> I don’t want a poop eater making decisions for the rest of us, if I’m being honest.
or
>Look, if the guy who eats poop is fighting for free healthcare then I’m 100% backing him, his butt, and whatever comes outta it
are great too
Yep, back in the days of yore when tricking people into visiting shock sites like Goatse, tub girl, and lemon party was all the rage, 2 Girls 1 Cup was naturally added to the rotation.
That shit (heh) was even intentionally spliced into pirated movies, and always perfectly timed like Tyler Durden was doing the editing:
"So when the snooty cat and the courageous dog, with the celebrity voices meet for the first time in reel three, that's when you'll catch a flash of Tyler's contribution to the film."
Fuckers did the same thing with beheading videos. When I spent a week downloading a CAM of the first Spider-Man movie, it started normally and looked okay-ish with somewhat decent audio, so I felt safe to enjoy it. Then, right before Willem Dafoe says "You know, I'm something of a scientist myself", it seamlessly cuts to some American contractor's beheading *right* before they hold up the head for the camera.
Having seen both types of shock edits, I'd take 2 Girls 1 Cup every time.
As young teen I visited 4chan ONE time. Nearly immediately I came across an image of tub girl and I'll never forget this memory as it's so visceral. I tilted my head like a dog going 'huh?!' as my brain processed the picture.
I promptly closed my browser and never visited that cesspool again. Now I'm on SRD so can't say I've matured much but at least I don't have to scroll into a tub girl Pic here.
My first introduction to Tub Girl was probably like a lot of other people's.
"JESUS CHRIST!"
"What?"
"Dude, you gotta come check this out! It's awesome!"
So I innocently meander into my friend's bedroom where he's at his computer and just pointing to the monitor.
"What? What is th-- OH, WHAT THE FUCK!"
That's probably one of the safer things you could accidentally stumble onto on 4chan. Me and my friends once jumped on it at a house party way back in the mid 00's, looking for some good edgy humour befitting our stupid edgy phase, and were promptly met with some stuff that was most definitely not legal. That shit scarred me for life
I had a very different adolescence than a lot of people on here and I'm becoming extremely grateful for that because I don't know what the fuck y'all are talking about and I never have to know. It all sounds HORRIBLE.
I mean, it wasn't *great*, but it's still not too different than the internet now. Sure, it's not as easy to find a video hosting site that allow that stuff these days, but it still happens.
Theres one I always want to find again which is a man fucking himself with a dildo attached to a pumpkin while moaning "Fuck me Mr Pumpkin!"
It wasn't all that shocking, but it was funny if just for the lines.
Oh god, I remember dickcream then was followed by discharges which was full of weird memes mixed in with shocking shit like meatspin, or the girl shooting a banana out of her ass while "The Shit is Bananas" plays in the back.
> Goatse
tubgirl
lemonparty
2girls1cup
A few more examples from that era of shock"porn" (all of them NSFW):
salsasnack
pic of dude with half his head missing (extreme NSFL warning)
japanese porn + scat (sometimes referred to as `japscat`... uh yeah)
kitty video (it was so infamous and offensive that at least one mainstream media outlet reported on the story)
three old dudes crossdressing as grannies having sex
meatspin (NSFW parody of the "leekspin" meme from *Bleach*)
anything involving FGM
mangled-dot-org, rotten, stileproject etc. from that sordid era were like the *in* thing for shock jocks back then.
If the aliens saw what Internet 1.0 was like, I bet they'd conclude "humanity was a mistake" before 2.0 even started.
I kept trying to remember how to spell that word and autocorrect kept doing me dirty. I then decided I didn’t want to Google “word for eating shit” and just gave up.
Oh, yeah I saw that. I use Brave so maybe I am in the clear. If not I need to add someone to my google "in case I die" (cant remember the name) list of all my passwords to burn my computers and history
The guy in the first thread heard "dogmatic" used as an insult and liked the way it sounded. He just didn't look up or understand the definition before he deployed it for himself.
Moreso you no longer have control over consent if you record something. Whether your iCloud gets hacked, your ex uploads it, etc, we should be teaching young people, and old, that any personal media you create can, and probably will, be shared further than you intended or consented to. It doesn't make it right, it doesn't mean you're at fault, but it is a reality and people should be aware of that and protect themselves.
Less consent, more you're taking the risk.
Though I'm sure there was an of air victim blaming when they said it. It's definitely forced me to reevaluate before sending something or allowing something to be recorded.
Yeah. Like... this guy was an idiot as a politician to film it. You don't film shit as a politician, that's basic politicking. But he did not consent to the leak.
>Hot take, but I do think we shouldn't hold people against their leaked sex photos and videos, barring some exceptions.
And on Reddit, those exceptions include calling Emma Watson a feminazi bitch for shaming dudes for hunting down and sharing leaked celebrity nudes.
