend to go dumpster diving just to fulfil your demand. That being said, I know there's at least a handful of "Breadtube" type 'influencers' who have made various comments about age of consent and the like. Any 'serious' leftist intellectual is not going to put their thoughts on social media, where they will and can be eviscerated by normies, they're going to put it in academic text hidden behind jargon which I have already shown.
20 years ago, open public support for gay 'marriage' was unthinkable. 10 years ago, transgenderism was a tiny, tiny fringe and mostly a joke.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
17hr ago
I oversimplified for the sake of brevity. I could say something like feminism's goal was to deconstruct the cis-hetero-patriarchy or whatever, the patriarchy still exists (by feminism's own admission), therefore feminism hasn't affected anything. Obviously this is sarcastic.
Did you not read my post? I explicitly reference and quote influential leftist intellectuals and academics who are pro-pedophilia, or as I said, are at least comfortable destroying any distinction that would allow pedophilia to exist. Do you think the quotes I have included are fake?
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
1d ago
The point of that original comment was to provide a historical throughline throughout history in leftist thought, which I think it does pretty conclusive for a relatively short post. Later in that original thread I provide an example of a contemporary article.
Futurity and Childhood Innocence: Beyond the Injury of Development by Hannah Dyer (2016)
Other people in this current threat have provided other examples. It's not hard to find articles/academic publications on this stuff if you go looking.
My point was to look at leftist academic thought, which is always upstream of what (leftist) normies think. It may or may not make its way downstream in the future. Probably not as the tide is turning against leftism, and that pedophilia is so intrinsically evil and disordered that normies can't abstract it way like other things.
I actually think the argument anout adulthood 'shifiting to mid-twenties' is actually in favour of the deconstruction of child and adult, not against it, as it makes the boundaries between child and adults, fuzzier, not clearer. Young adults are being infantalized, extended adolescence. The concept of 'adulting' is classic deconstructionism - adult is now something your perform, rather than something you are.
Marxism intends to overthrow capitalism. America is still capitalist. Therefore, Marxism has had no impact on American society.
Feminism intended to make women happy. Women are less happy. Therefore, feminism did not achieve anything or cause any changes on society.
How is your comment not anything other than a post hoc fallacy?
You're not actually refuting the central claim that there is a strong current in contemporary leftist thought (critical theory, post-modernism, queer theory) that is okay with exposing children to sexual material or activities, or at the very least actively want to demolish barriers that prevent that from happening - the distinction between child and adult, the concept of childhood innocence.
The New Atheists thought that by demolishing religion, they would usher in an age of rational utopia. Instead they got new pseudo-religions. The sex/gender abolitionists thought they would usher in a sex (in both means of the term) utopia. Instead we have sexual chaos. The claim of the leftists is quite literally 'free love', to put it in a simple term, not sexlessness you claim the only way you get sexlessness is if you go so deep down the rabbithole where you deconstruct every the very concept of sex doesn't exist - but then sexlessness also doesn't exist.
I would suggest the reason pedophilia hasn't taken off despite it's presence in leftwing thought is that it is so intrinsically and self-evidently evil and disordered that most people can't and won't accept it even when they might accept other elements of the ideology in the abstract.
That being said, it's progressive - literally. Twenty years ago open political support for gay 'marriage' was unthinkable. Ten years ago, transgenderism was still a fringe concept. As disgusting as it is, and as much as people try to discredit the "slippery slope", it's not out of the realm of possibility to assume what the next step might be (if the leftists manage to retain unchecked power indefinitely)
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
2d ago
Copying an old comment of mine from the old place.
I think a very strong case can be made that the New Left, and its subsequent and related movements in the academic left particularly queer theory, is pro-pedophilia (eventually filtering down to the 'woke' public in watered down form). To be more charitable, it's not that they are pro-pedophile per se, but rather that they have adopted a world view that doesn't make a distinction between pedophilia and non-pedophilia. The aim to is "deconstruct" sex, gender, sexuality, race and so on. Why would one expect them to stop there and not deconstruct adult and child? In many cases, this is what they explicitly want to do. Some might say this is a 'slippery slope' fallacy, but I think Newton's First Law is an appropriate analogy. One might argue it is the logical conclusion of left academic theory (that is, the critical theories prominent in academia).
