PDA

View Full Version : Want. To. Hit. Something.


HateCutting
December 11th, 2009, 07:36
Here it is. The perfect motherfucking explanation of this sickness.

A Today Show video about cutting.

One part of it shows a Jewish comic-writer agonizing about the decision to cut his son. He brings up our points, of course... and in the end, of course, decides to fucking cut his son.

Because all the agonizing was some funny shit and he didn't have the motherfucking courage to not mutilate his child. What a goddamn asshole coward.

Then of course the clip cuts to the Today show women saying how hard circumcision was on their own sons and it's a "tough choice."

It is SO BIZARRE to me how the media ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS shows the person trying to decide whether or not to cut their sons - how they ALWAYS cut them in the end. ALWAYS. I have NEVER once seen a segment where they actually show someone deciding to leave their son intact.

I am not a conspiracist but this dynamic is so prevalent and so striking that it has to say something. Most likely that parents couldn't handle seeing someone else make the decision to leave their son whole. Because it would put their own guilt front and center.

AS I always say, the sickness and pathological thinking around circumcision is absolutely limitless. It is quite literally a form of insanity.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/33822377#33822827

Joseph
December 11th, 2009, 08:38
Oh I totally think it's a conspiracy.

Why don't they talk about FGM as if it were a "choice?"

Only with male circ are the ethics of even mutilating a male child to begin with never addressed.

Joseph
December 11th, 2009, 08:42
It is SO BIZARRE to me how the media ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS shows the person trying to decide whether or not to cut their sons - how they ALWAYS cut them in the end. ALWAYS.

As if it were some sort of virtue to agonize first before agreeing to have someone mutilate your son.

Unregistered
December 11th, 2009, 08:54
As if it were some sort of virtue to agonize before agreeing to have someone mutilate your son first.

It is bizarre. I could find example after example of this in mainstream publications. I am not exaggerating when I say that in every case I can recall of such a piece, the parent decides to cut their son.

Here's an interesting parallel. In the novel 1984, the repressive party allows the "Brotherhood" underground leader to speak his criticisms of the party... only it comes as a video during the "two minutes hate" program.

In short, the party allows true criticism only to ridicule it, mock it and ultimately destroy the possibility of real change. A fascinating political dynamic that George Orwell describes.

So it is the same with circumcision. The mainstream publications allow for a relatively honest discussion of circumcision ONLY in someone who ultimately decides to mutilate their child. Or some token "intactivist" whom they implicitly mock for their crazy views.

God, why was I cut because of such utter nonsense?

Joseph
December 11th, 2009, 11:39
Case in point:

Seinfeld's Kramer

Orig Poster
December 11th, 2009, 12:02
Case in point:

Seinfeld's Kramer

PERFECT, textbook example of this dynamic. Absolutely perfect.

Also, the New York magazine section on circumcision - covered ALL these bases.

Woman who pretends to debate the circ then has her son butchered anyway? CHECK!
Guy who got circumcised as an adult and is much happier now? CHECK!
Anti-circumcision activists made to look silly? CHECK! (In the section on anti-circ folks, they use some semi-famous humorists as examples. All jokey jokey, and they use these little images of their shrunken heads to inherently mock them.

http://nymag.com/health/features/60158/

admin
December 11th, 2009, 13:37
Oh I totally think it's a conspiracy.

I don't think conspiracy applies. Conspiracy is people joining together, communicating to plan and execute a crime. Even if circumcision were illegal (with religious/health/cultural exemptions), the MSNBC piece does not depict a conspiracy.

It's just various schmos who've been vexxed by the same mis-information and groupthink to not value the foreskin's contribution to sex or the boy's right to bodily integrity.

-Ron

admin
December 11th, 2009, 13:41
I could find example after example of this in mainstream publications. I am not exaggerating when I say that in every case I can recall of such a piece, the parent decides to cut their son.

Indeed, these have been collected at http://Circumstitions.com, and if you know of one that isn't listed, the webmaster wants to know.

-Ron

Billybobbed
December 11th, 2009, 15:10
Case in point:

Seinfeld's Kramer

I refuse to watch that asshole. Why people laugh at such nonsense shit on his show puzzles me.:confused: I see nothing funny about any of his shows or appearances.

Joseph
December 11th, 2009, 18:41
I don't think conspiracy applies. Conspiracy is people joining together, communicating to plan and execute a crime. Even if circumcision were illegal (with religious/health/cultural exemptions), the MSNBC piece does not depict a conspiracy.

It's just various schmos who've been vexxed by the same mis-information and groupthink to not value the foreskin's contribution to sex or the boy's right to bodily integrity.

-Ron

Heh heh... no, I don't mean to say the show itself is a conspiracy, just the entire American circumcising machine.

Circ doctors have agreed to circumcise as many boys as possible, 1.4 million a year. Since most men are already circumcised here anyway, no one sees a problem with it when doctors are quick to purport all the "benefits," merits and virtues of being a circumcised male.

Doctors and advocates of circumcision don't have to pay too much to get the word out, because most people are already receptive to the idea. Most reporters and public personages are circumcised, so they have a reason to publish pro-circ work. (IE, to feel good about themselves, or the fact that they went ahead and cut their children.)

As 80% of the population is circumcised, it only follows that most money is held by circumcised men, esp. circumcised men with an axe to grind. Since unmutilated men are the minority, there is little money there. Ergo, most money is geared to pro-circumcision.

Unfortunately, it seems, nowadays we have to buy our rights. It's no longer about whether or not we can make people see the truth anymore, it's how much people have spent. (Isn't this how lobbying works?) The rights, it seems, belong to the people rich enough to make them rights. See how Intact America, NoCirc, ARCLaw etc., all have one thing in common; they need money. Lawyers don't work for free. Pamphlets aren't free to print.

Why are there more pro-circ shows, gags, commercials, studies, etc.? Because enough cut men and cut advocates pay for them to get on the TV and radio waves. It's always a struggle to get one measly add on American Baby Mag. isn't it.

Doctors get rich off of circumcision, they have more than enough money to spare and throw at their baby (so to speak), and the cycle starts all over again. Doctors will not so easily give up their "right" to make a living off of circumcision.

To me, that is the whole reason why this country is plagued with pro-circ crap.

Yeah, I never really talk about this, because I know some people get off set by "conspiracy theory," I just focus on what I can do, but I'm totally a believer.

I used to think that science was superior to Christianity, that you could prove anything with science. Well, look at the "science" being used to promote circumcision. All you have to do nowadays is get enough people with white coats to put their name on something, slap-on some neat looking logo, and now you can say "studies show... experts agree... the science is solid that..." and people buy it. Just like the bible, no one reads this shit, they're just happy to read silly headlines like "Study finds 60% HIV reduction" without looking into the details.

Seriously, sometimes I feel like I'm screaming at a passing train.

But... I do what I can I guess...

Sorry, complete tangent.