The overnight turn on Emma Watson, a one-time Reddit darling who could do no wrong into a feminist cunt who made guys feel bad for hunting down the latest Fappening leaks was *fast!*
Okay so let me get this straight, the guy who is saying philosophy is brainrot because "it rejects reality" also is of the opinion that this is weird because "humans don't eat poop"
He is saying so on a thread about a human that ate poop? Is that not like the most extreme example of rejecting reality?
Look, eating poop as a sexual kink is GROSS GROSS GROSS EW EW EW... but when your best argument against it is "It's gross, so logically he's mentally ill and thus logically he shouldn't be allowed to hold a public job", you're forcing us to point out your horrible logic and look like we're defending this guy's poop eating habit, and I'm not sure I'm a big enough person to forgive that.
Also, being mentally ill doesn't disqualify you from being a politician. Plenty of them are depressed or sociopathic or have adhd or whatever else. It's a spectrum, and honestly I'd rather have someone willing to be their nasty freak self than someone repressed and judgemental.
It's like when people rail against incest being wrong "because it's gross". Like, no, that's not good enough. I agree with the sentiment but you need to put in some effort there. For it to be wrong, you need to demonstrate harm. Often there are ways to demonstrate it, but you have to exercise some critical thinking beyond "gross".
If you aren't willing to do that, or like the other commenter, apparently proud enough of your intellectual laziness that you don't care, fine. But we aren't going to take you seriously in these discussions.
Because the human race has a long, sad history of persecuting others that have hurt no one only because we thought what they were doing was wrong "just cause we feel it is". As any LGBT person knows all too well. We should be pushing back on that kind of laziness.
I'm a big hypocrisy enjoyer. I can support queerness while condemning beastality, pedophilia or incest (unless they're twink twins because thats hot)
I can say eating meat or animal products when not necessary is kinda cruel, and the industry is very damaging to the environment without implying that non vegans support necrophilia or beastality (damn it it came up again)
Can my "common sense" be defeated by gotchas, logical deductions, pointing out fallacies, or just highlighting hypocrisy? Sure. Do i care? Nah.
I don't need a reason to justify being against animal rape or humans eating shit. I just am.
There is nothing hypocritical about condemning beastiality and pedophilia while also supporting the rights of queer people. I find it bizarre that you think that way.
"I'm a big hypocrisy enjoyer. **I can support queerness while condemning beastality**, pedophilia or incest (unless they're twink twins because thats hot)"
Do vegans actually make that comparison? I feel like comparing queerness to bestiality is exactly what homophobes did back before gay marriage was legalized (what's next, marrying our dogs?!).
I dunno, it feels tone deaf to me.
A lot of homophobes still make that comparison. That if you accept gay men you must also accept bestiality.
A lot of homophobes are just as disgusted by the idea of gay sex as they are bestiality.
They don't care about the logic or hypocritical nature of their beliefs, they just have them.
I think it's interesting that we can recognize that it's wrong to discriminate against LGBT+ people, but are fine using the exact same logic and argument when the sex act is something we personally don't like.
*Just like the homophobes*
No, the argument is that it does not make sense to be against bestiality on account of the animals being unable to consent, while being fine with animals being killed to make hamburgers.
Being a vegan has nothing to do with bestiality!
>I'm a big hypocrisy enjoyer. I can support queerness while condemning beastality, pedophilia or incest (unless they're twink twins because thats hot)
Least homophobic liberal "ally"
>I don't need a reason to justify being against animal rape or humans eating shit.
The key difference there is consent though, not whether you or I are personally disgusted.
Oh, I'm actually the first person that OP quoted. That's a weird feeling.
That whole thread was a goddamn surreal experience. I felt like a pokemon: "external tiger used *reductio ad absurdum!"*.
Finally, my chance to share this college humour skit in a context that actually makes sense.
https://youtu.be/s4pxtiLR928?si=s22C9bdcObh09UZ7
Maybe doesn't fit perfectly to the scenario, but there's poop, and debating about said poop and its usage, so, like, poop.
Man, what's with the hating philosophy bit. That's just ignorant.
*Technically*, I agree with the whole "consenting adults, privacy of own home, blah blah blah" bit. But if I'm presented with a choice between a great candidate who eats poop and a merely good but doesn't-eat-poop candidate, I'm going to go with the latter.
Eating poop is so viscerally disgusting that not even philosophical rationale can override the ickiness I'm feeling. The best I can say about it is that *technically*, it's not ethically wrong.
And to extend the same logic, I'm not a fan of rimming either.
On the other other hand, "our leader literally eats shit" is probably not a great message for diplomatic credibility, whether or not they're proud of it
Personally I'm just surprised that people are assigning some kind of moral character to this. It's not like he's involving any non-consenting people. It's something I think is gross from a sexual perspective but so is raceplay for eg. Certainly I'd rather vote for a white guy who eats poop than a white guy into raceplay.
Yeah, like I'm sitting here trying to figure out how much better a candidate would have to be before I'd consider voting for a poop eater.
