From Snoop Dogg to Lap Dogg
-
Conservatives THINK there's something wrong with that shit though. He's acting like someone who thinks there's something wrong with that shit, while still trying to cash in on that image
wrote last edited by [email protected]And im saying we shouldnt validate that. Fuck them, they're wrong about basically everuthing, including being conservative.
Like the greek classics statuewank guys who dont want to see the original pain jobs or all the gay sex people had in front of them.
Like, if they can't compromise, cant consider us human, why pretend, why try to compromise with them? Just tell them its whatever compromise the left comes up with by ourselves, or the highway. I bet it would even work better politically.
-
This post did not contain any content.
If they are old enough to ask, they are old enough to hear "I dunno, ask your Mom".
-
If this is real, he's lost all street cred.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Snoop Dogg sold out and lost his street cred in like 2005
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
the first sign was him chilling with trump and right wingers. he smoked so much weed it damaged his brain.
-
Every so-called edgy comic or musician from the 70s-00s have all either sold out or faded away.
they needed relevance, wha better way than shilling for right wingers who LOVE and die for drama.
-
Why? He wasn't paid to say this stupid shit.
wrote last edited by [email protected]he was paid to play at trumps inaugaration.
-
Upvoting for awareness of what a snowflake Snoop is and in the hopes we can get past the “awww he and Martha Stewart are best buds” era.
i felt like his relationship with martha seemed too unnatural, its basically a white woman "im friends with a black guy, so im not racist" to the right winger base.
-
Yeah, he wasn't who I was looking to for political takes, lol. Now if I need someone to show me how to smoke 10 blunts, that's different.
a reason not to smoke excessively you mean.
-
Weed doesn't make you a bigoted piece of shit
more and more evidence coming out that weed actually damages the brain, overtime, besides other health effects if smoked excessively.
-
Me personally? I wouldn't care either way. I've seen a woman on the street fingering the ass of a muslim dude before, and just sorta walked by. But I don't have kids. I imagine if I had kids, I'd be opposed to public ass-blasting.
A parent that I work with has had awkward conversations with his kids, after they came to Canada and saw guys kissing / making out in public. I can appreciate that such PDAs can prompt similar 'awkward' conversations, but also that they're much less 'common' than encountering them as part of a big budget movie -- and encountering them in public is often an easier way for parents to broach the subject. Kids noticing that stuff is unavoidable as they mature, but having it forced to the front by media / schools is questionable, and I can appreciate the parents' concerns on that front.
I don't think replying to you is helpful but I stuck my foot in this so I might as well try.
If you were actually being fair and equal to everyone then your stance would be, "NO child should be exposed to ANY type of relationship dynamic". Or only those that you feel are "positive" examples (highlighting your stance that any lgbtq+ partnership is inherently negative and damaging to a child's development).
I think the problem of how you perceive people responding to you is the misclassification or simple lack of knowledge in history of what you call "non-standard partners". Nature is not familiar with "standard partners", Sappho is an interesting read from 600 BC (and a great meme community), Ancient Greece felt differently than you do today about "traditional relationships",
::: spoiler Ancient Greece excerpt
In the cultures of the ancient world, there was no need for designations such as LGBTQ+ because there was no difference noted between what is now defined as "homosexual" and "heterosexual" relationships. There was no "us" and "them" dichotomy to encourage such labels; there was only "us" and whoever one chose to love was one’s own business. (link)
:::
For a more modern take, Karl Heinrich Ulrichs from 1860's which they consider the first modern gay right's movement advocate. Astonishingly about the same time the US abolished slavery.
Currently the population consists of about 23% of newer generations proudly stating they are lgbtq+, I suspect largely in part because of the de-stigmatizing of such relationships that religious fervor and right-wing ideology demonized because of the "traditional values" (which is horse shit because traditional is subjective).
tl;dr: Kids are curious and actually have feelings they are developing, some of which is attraction to a class-mate in elementary school (wtf is valentines day then?). If they don't see any representation and people respond like you do to "non-standard" relationships, they develop the same core concepts as you've come to embolden making them feel ashamed and causing more confusion then just a simple conversation they should have with an adult.
