Meme Thread for Both Posting and Discussing Memes

[Agent23]

Conservative homos don't look like pedo soyboys?

 

[Whitestrake Pelinal]

Conservative homos don't look like pedo soyboys?

Okay, so... they're wearing suits? One of them is even wearing his suit over a t-shirt, and they both have the rat-face soy stubble.

And, ya know, they're hiring women to bear children they won't raise, denying them children and denying their children their mother, so the homos can drag out their pervert fantasy of being married to the N'th degree.

They could look like gigachad and it wouldn't matter.

 

[Agent23]

Okay, so... they're wearing suits? One of them is even wearing his suit over a t-shirt, and they both have the rat-face soy stubble.

And, ya know, they're hiring women to bear children they won't raise, denying them children and denying their children their mother, so the homos can drag out their pervert fantasy of being married to the N'th degree.

They could look like gigachad and it wouldn't matter.

How are they "denying" anyone anything?

I mean frankly traditional families probably work best because that is the default we have evolved around, but Dave probably wouldn't have had any kids if not for this, and those are two more tax payers and workers that can alleviate the crisis of sub-replacement birthrates we have in the west.

Also, they could just find a willing surrogate that doesn't want babies yet, find a first class Asian beauty queen/math wiz 20-something that doesn't want children at this point in life to provide ova, and get babies with above average genetics.
This type of financial arrangement could, in theory produce higher quality offspring than normal human breeding.

 

[Battlegrinder]

And, ya know, they're hiring women to bear children they won't raise, denying them children and denying their children their mother, so the homos can drag out their pervert fantasy of being married to the N'th degree.

So, are you phrasing your objection to those in the most offensive terms you can get away with in order to poison the well by framing the opposition to this in terms no decent person would use, or are you one-upping that and actively trying to rally support for Rubin by inspiring everyone else to support them just to piss you off?

 

[Bacle]

So, are you phrasing your objection to those in the most offensive terms you can get away with in order to poison the well by framing the opposition to this in terms no decent person would use, or are you one-upping that and actively trying to rally support for Rubin by inspiring everyone else to support them just to piss you off?

It's the first.

A lot of the 'RETVRN TO TRADITION' types are up in arms over this, saying it is a digusting situation and that it means Rubin has no conservative or Christian values.

Edit: For example:

 

[Whitestrake Pelinal]

So, are you phrasing your objection to those in the most offensive terms you can get away with in order to poison the well by framing the opposition to this in terms no decent person would use, or are you one-upping that and actively trying to rally support for Rubin by inspiring everyone else to support them just to piss you off?

Let's try the third option:

This is a disgusting perversion of human nature, two males pretending to be married and dragging innocent children into their immorality play as props, at the price of those children not being cared for by their mothers and their mothers enduring the challenges of pregnancy without a child. I describe it as disgusting because it is. Because of your own failings, you insist on trying to re-frame it as "using offensive terms" so you can play the victim, play the offended party.

The victims are the children being used as props by narcissists.

 

[PsihoKekec]

 

[Battlegrinder]

Let's try the third option:

This is a disgusting perversion of human nature, two males pretending to be married and dragging innocent children into their immorality play as props, at the price of those children not being cared for by their mothers and their mothers enduring the challenges of pregnancy without a child. I describe it as disgusting because it is. Because of your own failings, you insist on trying to re-frame it as "using offensive terms" so you can play the victim.

The victims are the children being used as props by narcissists.

It is not playing the victim to suggest that your arguements are so counter productive that they make more sense as an attempt to support Rubin by sabotaging the opposing viewpoint, since you're tying anti-Rubin sentiment to you and your absurd rhetoric.

It's just saying you suck at making any sort of anti-Rubin statement and would be better off if you just shut up.

 

[Whitestrake Pelinal]

It is not playing the victim to suggest that your arguements are so counter productive that they make more sense as an attempt to support Rubin by sabotaging the opposing viewpoint, since you're tying anti-Rubin sentiment to you and your absurd rhetoric.

It's just saying you suck at making any sort of anti-Rubin statement and would be better off if you just shut up.

Making excuses for perversion is counter-productive; the effective range of the excuses is precisely zero meters. No one who is Christian or conservative can have credibility outside of their own mind if they do not stand decisively against such obvious deviations from nature and tradition.