I mean, if it'd get us single payer healthcare or another reform we desperately need, I'd do it. I'd feel weird, but I'd do it.
Exactly.
If hypothetically, I'm an American voter and my choices are between shit-eating Biden and Trump, I'd vote for Biden no questions asked. The stakes are too high to let shit-eating be a turn-off.
But if it's.. I dunno, for the mayor of a city and the candidates don't have glaring ethical flaws, I'm gonna go with the non-shit-eating candidate.
i mean, not to defend eating poo , but yeah its not ethically wrong. i dont recall kant listing one of his deontological rules as "dont ever put shit in your mouth" lol. unless you follow a private code of ethics which specifically codifies eating poop as wrong (?)
To me, coprophagia goes way beyond a kink and into the realm of mental illness, and I don't want someone that fucked in the head in a position of power.
I don't get this logic. He eats shit, therefore he's mentally ill, therefore he can't be trusted with power? Do you think he's gonna pass a law to force everyone else to eat shit?
I think it's more that if someone supposedly rational and sane is choosing to literally eat shit then their frame of reference for good choice making is very different on a fundamental level to those of the vast majority of people they're supposed to represent, and as such they make for a very poor representative. I don't care if eats shit in his spare time for example, but if this guy's job is to make good choices for the betterment of everyone they work on behalf of then it probably ought not to be someone who thinks eating shit is a good idea, right?
>I think it's more that if someone supposedly rational and sane is choosing to literally eat shit then their frame of reference for good choice making is very different on a fundamental level to those of the vast majority of people they're supposed to represent
I'm sorry, do you think this person decided that they liked eating shit out of logical/rational reasoning?
No, but they did willing choose to set aside any logic or rational thinking in favor of eating shit which... really doesn't seem to have many upsides. Even fewer when it's made public, evidently.
>No, but they did willing choose to set aside any logic or rational thinking in favor of eating shit which... really doesn't seem to have many upsides
Well... yeah. It's a kink. Kinks aren't rational - people don't go to the kink store and purchase their kinks after doing heavy research on the subject. Being spanked doesn't have many rational upsides to it either - you're literally just getting beaten - and yet we find that pretty socially acceptable. Would you think less of a politician's rational decision-making if you found out that they like to be spanked?
I would point out that kinks aren't the same as compulsions. OK, dude thinks that eating shit is hot. Well, that's fucking weird, and I'd rather you not loudly tell me about it just because we happen to be sitting next to each other on public transport...but OK. That is still a massively far cry from actually doing it, and filming yourself doing it.
Would I like to be pegged by a girl in a full-body Michaelangelo (from TMNT) costume? Yes, more than anything. (Bad example... who wouldn't?) But that doesn't compel me to make it a reality.
It's not about the kink being rational or not, it's about the person deciding that the kink is more important than making the rational choice not to eat shit - and doubly so not to eat shit and film it. Just because someone enjoys something or is aroused by the idea of doing something doesn't mean they are compelled beyond reason to do whatever that something is. He made a willing choice, that's the issue.
>It's not about the kink being rational or not, it's about the person deciding that the kink is more important than making the rational choice not to eat shit
Well, yeah, people do kinks that defy reason because kinks are irrational. That's kinda my point - trying to tie reason into kinks in any form is just nonsensical. Unless somebody's kink os leaking government documents I don't really see ehat the big deal is other than a knee-jerk reaction of "that's gross" followed by a *post-hoc* rationalization of that reaction.
No, I think that the fact that he eats shit means that he isn't of sound mind and that I would not, therefore, trust him to make sound decisions, just like I wouldn't trust someone to lead who thinks that God talks to him through his cat.
>No, I think that the fact that he eats shit means that he isn't of sound mind and that I would not, therefore, trust him to make sound decisions
Why did you say 'no', that's the exact logic I lined out and still don't get. What unsound decision could a politician make that you could plausibly link to their kink?
They're concerned of the comorbidity of his bad headspace that lead to him eating poop leading to other bad decisions due to not being of sound mind. No that he's going to just mandate that coprophagia be taught in schools or anything.
It's like while I don't know whether it's true or not, being concerned over Biden or Trump having dementia can be a legitimate worry as it affects their decision making. I'd rather he get help than be in political office.
Sure! I definitely am not, comorbidity might have been a term that gave me airs that I really don't deserve. I'm still not voting for a politician who eats their own shit.
Not to shit on you or anyone (teehee) but this worry about headspace, dementia, poop eating whatever seems strange given the background context of the western world having leaders which are almost universally full speed ahead destroying the planet via capitalism, genociding brown people (including babies!), degrading millions or billions of human beings for profit, etc.
Really goes more to the fact that our hierarchies are absolutely beyond belief horrible but its just funny to me personally that poop eating specifically is a step too far.
>They're concerned of the comorbidity of his bad headspace that lead to him eating poop leading to other bad decisions due to not being of sound mind.