It's probably best to use some examples.
John Money, a psychologist and sexologist, with a background in pediatrics, active in the 50s and 60s. John Money is notable for being one of, if not the first person to theorize a distinction between sex and gender, and was the academic who introduced the term 'gender identity' and has been highly influential in the development of sex and gender theory. What is less well know about Money is some of his extremely unethical practices, including the infamous case of David Reimer. When Reimer was born, he was subjected to a botched circumcision that destroyed his penis. On the advice of Money, Reimer's parents subjected Reimer to sex change (as a baby) and raised him as a girl. As part of the therapy, he would make Reimer and his twin brother engage in mock sexual activity, including making them strip for 'inspections' and taking photos. Money claimed that these activities were essential for the development of a healthy adult gender and sexual identity. The case of Reimer was long held up as evidence in support of Money's and later ideas of gender identity and the distinction of sex and gender. David Reimer would "de-transition" later in his teens. Both David and his twin brother Brian would commit suicide in their thirties.
In the 1960s to 1990s, influential German psychologist, sexologist and sex educator Hemlut Kentler ran an experiment with government support where he would put young children as foster children with known pedophiles and encourage sexual activity. Kentler had strong tied to left-wing intellectual circles and believed that 'sexual repression' was the key driver of fascist ideology.
Shulamith Firestone, radical feminist and author of The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution. In the book, she makes four demands for an authentic feminist revolution. Number three is for 'the total integration of women and children into all aspects of larger society' (by this she means the removal of any cultural distinction between men/women and adult/child). Number four is for 'the freedom of all women and children to do whatever they wish to do sexually'.
In 1977, a group of French left or left associated intellectuals signed a petition to the French government asking them abolish the age of consent in France. The signatories include some extremely significant and influential names, including Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Simone de Beauvoir, Jean-Paul Sartre, Jean-François Lyotard. I should point out that there is strong evidence is that Michel Foucault was a pedophile, and regularly made trips to Tunisia to abuse young boys there. One has to wonder how this relates to his work in postmodernism.
There's Gayle Rubin's 1984 essay Thinking Sex, considered a foundational text for gay and lesbian studies, gender studies and queer theory. In Thinking Sex, Rubin defends pedophilia (and incest as it happens). It's hard to get a direct quote (you can read the essay yourself) as the language is expectedly obtuse, but it is the logical conclusion of what she is arguing. For example:
It is harder for most people to sympathize with actual boy-lovers. Like communists and homosexuals in the 1950s, boylovers are so stigmatized that it is difficult to find defenders for their civil liberties, let alone for their erotic orientation. Consequently, the police have feasted on them. Local police, the FBI, and watchdog postal inspectors have joined to build a huge apparatus whose sole aim is to wipe out the community of men who love underaged youth. In twenty years or so, when some of the smoke has cleared, it will be much easier to show that these men have been the victims of a savage and undeserved witch hunt.
Rubin, and many academic leftists like and since her, want to deconstruct the concept of childhood innocence, seeing it yet another part of the oppressive system we find ourself in. I should point out, the Motte and Bailey is particularly strong here.
There's of course, Judith Butler, the queer theorist who needs no introduction. What Judith Butler means can be hard to actually decern, but here's a choice quote from her 2004 book 'Undoing Gender':
It is not necessary to figure parent-child incest as a unilateral impingement on the child by the parent, since whatever impingement takes place will also be registered within the sphere of fantasy. In fact, to understand the violation that incest can be—and also to distinguish between those occasions of incest that are violation and those that are not—it is unnecessary to figure the body of the child exclusively as a surface imposed upon from the outside. The fear, of course, is that if it emerges that the child’s desire has been exploited or incited by incest, this will somehow detract from our understanding of parent-child incest as a violation. The reification of the child’s body as passive surface would thus constitute, at a theoretical level, a further deprivation of the child: the deprivation of psychic life.
