this post was submitted on 08 May 2024
566 points (94.9% liked)
Greentext
4379 readers
1886 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You’re into what you’re into but fetishizing people is still bad.
I don't get it. What's the line between being into something which is obviously fine and good and "fetishizing" them? This guy is into Latin moms, I don't see what's so wrong about that
Good question. First, from plagiarism machine:
Now, from a researcher who addresses the second point above:
What do y’all think?
I think the "reducing to roles" thing is a bit silly. Some are into firemen but I feel like it'd be silly to run around calling that morally objectionable. I don't think anyone is under the impression a fireman, a teacher or a mom is literally just that role and nothing else.
I wonder if the race thing would be fine if it was towards the majority group of a country, since most of the objection from the paper seems to be about how it disadvantages people and enforces that disadvantage. That'd lead in funny situations though where being into white guys or gals would be fine in the US but not into black guys or gals. And in Japan it'd be fine to be into Asian guys or gals but not everyone else.
Eh, philosophical researcher.
:) wonder how she’d feel about that specification!
Depends on what she thinks of nihilism lol