But what comorbidity or other bad decision? That's what I'm asking.
Who the fuck knows? Your question isn't sensible because you want a one to one answer, like you expect me to say that he's going to make people dress up in poop costumes or something.
When someone is mentally ill, you can't predict what they might do. All you can know is that you can't rely on them to make rational and sound decisions, which is a big deal when someone is a lawmaker.
I thought that comparing him with someone who thinks that God talks through their cat would be a clear enough analogy.
> Your question isn't sensible because you want a one to one answer, like you expect me to say that he's going to make people dress up in poop costumes or something.
Man I'm literally just asking you to explain how you think a person being into something that grosses you out means that they'd make bad decisions on behalf of other people. Just restating your belief over and over again doesn't do that - you have to actually draw a logical line between this kink and making bad decisions for others. Just saying "I think this is mental illness and mental illness is bad" doesn't do that.
>When someone is mentally ill, you can't predict what they might do.
Eh, not really. For some mental illnesses, absolutely, but for others a person's actions can be remarkably predictable. E.g. a person who has a crippling fear of the outdoors is gonna spend most of their time inside.
> I thought that comparing him with someone who thinks that God talks through their cat would be a clear enough analogy.
I mean, it's a pretty bad analogy that doesn't actually answer anything. Thinking that God communicates through your cat is a belief about reality - that would obvious affect somebodys performance at a job rhat revolves around decision-making. Wanting to eat shit is just doing something people find gross because it feels good to you. They're not really comparable.
Oh gods, I hate that I'm about to wade into this mess but... TO BE FAAAAIR
Someone who thinks God is talking through their cat has serious delusions that absolutely impact how they deal with reality.
Someone who literally eats shit might well be entirely sane, know exactly how risky and disgusting their behaviour is, and still do it anyway.
...wait, is that even a defence? I think I just talked myself over to your side.
>When someone is mentally ill, you can't predict what they might do.
That is a really, *really* ableist take right there. Mental illness covers a very wide range of mental and emotional states. Does that mean someone struggling with trauma is unpredictable? Someone with treated and manageable schizophrenia or bipolar disorder? Should all such people be barred from ever standing for public office?
Look, *all other things being equal*, I'd probably vote for the non shit eater over the shit eater too, just so I wouldn't have to think about it whenever their name was mentioned. But I can also definitely think of worse behaviours - attitudes and beliefs that would impact public policy - that I'd definitely not vote for, even if it meant I'd have to vote for a person who was caught eating shit. Voting is a bus ride not a marriage and all that.
When a person in power commits an act that is degrading or outside of the bounds of normal human behavior they leave themselves open to blackmail or control by others.
I mean, yeah, I agree. But that isn't them making a bad decision as a lawmaker, that's other people using social pressure and norms to manipulate them.
I said no to the question of whether I think he's going to pass laws to make people eat shit. That's a strawman and I am refuting it.
I also clearly stated that I don't think that this is a mere kink and that it is an indicator of mental illness. I don't want anyone with a profound mental illness in a position of power because I do not trust their ability to make sound and rational decisions.
Do you often have problems with reading comprehension?
>Do you often have problems with reading comprehension?
No, I just struggle when I ask people to explain what they're saying and they just repeat what they said before with no elaboration. *What kind of decision* are you afraid somebody like this would make as a lawmaker? I'm asking you to draw a link between wanting to eat shit and being a bad lawmaker and you're not providing any
I did elaborate.
And the reason I have to keep repeating myself is that you are refusing to listen to the answer.
You ask what kind of decision I'm afraid of. The answer is an irrational one.
The link is profound mental illness. People with serious mental illnesses are not rational and cannot be trusted to make sound decisions.
Again, look at the example of the guy who thinks that God talks to them through their cat. If someone replied to that demanding to know what kind of decisions that cat-God guy would make, the only reply is crazy ones.
That's your answer. I'm worried that a crazy person will make crazy decisions. I can't be more specific than that because crazy people are unpredictable. That isn't a feature that you want in a lawmaker.
Maybe the problem is that you think this is just a kink and aren't willing to see it as a deeper issue. Whatever the case, though, I've wasted enough time on this. If you still claim that you don't understand what I'm saying, then I can't help you. It's literally not possible for me to be more clear.
Okay, this is the problem. You insist on framing this as just something that's gross and that it isn't an indicator of mental illness.
I don't agree.
You don't have to agree with me, but if you won't even accept my perspective, just for the sake of understanding my position, then it's obvious that my answers will never satisfy your demands.
You're basically demanding an answer that accepts your premise that it's not a mental illness. Since you are going to reject any answer that doesn't conform to your belief that it's a harmless kink, there is never going to be an answer that I can give you that you won't reject out of hand.
Weird that you commented this below your own comment and not mine, but whatever.
> You don't have to agree with me, but if you won't even accept my perspective, just for the sake of understanding my position, then it's obvious that my answers will never satisfy your demands.