Which fits into my initial description - it's not that the 'academic left' (or critical left or whatever term you want to use) are pro-pedophile per se, but rather they believe in deconstructing sexual norms in such a way that pedophile becomes a meaningless concept (and one might say, intentionally or unintentionally giving pedophiles free license to operate). These are just examples, but you can find many other academics arguing the same or similar. A large part of it goes back to Herbert Marcuse's Eros and Civilization, which basically argues through a Freudian-Marxist synthesis that our natural desires and impulses are suppressed by the capitalist system in order to funnel them into productive work (which no one actually wants to do), and therefore liberation from capitalism but necessarily include the liberation and expression of these desires, with of course, an emphasis on sexual desire.
But surely these are just kooky academics with insane theories that would never actually have any real-world consequences (regardless of how crazy influential they are), right? That normal people (that is, leftists) would never actually implement these kinds of things in a practical manner, right? Well these theories do seem to have effect, least of all in (critical) pedagogy. In particular, sex education does seem to have been affected by these theories, at least in the US. One example is the book 'Gender Queer: A Memoir', the subject of recent controversy, becoming standard in curriculum and libraries for many schools, and is aimed at pre-teens. The book contains extremely graphic (drawn) images, including a blowjob and sex scenes. You can search for the images yourself.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
16d ago
The question is what do those names actually mean to consumers. At least here in Australia, names like 'feta' are fully genericised - they don't have to come from a particular region in Greece. This is true for a lot of names, though the EU has taken great pains to reverse this.
When a consumer goes to buy feta, what exactly are they looking for? If two products are virtually identicial, taste the same, same texture, but one happens to be made in Australia and one in Greece, do most consumers actually care? Do they just want a lower price (I'm sure some foodies will claim there are subtle but irreducible differences).
At what point does a name become genericised to the point of referring to a type of product, rather that than referring to the geographical origin of a product? Danish pastries certainly aren't just made in Denmark.
It is a legitimate criticism to say that a consumer might be looking for feta and not care if it's from either Australia or Greece, but EU geographical indicators hide Australia 'feta' from consumers as a potential option, and this constitutes protectionism.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
16d ago
Sure, it blocks intra-EU competition, but the EU is effectively acting as a cabal here - Franch gets champagne, Greece gets feta, Italy gets prosecco and so on. They agree to not interfere with each other in exchange dor working together to impose the restrictions on the rest of the world.
It's trivial (conceptually, if not practically) to structure your non-tariff trade barriers, such as the CBAM, to favour domestic producers over foreign imports - e.g. calculating emissions of imports in a unfavourable way. Indeed, the CBAM has been accused of doing just that. It also inherently favours domestic European goods due to the lower transport emissions and the fact the Europeans are trying to develop green industries. The Europeans of course argue this is simply a green policy, and this is merely leveling the playing field in the name of the environment. Maybe this true - but the fact it favours domestic industry must surely be a nice bonus.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
16d ago
To a degree, yes, you're correct, it's just then which regulations or protections are generally considered legitimate, and don't hinder the 'spirit' of free trade. Although with health and safety regulation specifically is that they're competing on an even playing field in that specific market with domestic goods - this isn't the case with all (most) non-tariff trade barriers, which often put additional burdens on imported goods that domestic goods don't have to meet, or are structured in such a way to make it far easier for domestic goods to meet the requirements.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
16d ago
Yes, that's my point. That there's a right way to do not-protectionism in the liberal trade rules based order. Trump's doing in protectionism with his tariffs the wrong way (to a extreme degree, I might add).
You are correct, it's protecting EU domestic markets from foreign 'similar' products from using the geographical indicators (although the EU has occasionally managed to extend that protection to other markets). So Australian sparkling white wine can't use the name 'champagne' in European markets. This was a major sticking point during fairly recent Australia-EU Free Trade Agreement negotiations (Australia is a major agricultural exporter), particularly around products like feta, parmesan, prosecco, and was instrumental in the collapse of negotiations along with other agriculture protectionist policies. Now, one might think it's fair for the Europeans to do this to protect their cultural culinary heritage - I wouldn't disagree. But it does still provide a non-tariff trade barrier (i.e. is a protectionist policy) against potentially more competitive imports.
It's technically true that Trump's 'retaliatory' tariffs aren't actually retaliatory, as most countries don't have tariffs on vast majority of US imports. However, there are other actual, tangible non-tariff trade barriers countries use, it's not just illusory 'Critical Trade Theory'.
