Well, yeah, but that’s the point. It’s “I’m not into that”, as opposed to “I wouldn’t date X type of people”. The point is you can not be into things without it being a political statement. Even if your political line of choice tends to favor a particular aesthetic.
You know, I was pretty assured on my line of reasoning here until I read “I wouldn’t date black or Asian folks” and… eeeeh, maybe there’s room for nuance here.
In my defense, I’ll say it’s the way of putting it that feels icky more than the sentiment. But still. Kinda ew. Don’t know if this was a Socratic, reverse psychology thing, but if so, well played.
That punchline took a longer walk than the frog.
Why would you be? You can be absolutely aware of the social patterns imposed on you, including those that are discriminatory or unfair, and still be subject to their effects.
Humans build a lot of their psyche by socializing. From aesthetic preference to sexual arousal or choices of flavor and texture for food. You’re not a hypocrite for not liking spicy food growing up in a culture with milder tastes and you’re not a hypocrite for finding traditional gendered aesthetics attractive after growing up in a culture that reinforced them at you at every turn.
You’re a hypocrite if you find those distasteful or exploitative and still perpetuate them forward to your kids, but even if you don’t, you’re not the only influence they have.
See, that’s why this is a bit of a bummer. This fiction on leftist circles that you can change a deeply ingrained societal pattern overnight or you’re a failure or a hypocrite is not just unrealistic, it’s kind of ignorant and mean spirited. You should be concerned with not making things worse and moving them in the right direction, but you shouldn’t always take the maximalist approach and assume you’re responsible for enforcing overnight radical change.
That’s how right wingers keep setting up their dumb absurdity checks. They just dare progressives to go maximal on every stupid detail and then point at it and call it a lack of common sense. You can recognize a consequence of inequality without enforcing a complete solution instantly. Change takes time, even on an individual level.
Man, that’s even more confused. So you can be heteronormatively horny, but only as long as you acknowledge the possibility of boning outside your comfort zone? If gender nonconforming sex happens in the hypothetical woods does anybody hear it?
Honestly, that’d be kinda funny if it wasn’t such a depressing proxy for leftist purity tests and frequent inability to accept any intermediate states between utopian idealized outcomes and right wing dystopia.
Okay, but are you banned from progressivism if you’re not into them sexually?
That’s a hell of an onus. Like, you literally need to work yourself up to being horny for “anyone bending gender boundaries” or you’re out?
It will still expand and shed enough stuff to effectively blanch whatever part of the solar system it doesn’t actually engulf, though.
It doesn’t even have to go supernova to kill everything, which is kind of the point.
I’m not an astrophysicist, but that ends up being the weird perception thing about them, right? Mostly they’re like a star of the same mass, and then a few will get really big and be at the center of a galaxy, but the perception is that of a natural disaster.
Big ball of plasma in the center of the solar system that will definitely eventually explode and wipe out anything left alive on any surrounding planet? NBD. An object of the same mass but it’s smaller so it doesn’t shine? People picture it as being more immediately violent for some reason because the “light can’t escape” thing sounds so wild.
Not just that, but prerendered backgrounds, too.
All games could look like this if they got 48 hours to render each frame and their entire realtime render budget went to three character models, total and nothing else.
I mean, I dispute that games don’t look better than that in the first place, too. Grainy embedded screenshot aside, the RE1 remake definitely doesn’t look any better, even with all that, than the newer remakes.
Hah. I guess I lost you because I never quite made the jump into buying the notion of considering the way they look or act as an identitarian problem. This is a trend across the political divide, from fashy complaints about people with “blue hair” to progressives challenging gender stereotypes. Seems to me like a problem of aesthetics, all of it, but people have associated those aesthetics to political positions, when not with their mutual perception of their fundamental identities.
Which of those forms of expression floats your boat… you know, biologically, is entirely up to you and your natural reactions. Dress, hair, lack of hair, sexual practices, participation of specific varieties of genitalia… I don’t care, it’s all some interaction of how you decorate yourself and which decorations get you going.
But I’m in the minority there. It’s clearly important to society and it can have a deep impact on individuals and their wellbeing. And like anything relevant to society it’s been politicized. Because we’re all just horny apes in the end.