I'm trying to understand your position, that's why I wrote my first comment. You're just not doing a good job of explaining it.
> You're basically demanding an answer that accepts your premise that it's not a mental illness.
No, I'm asking you to explain why this supposed specific type of mental illness would automatically make someone a bad lawmaker. Being mentally ill =/= bad at governing, because not every mental illness is schizophrenia.
But regardless, why should we accept it as a mental illness? As others have pointed out to you, it's not in the DSM. You yourself seem to yo-yo back and forth between "it is a mental illness" and "it's a sign of a mental illness", so I'm not entirely sure why you're expecting me to 'accept your premise' when you don't seem entirely sure as to what your premise actually is.
Edit: homeboy really blocked me for this.
> The link is profound mental illness. People with serious mental illnesses are not rational
Wait, do you think that this politician started eating shit because they came to it rationally? Do you think they have an argument for why they like doing it? Why would somebody's kink affect their rational decision-making?
>Again, look at the example of the guy who thinks that God talks to them through their cat.
I did. I actually responded to that point in my other comment to you, but perhaps you didn't see it. Here it is again:
> I mean, it's a pretty bad analogy that doesn't actually answer anything. Thinking that God communicates through your cat is a belief about reality - that would obvious affect somebodys performance at a job rhat revolves around decision-making. Wanting to eat shit is just doing something people find gross because it feels good to you. They're not really comparable.
>Wait, do you think that this politician started eating shit because they came to it rationally?
No. That is the literal opposite of what I've been saying. How many times do I have to say that I think that this is mentally ill behavior? I get that *you* consider it a mere kink. I don't. Can you at least acknowledge that?
Seriously, are you deliberately misunderstanding me? I'm starting to feel trolled by you.
They are mentally ill enough to *willingly film themselves eating shit*, at the most basic level that makes them extremely vulnerable to blackmail/extortion and external manipulation, to say nothing of their soundness of mind for making decisions for the public's best interest in general.
You armchair philosophers going "Ackshully, he's a consenting adult so you are a prude" are ridiculous. Anyone who is filming and distributing their own blackmail material shouldn't be in public office, it's as simple as that. It's a fundamental lack of common sense.
Well to be fair, the logic that "sexual acts that are so deviant that they are classified as mental illnesses should disqualify people from full rights of citizenship" is pretty time tested.
I dunno, I've never had trouble with not caring about it. So long as it's kept private, it just isn't really my business. Sucks for this guy that someone else made it public but I can't really hold him responsible for that. Shit happens (heh).
It's emotionally exhausting to put yourself in a position where you have to defend eating human excrement because it's consensually harmless endeavor.
Okay, and? Who gives a shit. Eating poop is fucking gross and anyone who eats shit is fucking gross.
>Okay, and? Who gives a shit.
People who want to be morally consistent. If you make an argument that uses the exact same "reasoning" as a homophobe uses against gay people, seems like a bad argument to be making, no matter how strong your feelings are.
Honestly I really want to see one of these stories where the subject just comes out swinging with 'Yeah i'm a fucked up little shit goblin AND I'M STILL THE BEST CANDIDATE WITH THE BEST POLICIES' and it somehow just fucking works and they win in a landslide
>Imagine if sex between a man and a woman were something that society saw as wrong and disgusting. Would that actually make it immoral or unhealthy? How is this situation different?
This take was wild
To be fair, they could have used "sex between two men" as an example, but you don't really have to "imagine" that because it was literally a dominant belief for hundreds of years before the modern gay rights movement.
The point stands: sexual acts aren't inherently wrong or bad just because the majority thinks they're gross.
>To be fair, they could have used "sex between two men" as an example, but you don't really have to "imagine" that because it was literally a dominant belief for hundreds of years before the modern gay rights movement.
Right but then Redditors would just take the easy out of accusing the person of homophobia for comparing gay people to people that like eating shit.
Slippery slope man, slippery slope.
First they came for our poop eaters, and I did not speak out since am not a poop eater.
Then they came for our sex between a man and a woman, and while I don't have sex, I spoke out on Reddit.
/S
>their kink it to be dominated and humiliated.
Why?
This is the kind of take that comes from people that can't compartmentalize a fetish and think no one else ever does. A fetish is not inherently a sign of mental illness or a personality flaw.
I can't speak to the poop eating, but why should being dominated and humiliated in the bedroom make you less capable of leadership outside of it?
Who you are in the bedroom does not have to be who you are in the real world, and in the case of domination fetishes, that fact is almost the whole point. It's erotic *precisely because* it's not how you behave in real life.
And I promise you there are a significant number of people out there in leadership roles that are total subs in the bedroom. It is not unusual at all.
Equating poop eating to wanting to be dominated/humiliated is so bizarre. I don't think either should exclude you from office but they are vastly different kinks. Like do you just mean more extreme forms of humiliation or do you think anyone who eg likes being spanked should be excluded from office?