Tariffs are considered archaic and stupid in our global WTO liberal free trade regime. But occasionally (or sometimes more than occasionally) states want to engage in protectionism. The way they get around this is by implementing non-tariffs trade barriers that have plausible deniability with other justifications. This is sometimes described as neo-mercantilism in academic literature. The European Union loves this, from geographical indicators to carbon border adjustment mechanism and other regulatory measures - all implemented for other goods, that just so happen to also protect their domestic industries as well (unintended side effect, of course). Though, the EU will sometimes resort to tariffs on short notice as well, such as to prevent Chinese state subsidised EVs flooding European markets - but that's justified as an anti-dumping measure - purely self defence.
And China bans imports of goods, out of deep concern for the safety of their citizens. They blocked imports of Australian rock lobster because of high levels of cadmium (no evidence ever confirmed) and periodic bans of imports of either Canadian or Australian canola over concerns of blackleg fungus contamination. Of course, China too used extortionate tariffs on Australian barley to protect themselves from Australian 'dumping' cheap barley in China. Damn, us pesky Australians! First we try to poison the Chinese with toxic lobster, then we try to destroy the domestic Chinese barley market! In a weird coincidence, concerns about cadmium disappeared the same time relations normalised with China post-COVID! What luck! And don't forget the China rare earths export ban and dispute in 2010-12, which was for the good of reducing pollution and conserving the resource. The fact it happened after a major maritime and diplomatic dispute with Japan is a coincidence, I'm sure.
For better or worse, Trump's approach is about as unsophisticated as you can get, just slapping tariffs on just about everyone and everything. See, in the enlightened WTO free trade order, you can't just put tariffs on things, that would break WTO rules and free trade principles! No, instead what you're meant to do is provide some really-justified-for-other-reasons non-tariff measure to block export or imports, and then spend the next 5 years rules-lawyering how it doesn't violate the 'international rule based order' after which time the outcome of the dispute doesn't even matter, if someone even bothers to challenge it, that is.
Manufacturing jobs stagnants in the 80s (despite population growth) and begins to decline in 90s onwards. The increase in output has largely been due to productivity gains - but the actual manufacturing output as a percentage of the US economy has continuously shrunk. All the graph you linked shows is that existing manufacturing has gotten more productive/more efficient, which is unsurprising. In fact, output has actually stagnanted over the last 20 years despite productivity growth.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
18d ago
Yes it was - US trade balance only begins to dramatically decline in the 80s, and then dramatically accelerates in the 90s (i.e. the same time NAFTA comes into effect and China's exports explode in growth). While there was decline and deindustrialisation in some areas and sectors before then, US manufaturing and exports was still relatively healthy in the up to the 80s.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
18d ago
Is your objection to my use of the term 'Rust Belt', or the argument that the 80s/90s weren't critical turning point? I don't care about the former, the latter is statistically true - deindustrialisation was much more significant after then, then had occured previously.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
18d ago
I said I am not specifically defending Trump's implementation of tariffs - there's a lot to criticise even if you're someone who is generally in favour of protectionism.
Any large macroeconomic change is going to have short term economic shocks, basically regardless of what exactly they are.
The concern is not what the short term economic impacts will be on what remains of American industry, but (re)developing a long term industrial base. Whether the tariffs achieve that is up for debate and remains to be seen. The ship may have already sailed.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
18d ago
The 80s aren't 30 years ago
Ah!
Regardless, while there were some indication of deindustrialisation earlier, the late 80s/early 90s were a critical inflection point - it's when economic relations with China began to normalise, allowing China grow explosive, and Chinese exports grew enormously during the 90s (and later other Asian nations such as Vietnam and India) In America specifically, NAFTA was signed in 1994.
Also, I find it funny all the grandstanding about free trade in the media - while free trade has been a principle since the end of WW2, in reality completely and absolute free trade has only really been a thing for the last 20-30 years. The 1950s-1990s had a moderate amount of tariffs and other trade restrictions. Short memories.
This is a response to both the above and @PyotrVerkhovensky's below comments on tariffs.