WTF are you even conserving, then? It's issues like this that expose why hard-line nationalists such as myself are gaining ground among the next generation, because while we may be pricks, we aren't assholes who are full of shit. When we say "X is wrong" it's not "um, uh, I meant, you know, until someone influential and popular does X", it's straight up "X is wrong".

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

Gonna be honest... I don't see how it's any morally worse than adoption...

Also, not sure if done because they really want the blood connection... or if it's just more evidence that America's Adoption process is borked.

 

[Bacle]

Making excuses for perversion is counter-productive; the effective range of the excuses is precisely zero meters. No one who is Christian or conservative can have credibility outside of their own mind if they do not stand decisively against such obvious deviations from nature and tradition.

WTF are you even conserving, then? It's issues like this that expose why hard-line nationalists such as myself are gaining ground among the next generation, because while we may be pricks, we aren't assholes who are full of shit. When we say "X is wrong" it's not "um, uh, I meant, you know, until someone influential and popular does X", it's straight up "X is wrong".

You are not a hard-line nationalist, you are a white supremacist parasite who is trying to hijack the populist Right to your retarded 'RETVRN' agenda, just like that jackass Feuntes.

 

[posh-goofiness]

Gonna be honest... I don't see how it's any morally worse than adoption...

Also, not sure if done because they really want the blood connection... or if it's just more evidence that America's Adoption process is borked.

I mean... it's a whole lotta things.

IVF is... controversial at best, a sin at worst.
Playing up the "marriage" of homosexual couples is definitely a problem.
Claiming to be a conservative but hypocritically living by the moral standards of liberals is... let's just go with wrong.
Using a child to make a political point is scummy as fuck.
Surrogacy is... I actually, don't quite know what the traditional Catholic stance is on that. I... think... it's probably verboten for the same reason as IVF.
Adoption is not even on the same spectrum morally as this.

American adoption system is pretty fucked though.

 

[Whitestrake Pelinal]

You are not a hard-line nationalist, you are a white supremacist parasite who is trying to hijack the populist Right to your retarded 'RETVRN' agenda, just like that jackass Feuntes.

I am indeed a hard-line nationalist, if you have trouble with that consult a dictionary.

I want white supremacy in one nation on this planet, until we can get off it, and that is nothing to mock or sneer at: is a reasonable thing to want. Japan for the Japanese, Italy for the Italians, etc. Everyone needs a home. America used to be that, until we permitted ourselves to be colonized and turned into a multi-culti racial jungle. Hopefully when the American Empire perishes we can get some of our home back. Probably we'll never get the borders we once had, but oh well. We can build a great nation with a fraction of what we had, and all we need to do is survive to get off this rock.

 

[Battlegrinder]

It's issues like this that expose why hard-line nationalists such as myself are gaining ground among the next generation

Yeah, if there's a phrase more stereotypical of gen Z than "two married gay men adopting children is a disgusting violation of Christian ethics and should not be tolerated by society" I can't think of it, you're totally gaining ground.

When we say "X is wrong" it's not "um, uh, I meant, you know, until someone influential and popular does X", it's straight up "X is wrong".

The problem isn't that you have a moral stance. It's that you express it the most disagreeable way possible. "I believe abortion is wrong, because it involves giving a voice to women, and women shouldn't get to make decisions" isn't going to get other pro-lifers on your side even if they agree with your premise, because your argument is so toxic.

That fact that in your case the premise is also toxic doesn't help, but I'm not sure where one problem starts and the other ends.

 

[Agent23]

So, are you phrasing your objection to those in the most offensive terms you can get away with in order to poison the well by framing the opposition to this in terms no decent person would use, or are you one-upping that and actively trying to rally support for Rubin by inspiring everyone else to support them just to piss you off?

Rubin is pretty cool, I'd imagine a lot of people on here enjoy his stuff.

 

[Whitestrake Pelinal]

How are they "denying" anyone anything?

I mean frankly traditional families probably work best because that is the default we have evolved around, but Dave probably wouldn't have had any kids if not for this, and those are two more tax payers and workers that can alleviate the crisis of sub-replacement birthrates we have in the west.