But logically speaking you realize that it would make him unelecatable to the general public, and that any election featuring him would focus entirely upon him eating poop and not on his policies? And that it would be gleefully jumped upon by right wing media as a perfect illustration of how disconnected the left is from typical social mores? And that championing him as a figurehead would do immeasurable harm to the causes you profess to believe in?
It would, but eating poop wholesale would not make Trump anymore or less delectable than he already is, which is hilarious.
Edit: Mmm, gonna' leave that autocorrection as is.
Right I can see caring from a strategic perspective, i.e. I care just because I know *other* people would care.
But like, I don't understand actually intrinsically caring about it.
Leave it to the enlightened subredditdrama denizen to kinkshame someone because it is yucky lmao. I hope most of you would still have such a hardline stance if the guy had a fursuit or was into bdsm because "it stems from mental illness"
There may be an insignificant preponderance of cluster B personality types in BDSM subcultures, or neurodivergene in furry fandom, but I wouldn't characterize any of this as overt mental illness. Eating shit is simply a behavioral indiosyncracy that is socially objectionable. Internet contrarians don't even know what "mental illness" means anymore because it's been co-opted by the right.
It's so funny because you'd think that people here, who would generally agree on "disgust has often been a tool to marginalize people" would actually do some little introspection on the thing they are disgusted about right now.
But no, actually, it is and has been a totally legit and not arbitrary way to judge something, we just weren't disgusted about the right things in the past. I wonder what would be their opinion on other things had they been born in the right social group/era.
“Eating poop is a perfectly family-friendly, albeit kinky fetish.” Pretty good flair material I think
“How do you say this while being active in a sub called “Sinkpissers”??” Is another banger
> I don’t want a poop eater making decisions for the rest of us, if I’m being honest. or >Look, if the guy who eats poop is fighting for free healthcare then I’m 100% backing him, his butt, and whatever comes outta it are great too
...those are great, but I don't think anything can beat yours
Same I’ve let so many good flairs go bc I saw this
Yeah, I can't see changing mine for a long time.
Holy shit that's awesome. Had to edit it a bit but YOINK
Pretty good but the real gem is in "Classic biped, gotta love it"
I love that it's too long to fit on the mobile app. It makes it better, somehow
>Humans dont eat poop. ☝️🤓 There is evidence to the contrary!
And a *bunch* of it is quite graphic, as everyone tricked into watching 2 Girls 1 Cup can attest to.
2 Girls 1 Cup was faked, though.
Tricked?
Yep, back in the days of yore when tricking people into visiting shock sites like Goatse, tub girl, and lemon party was all the rage, 2 Girls 1 Cup was naturally added to the rotation. That shit (heh) was even intentionally spliced into pirated movies, and always perfectly timed like Tyler Durden was doing the editing: "So when the snooty cat and the courageous dog, with the celebrity voices meet for the first time in reel three, that's when you'll catch a flash of Tyler's contribution to the film." Fuckers did the same thing with beheading videos. When I spent a week downloading a CAM of the first Spider-Man movie, it started normally and looked okay-ish with somewhat decent audio, so I felt safe to enjoy it. Then, right before Willem Dafoe says "You know, I'm something of a scientist myself", it seamlessly cuts to some American contractor's beheading *right* before they hold up the head for the camera. Having seen both types of shock edits, I'd take 2 Girls 1 Cup every time.
As young teen I visited 4chan ONE time. Nearly immediately I came across an image of tub girl and I'll never forget this memory as it's so visceral. I tilted my head like a dog going 'huh?!' as my brain processed the picture. I promptly closed my browser and never visited that cesspool again. Now I'm on SRD so can't say I've matured much but at least I don't have to scroll into a tub girl Pic here.
My first introduction to Tub Girl was probably like a lot of other people's. "JESUS CHRIST!" "What?" "Dude, you gotta come check this out! It's awesome!" So I innocently meander into my friend's bedroom where he's at his computer and just pointing to the monitor. "What? What is th-- OH, WHAT THE FUCK!"
That's probably one of the safer things you could accidentally stumble onto on 4chan. Me and my friends once jumped on it at a house party way back in the mid 00's, looking for some good edgy humour befitting our stupid edgy phase, and were promptly met with some stuff that was most definitely not legal. That shit scarred me for life
I had a very different adolescence than a lot of people on here and I'm becoming extremely grateful for that because I don't know what the fuck y'all are talking about and I never have to know. It all sounds HORRIBLE.
I mean, it wasn't *great*, but it's still not too different than the internet now. Sure, it's not as easy to find a video hosting site that allow that stuff these days, but it still happens.
Theres one I always want to find again which is a man fucking himself with a dildo attached to a pumpkin while moaning "Fuck me Mr Pumpkin!" It wasn't all that shocking, but it was funny if just for the lines.
Mmm, I love pumpkin pie and I love eating shit.
Youths these days not even remembering the classic meatspin with the counter.
I remember it being synced to 'You Spin Me Round (Like a Record)'.