Some 30-odd years ago, economists had a proposition for the American people, and the West and the global economy at large, that went something like this:
Trade liberalisation is fantastic. It will bring massive economic growth, cheap consumer goods for all! Now, all these free trade agreements might have the negative impact of hollowing out America's (and the West's) industial base as all manufacturing and its associated blue collar jobs move overseas, but don't worry! Some of the massive economic gains from trade liberalisation can be captured and used to help blue collar communities 'adjust' to this economic change but helping them to reskill into other industries, such as ERROR:Undefined. Everybody wins! Plus, liberalising trade with China will help them liberalise politically as well. Pax Americana will live on!
Obviously, this didn't come to pass - at the very least, the claims that the negative repercussions of trade liberalisation will be offset by capturing some of the economic gain didn't happen, as Western deindustrialisation and the Rust Belt is testament to. What's more, economists rarely consider social impacts, especially second and third order effects. Deaths of despair and the social decline of middle America wasn't considered a possibility. A few economists may give lip service to social issues, but ultimately they can be resolved with economic solutions. Never mind that the wealth generated by trade liberalisation was highly concentrated by a minority of elites concentrated in financial centres and not widely distributed, cheap plasma TVs be damned.
I think the strongest argument in favour of tariffs (in the broad sense, not necessarily Trump's implementation) flips the free trade argument on its head - rather than middle American manufacturing being sacrificed for the good of abstract macroeconomic growth and GDP, abstract macroeconomic growth and GDP should be sacrificed for middle American manufacturing. Why were blue collar workers expected to sacrifice their livelihoods for the benefit of financial markets back in the 90s, but we shouldn't expect financial markets to sacrifice some of their growth for the well-being of blue collar workers now?
The question that is often forgotten in economic policy debates is who is the economy for? Too often do economists, policy makers and the media alike forget that the economy is a means, not an end, and that abstract GDP growth is not necessarily the goal that should be pursued, especially when that growth can come at the expense of the social well-being of the population, even if the insistence is that it will always benefit everyone.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
1mo ago
This is not speculation on my part. Israel did, in fact, ask the US to invade Iran first and not Iraq.
There's various sources for this including from US officials such as Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff for Colin Powell. It's also stated in Mearsheimer's Israel Lobby book from memory.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
1mo ago
Israel was only 'against' the Iraq War insofar that they wanted the US to invade Iran first. The Bush admin said they'd do Iraq and Afghanistan quickly before Iran, who would similarly be a cake walk. Well, we know how that turned out. Israel still wanted the US to invade the whole Middle East (on their behalf) in the long run anyway, they just disagreed about the order.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
2mo ago
I suppose it's been memory-holed and vastly unpopular both here and in the mainstream media, but Ukraine did take many actions in the lead-up to the 2022 invasion and the 2014 invasion and the period inbetween that reflects poorly on them. They're not blameless for all this (although most blame goes to Russia and the US liberal foreign policy establishment for fucking with Ukraine). I'm not going to go into detail about each point but they include:
- Violating the terms of both the first and second Minsk agreements.
- Facilitating and arming pro-Ukrainian/anti-Russian militias who would continiously shell Russian communities in the Donbas even during periods of ceasefire (if you're willing to dig through UN Security Council records you can find Russia complaing about this in many, many meetings over many years - this is honestly a major factor than has been completely ignored/forgotten).
- Engaging in a cultural suppression of Russian communities in Ukraine, including the banning of the use of Russian in government, newspapers etc (also a perennial issue).
I have no lost love for Russia but it's been so dishonest how Ukraine over the past few years has been transformed in the media from a corrupt shithole to the bastion of European democracy (despite, you know, Zelenskyy destroying all his political opposition. If it wasn't for American and European interests meddling in Ukraine for the last two decades, this conflict would be indistinguishable from any other regional global conflict (India-Pakistan, Rwanda-Congo etc)
I wanted the woke to be defeated by classical liberals.
We could debate all the fundamental philosophical problems of liberalism (classical or otherwise), but what I think is the more pressing problem with this attitude of simply wanting to return to "90s liberalism" which seems to be espoused by many figures is that they make no effort to explain that even if somehow liberalism defeats woke and we all become good liberals again, how will liberalism not immediately give rise to woke again. Woke, if not liberal itself, arose in the conditions of liberalism. Why wouldn't it do it again? Even if you're a 'classical liberal' rather than a '90s liberal' (social liberal) it's just delaying the problem slightly longer.