Also, they could just find a willing surrogate that doesn't want babies yet, find a first class Asian beauty queen/math wiz 20-something that doesn't want children at this point in life to provide ova, and get babies with above average genetics.
This type of financial arrangement could, in theory produce higher quality offspring than normal human breeding.

In theory, with a perfect understanding of our genetics, that last point could be true... but we don't have that. With dogs and horses and other lesser animals, their owners take risks to see what they can achieve through animal husbandry, and some of those attempts turn out quite poorly. Even the results the breeders approve of are sometimes lousy for the animals themselves. With humans we should be slower to do such things, and should not assume we know precisely what we are breeding in... or out.

>How are they "denying" anyone anything?
The mothers are (presumably) grown women and capable of choosing what they do with themselves, but it is an unkind thing to tempt women with money to bear children without having them to raise. Pregnancy is not only a physical act, it involves a substantial emotional toll, and "surrogate mothers" are denied the emotional payoff that is supposed to go with it. That's fucked up.

The real problem though is the lack of a healthy family for the children. Arranging a legal pretense of a family in which a child is raised by sodomites instead of a mother and a father -- while their own mother is still alive! -- is wretched. The outcomes for children without both parents are inferior for what should be obvious reasons. Children need the things their mothers and fathers have to offer. In particular, children need to see how their mother and father relate to learn how to act... unless of course the goal is to breed more sodomites, in which case denying them this learning will help achieve that goal.

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

I mean... it's a whole lotta things.

IVF is... controversial at best, a sin at worst.
Playing up the "marriage" of homosexual couples is definitely a problem.
Claiming to be a conservative but hypocritically living by the moral standards of liberals is... let's just go with wrong.
Using a child to make a political point is scummy as fuck.
Surrogacy is... I actually, don't quite know what the traditional Catholic stance is on that. I... think... it's probably verboten for the same reason as IVF.
Adoption is not even on the same spectrum morally as this.

American adoption system is pretty fucked though.

...Why is the Catholic Church the final moral Arbiter?

EDIT: I'd like to once more point out, Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't about the gay, or the public sex, it was about the rape, and the breaching of hospitality.

 

[Abhorsen]

I mean... it's a whole lotta things.

IVF is... controversial at best, a sin at worst.
Playing up the "marriage" of homosexual couples is definitely a problem.
Claiming to be a conservative but hypocritically living by the moral standards of liberals is... let's just go with wrong.
Using a child to make a political point is scummy as fuck.
Surrogacy is... I actually, don't quite know what the traditional Catholic stance is on that. I... think... it's probably verboten for the same reason as IVF.
Adoption is not even on the same spectrum morally as this.

American adoption system is pretty fucked though.

Yeah, this is accurate as per catholic doctrine, but 4 points:

I don't think he ever claimed to be conservative.

Rubin is ethnically jewish (not sure if he believes) and so is using a different calculation entirely. I have no idea what the Jewish POV on this is.

He's not using this to make a political statement, more just announcing additions to the family.

And surrogacy is at least one wrong no matter how you slice (at basically IVF levels) it in Catholicism, unless it's just a planned adoption from one married couple to another married couple, then IDK.

 

[posh-goofiness]

...Why is the Catholic Church the final moral Arbiter?

EDIT: I'd like to once more point out, Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't about the gay, or the public sex, it was about the rape, and the breaching of hospitality.

It isn't? I'm not sure where you got that from my explanation. It's just the traditionalist school I am most familiar with.

I... don't get the point of the edit. I didn't mention any of that.

 

[posh-goofiness]

Yeah, this is accurate as per catholic doctrine, but 4 points:

I don't think he ever claimed to be conservative.

Rubin is ethnically jewish (not sure if he believes) and so is using a different calculation entirely. I have no idea what the Jewish POV on this is.

He's not using this to make a political statement, more just announcing additions to the family.

And surrogacy is at least one wrong no matter how you slice (at basically IVF levels) it in Catholicism, unless it's just a planned adoption from one married couple to another married couple, then IDK.

I know literally nothing about the man though if he sells himself to the conservative base then I'd assume he believes he is conservative.

Everything on twitter is a political statement. Announcing additions to the family is something you do with friends and family. Everyone else is a stranger who you bait for the updoots.

I think if it's a married couple to married couple transfer that's just adoption. Surrogacy is specifically using IVF to implant embryos that don't share any genetic material with the surrogate.