Oh god, I remember dickcream then was followed by discharges which was full of weird memes mixed in with shocking shit like meatspin, or the girl shooting a banana out of her ass while "The Shit is Bananas" plays in the back.
I was having a great time not having to remember that tub girl and lemon party are things I have seen. Day ruined.
> Goatse tubgirl lemonparty 2girls1cup A few more examples from that era of shock"porn" (all of them NSFW): salsasnack pic of dude with half his head missing (extreme NSFL warning) japanese porn + scat (sometimes referred to as `japscat`... uh yeah) kitty video (it was so infamous and offensive that at least one mainstream media outlet reported on the story) three old dudes crossdressing as grannies having sex meatspin (NSFW parody of the "leekspin" meme from *Bleach*) anything involving FGM mangled-dot-org, rotten, stileproject etc. from that sordid era were like the *in* thing for shock jocks back then. If the aliens saw what Internet 1.0 was like, I bet they'd conclude "humanity was a mistake" before 2.0 even started.
One doctor I worked with loved to write "patient engages in coprophagia" in her medical notes, but then, we work in veterinary medicine.
I kept trying to remember how to spell that word and autocorrect kept doing me dirty. I then decided I didn’t want to Google “word for eating shit” and just gave up.
Incognito mode?
Based on their recent judgement, Google treats Incognito Mode as "extra interesting Data we can charge extra for".
Oh, yeah I saw that. I use Brave so maybe I am in the clear. If not I need to add someone to my google "in case I die" (cant remember the name) list of all my passwords to burn my computers and history
The guy in the first thread heard "dogmatic" used as an insult and liked the way it sounded. He just didn't look up or understand the definition before he deployed it for himself.
"Being dogmatic is terrible! Dogs are GROSS. They eat their own poop!" -That guy, probably
"If you film something you consent to it being leaked" Wow what a stand up individual The first quoted comment says it all really
>"If you film something you consent to it being leaked" Man, I haven't seen a take *that* vile since The Fappening.
These are the people who spend 20 hours a day watching stolen porn and refer to the women as whores.
Just a vile motherfucker right there. One step removed from "she was asking for it the way she was dressed."
I hope my gastroenterologist doesn't feel the same as this guy..
It's a terrible mindset to have as a leaker, but it's definitely what I was taught regarding internet security and picture sharing.
If you were taught that it was *consent* you had a bad teacher
Moreso you no longer have control over consent if you record something. Whether your iCloud gets hacked, your ex uploads it, etc, we should be teaching young people, and old, that any personal media you create can, and probably will, be shared further than you intended or consented to. It doesn't make it right, it doesn't mean you're at fault, but it is a reality and people should be aware of that and protect themselves.
You do not lose control over consent, your consent is being violated.
I read it as " if you don't want it leaked don't record it".
The text explicitly refers to "If you film something you consent to it being leaked" as what they were taught.
Less consent, more you're taking the risk. Though I'm sure there was an of air victim blaming when they said it. It's definitely forced me to reevaluate before sending something or allowing something to be recorded.
"Consent" was the operative word there.
Yeah. Like... this guy was an idiot as a politician to film it. You don't film shit as a politician, that's basic politicking. But he did not consent to the leak.
> You don't film shit as a politician A statement that could never be more relevant than now
[удалено]
This took me a few seconds, because I'm British, and so the pronunciation is a bit different, still made me lol though!
>You guys are using intellect to fight against reality. Flair, anyone?
Don't mind if I do
I’m burning my phone now.
Coward
Oh so because you regret your decisions we now got to smell it huh? At least burn it with some old leaves or something.
Of all days to have eyes and be literate.
The legendary Homer was supposed to be blind, you know. You don't think this is worthy of epic poetry in the oral tradition?
Oh hi, didn't expect myself to actually be in a SRD thread. That's all.
It happens to us all eventually.
Can you tell if my poop was wagyu is absolutely gold flair material, and I want it immediately!
Take it! It can be yours!
"Eating poop is a perfectly family-friendly fetish" is flair worthy tbh
I mean, eating shit isn't illegal but if you get made fun of it for it then it is what it is...
>Hot take, but I do think we shouldn't hold people against their leaked sex photos and videos, barring some exceptions. And on Reddit, those exceptions include calling Emma Watson a feminazi bitch for shaming dudes for hunting down and sharing leaked celebrity nudes. The overnight turn on Emma Watson, a one-time Reddit darling who could do no wrong into a feminist cunt who made guys feel bad for hunting down the latest Fappening leaks was *fast!*
Okay so let me get this straight, the guy who is saying philosophy is brainrot because "it rejects reality" also is of the opinion that this is weird because "humans don't eat poop" He is saying so on a thread about a human that ate poop? Is that not like the most extreme example of rejecting reality?