Ironically, despite the contemporary right-wing movements often being accused of being reactionary, it's really the anti-woke liberals who are reactionary in the quite literal and plain meaning of the word. They think we can just turn back the clock on political and philosophical development of the last thirty, fourty, fifty years and (re)establish a liberal utopia and the last fifteen years of woke will disappear forever like a bad dream, like it never happened. Remember, this 'SJW' 'woke' thing is just a fad that college kids will grow out of once they enter the real world.
Contemporary right-wing thought doesn't do this. It's decidedly post-liberal, not liberal or pre-liberal. It has, with maybe a few exceptions, fully embraced that liberalism has had its political moment, it has failed and the question is how to address those failures. The dialectic has progessed, one might say. Even the ironically named 'neo-reactionaries' aren't really reactionary in any meaningful sense, other than just borrowing basic, well-worn concepts from eons past. Their politics are still clearly post-liberal. I would even argue 'MAGA' (insofar it is a coherent political movement) is post-liberal, again despite the ironic name.
So my question to all those who just want to 'retvrn' to the liberalism of decades past - how to you plan to address or reform liberalism so it will won't cause woke again? What do you acknowledge are its problems? How would your changes keep the essence of liberalism so despite the changes it could still meaningfully be called liberalism? How would it not just be simply nostalgia for a past that can never be returned to, if it existed at all?
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
2mo ago
I think all of the reasona outlined contributed to at least some degree, but for me the one that has the most salience and is the dominant reason is definitely "the Male Feminist as a man seeking absolution".
Every card-carrying male feminist I'm known has been a sex pest. To clarify, by 'card carrying male feminist' I don't mean a general liberal man who says he's a feminist when I asked, I mean the man who will unprompted talk about 'women's issues' and will make sure everyone (especially the women' knows he is a feminist and one of the good ones. And by sex pest, I don't necessarily mean someone who has committed sexual assault (though they also count) but someone who constantly pesters (as the name suggests) women for dates, relationships, sex. Everytime he talks to any new women he's thinking about how he can manipulate get this woman to date him. He will literally ask out every women he meets.
I have known several men during that fit the above description (unfortunately so, as I have a visceral dislike of them).
The reason I think they fit the "seeking absolution" reason is because:
-
They seems to intuit that their behaviour is not appropriate on some level
-
Feminism as a religion gives them absolution by blaming their bad behaviour on an external force ("the patriarchy") rather than taking personal responsibility, where as most other religious or moral systems would demand more of them in taking personal responsibility. It also allows them to project their bad behaviour on other men to minimise their culpability ("it's not just me, ALL men are like this.")
-
Consent being the be-all-end-all for sexual ethics in feminism allows them to rationalise away the worst of their behaviour. They're not being inappropriate, creepy or overstepping boundaries, they're merely "seeking consent". I am reminded of that thread a while back here discussing a reddit thread about a literal virgin teenager asking a girl he studies with to be fuck buddies and being confused about her negative response.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
2mo ago
Scalia's dissent in Morrison v. Olson pretty much warns against this, but that's just a blatantly obvious example. The (over)expansion of bureaucracy generally is, by it's nature, mundane and hard to observe.
I notice you ignored the second part of what I said from quoting me. Leftist are sexual utopians at their core, they just believe they have to radically deconstruct and destroy all existing sexual relationships (because they're oppressive) before the sexual utopia will somehow appear. This is the core concept of critical theory, as applied to sex.
They fetishizes insofar as they want to get rid of the concept of innocence. It's not preservation fetish, they want to destroy it. That's not my assertion, it's quite literally what they say, as has been already cited by me and others. Your shota reference example in your linked comment is a terrible example, both by the fact it's not a central example of leftism (if it's related to leftism at all), and by the fact that corruption is a central theme. It's about the loss of innocence - so I don't see how it supports your point.
I actually don't think we're really disagreeing her. The reason the leftist hates innocence is because they think it's a concept created by the oppressor class (cis-hetero-capitalist patriarchy or whatever variation you want to use) to control everyone and prevent them from enjoying the fruits of 'sexual liberation' (in both the physical and metaphysical sense).
More options
Context Copy link