The fact that they can be exposed in public but should not be in media is just a weird stance to take (especially when parents can dictate what a child consumes or at least should be proactive in that space). We're also completely negating the fact that less people are exposed to the overall public and moreso only interact in small circles online especially with adolescents.
-
This post did not contain any content.
movie literally talks of time distortions
kids would be confused about a kiss
Sure
-
This post did not contain any content.
Papa snoop took his grandchild to the cinema to nake him shut the fuck up, and instead, it asks questions!
-
I don't think replying to you is helpful but I stuck my foot in this so I might as well try.
If you were actually being fair and equal to everyone then your stance would be, "NO child should be exposed to ANY type of relationship dynamic". Or only those that you feel are "positive" examples (highlighting your stance that any lgbtq+ partnership is inherently negative and damaging to a child's development).
I think the problem of how you perceive people responding to you is the misclassification or simple lack of knowledge in history of what you call "non-standard partners". Nature is not familiar with "standard partners", Sappho is an interesting read from 600 BC (and a great meme community), Ancient Greece felt differently than you do today about "traditional relationships",
::: spoiler Ancient Greece excerpt
In the cultures of the ancient world, there was no need for designations such as LGBTQ+ because there was no difference noted between what is now defined as "homosexual" and "heterosexual" relationships. There was no "us" and "them" dichotomy to encourage such labels; there was only "us" and whoever one chose to love was one’s own business. (link)
:::
For a more modern take, Karl Heinrich Ulrichs from 1860's which they consider the first modern gay right's movement advocate. Astonishingly about the same time the US abolished slavery.
Currently the population consists of about 23% of newer generations proudly stating they are lgbtq+, I suspect largely in part because of the de-stigmatizing of such relationships that religious fervor and right-wing ideology demonized because of the "traditional values" (which is horse shit because traditional is subjective).
tl;dr: Kids are curious and actually have feelings they are developing, some of which is attraction to a class-mate in elementary school (wtf is valentines day then?). If they don't see any representation and people respond like you do to "non-standard" relationships, they develop the same core concepts as you've come to embolden making them feel ashamed and causing more confusion then just a simple conversation they should have with an adult.
The fact that they can be exposed in public but should not be in media is just a weird stance to take (especially when parents can dictate what a child consumes or at least should be proactive in that space). We're also completely negating the fact that less people are exposed to the overall public and moreso only interact in small circles online especially with adolescents.
I know about ancient greece, and as I've said I don't care personally what people do / who they love. Don't assume just because I consider homosexual behaviour to be abnormal, that I'm somehow opposed to it / think it inherently "wrong" or anything. I also don't have a personal issue with it in movies, particularly more adult themed movies -- though I do think it's massively over-represented at this point, as almost every movie/show I see has heavy lgbtq+ themes wedged in haphazardly, often to the detriment of the plot.
Younger generations claiming to be lgbtq+, or being on the gender spectrum, doesn't really impact my view, I admit. First, it's still a minority, which makes it abnormal. Grouping all abnormal types together also inflates the perspective of how common it is for any one subset. Young people are also more inclined to be affected by perceptions of benefits / "going along with what's approved in media". Even the stats on that site generally support this, noting that the breakdown between men/women is hugely lopsided amongst Gen Z, and with the bulk of the change seemingly being women identifying as bisexual. That fits quite a bit with how its presented in media -- so I'd still question whether it's kids being 'genuine' in their experiences/feelings, or if it's media pushing certain messages and kids reacting to those messages. Media can clearly influence peoples world views / perspectives, at times in ways that aren't authentic -- we're all keen to recognise as such when we talk about the negative impact of fox news -- so it'd seem strange to pretend like it can't have a similar reality-distorting effect in this area, given the level of over-representation of lgbtq+ themes. Particularly bi-sexual women, as media likes to treat women as sex objects desired by "everyone", and wedge in some lesbian sex scenes to boot. Almost every series/movie has lgbtq+ stuff in it these days, which is one reason Snoop is uncomfortable taking kids to movies -- it's gotten pretty rare to see a same-race healthy relationship straight couple in media.
To approach it from a slightly different angle: it's like trying to find non-emo edgelord male characters in anime (which, in its space, feeds the indoctrination of alpha male sorts) -- or the negative male stereo-types pushed by people like Tate. If we accept/recognise that certain media representations can "make" young people more extreme in that sort of space, then I don't think it's at all unreasonable to say that media can "make" young people more gender fluid on the flip side. Part of being young, is lacking critical objectivity.
Also, in terms of the polling and benefits, hell, I personally identify as "other" on all government polls, because "other" gets preferential treatment/hiring options, while "male" gets rejection letters. That isn't an authentic response, but it's a necessary response to get past certain hiring criteria -- I've literally had rejection letters stating "you're not part of an equity group" in the past, when I answered male (in Canada, literally the reason the federal government rejected my application). Workplaces have no business blocking people from employment due to their preference, even when it comes to us CIS folks.
As for seeing things in public -- a kid could see a horrific car accident by chance, corpses everywhere. That doesn't mean it's appropriate to show a 6 year old graphic death scenes. Or to use a less extreme example, and a fairly common one, they could walk in on their parents fucking -- it still wouldn't be appropriate for a movie for kids to have a bunch of sex scenes. Content involving adult stuff should have an adult rating, even if "some" kids may encounter those things earlier in life by happenstance.
-
That's fucking racist, dude.
You can dig on him for his words and his choices, and the things that he has control over, all you want, I'll be completely and totally behind you, having your right to an opinion.
You can't say shit like that. That's not fucking cool.
Hey, honest question.
This comes from this video where Snoop made up that word to insult people who performed at Donald Trump's inauguration.
Is it a racially charged word? I thought it was just a made word up by him. If it is, that's my mistake and I apologize. I didn't mean any harm to any community.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Oh no, I had to talk to my kids. The horror.
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
It's an abnormal relationship type with a dom and a sub. Just like homosexual relationships are abnormal relationships with non standard partners involved. One is just more abnormal than the other. Both raise questions about sex, as was the point with Snoops clip -- his kid explicitly asked about sex stuff, because he encountered the abnormal couple on screen. Snoop wasn't comfortable discussing that with his grandkid in a movie theatre, and felt put out. That's a valid response, no matter how many lgbtq+ people scream in nonsensical rage.
You may not like the point, but it doesn't make it invalid. Just like you may not like hetero people's reaction to homosexual content in kids media, but that doesn't make their reactions "wrong".
It's incredibly invalid.
If a 5 year old asks me about war I don't need to describe in detail violently murdering people or give an hour lecture about military strategy or make idiotic analogies to more complicated topics. I can choose an age appropriate response that explains it good enough for their age. It's really that simple.
-
MF was convincted for murder, but a 5 year old asking questions is too much?
Who was convicted for murder?
-
This post did not contain any content.
I've known quite a few older people who were lifetime pot smokers. They all ended up just a little fucked in the head. So much so I quit. Its a myth that pot makes you creative. I figured out how to be chill without it and the ideas I have now really work. While some people I know in my age group who still lean into it are not able to figure out or see the simplest of solutions. Its noticeable and I wish there was some way to study the long term cognitive decline of lifetime smokers. Dude can't explain how love is love. That its a personal choice everyone gets to make. Sounds like he doesn't want those kids to be free but be some version he has to approve of.
-
Hey, honest question.
This comes from this video where Snoop made up that word to insult people who performed at Donald Trump's inauguration.
Is it a racially charged word? I thought it was just a made word up by him. If it is, that's my mistake and I apologize. I didn't mean any harm to any community.
wrote last edited by [email protected]https://www.etymonline.com/word/******
I know that word because I've heard it said many a time. I grew up in the racist south and apparently the word is well over a hundred years old, so when Snoop used it against other people, he was trying to say like a worse word than the n word to describe those people.