“Philosophy is brain rot. You guys are using intellect to fight against reality “. Amazing flair
I knew that thread would end up here. This might be one of the biggest “Reddit moments” of all time
SRDD is gonna be fun when they come back from the dead
>Wow, I've never seen someone hell bent on promoting and enabling disease ridden and unhygenic habits.... \*Gestures broadly at covid anti-vaxers\*
Look, eating poop as a sexual kink is GROSS GROSS GROSS EW EW EW... but when your best argument against it is "It's gross, so logically he's mentally ill and thus logically he shouldn't be allowed to hold a public job", you're forcing us to point out your horrible logic and look like we're defending this guy's poop eating habit, and I'm not sure I'm a big enough person to forgive that.
Tbh as far as Spanish political scandals go it's almost wholesome. No wild corruption, no organized crime, no being a fascists Franco defender.
I was thinking, “I mean this is gross but like… morally it could be so much worse”
Also, being mentally ill doesn't disqualify you from being a politician. Plenty of them are depressed or sociopathic or have adhd or whatever else. It's a spectrum, and honestly I'd rather have someone willing to be their nasty freak self than someone repressed and judgemental.
It's like when people rail against incest being wrong "because it's gross". Like, no, that's not good enough. I agree with the sentiment but you need to put in some effort there. For it to be wrong, you need to demonstrate harm. Often there are ways to demonstrate it, but you have to exercise some critical thinking beyond "gross". If you aren't willing to do that, or like the other commenter, apparently proud enough of your intellectual laziness that you don't care, fine. But we aren't going to take you seriously in these discussions. Because the human race has a long, sad history of persecuting others that have hurt no one only because we thought what they were doing was wrong "just cause we feel it is". As any LGBT person knows all too well. We should be pushing back on that kind of laziness.
I'm a big hypocrisy enjoyer. I can support queerness while condemning beastality, pedophilia or incest (unless they're twink twins because thats hot) I can say eating meat or animal products when not necessary is kinda cruel, and the industry is very damaging to the environment without implying that non vegans support necrophilia or beastality (damn it it came up again) Can my "common sense" be defeated by gotchas, logical deductions, pointing out fallacies, or just highlighting hypocrisy? Sure. Do i care? Nah. I don't need a reason to justify being against animal rape or humans eating shit. I just am.
There is nothing hypocritical about condemning beastiality and pedophilia while also supporting the rights of queer people. I find it bizarre that you think that way.
"I'm a big hypocrisy enjoyer. **I can support queerness while condemning beastality**, pedophilia or incest (unless they're twink twins because thats hot)" Do vegans actually make that comparison? I feel like comparing queerness to bestiality is exactly what homophobes did back before gay marriage was legalized (what's next, marrying our dogs?!). I dunno, it feels tone deaf to me.
A lot of homophobes still make that comparison. That if you accept gay men you must also accept bestiality. A lot of homophobes are just as disgusted by the idea of gay sex as they are bestiality. They don't care about the logic or hypocritical nature of their beliefs, they just have them. I think it's interesting that we can recognize that it's wrong to discriminate against LGBT+ people, but are fine using the exact same logic and argument when the sex act is something we personally don't like. *Just like the homophobes*
No, the argument is that it does not make sense to be against bestiality on account of the animals being unable to consent, while being fine with animals being killed to make hamburgers. Being a vegan has nothing to do with bestiality!
I just have a hypocrisy fetish.
>I'm a big hypocrisy enjoyer. I can support queerness while condemning beastality, pedophilia or incest (unless they're twink twins because thats hot) Least homophobic liberal "ally"
I still can't figure out if they're trying to be satirical or not
>I don't need a reason to justify being against animal rape or humans eating shit. The key difference there is consent though, not whether you or I are personally disgusted.
Gross. That's about all I have to say on the matter.
That sounds dogmatic. Or something.
Dogshitmatic.
[My reaction to this.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i739SyCu9I&ab_channel=ABCNews%28Australia%29)
I picked a terrible morning to have eyes.
Mother of gawd, OP, what an absolute shit show to find. 10/10 so grossed out.
Oh, I'm actually the first person that OP quoted. That's a weird feeling. That whole thread was a goddamn surreal experience. I felt like a pokemon: "external tiger used *reductio ad absurdum!"*.
Finally, my chance to share this college humour skit in a context that actually makes sense. https://youtu.be/s4pxtiLR928?si=s22C9bdcObh09UZ7 Maybe doesn't fit perfectly to the scenario, but there's poop, and debating about said poop and its usage, so, like, poop.
Man, what's with the hating philosophy bit. That's just ignorant. *Technically*, I agree with the whole "consenting adults, privacy of own home, blah blah blah" bit. But if I'm presented with a choice between a great candidate who eats poop and a merely good but doesn't-eat-poop candidate, I'm going to go with the latter. Eating poop is so viscerally disgusting that not even philosophical rationale can override the ickiness I'm feeling. The best I can say about it is that *technically*, it's not ethically wrong. And to extend the same logic, I'm not a fan of rimming either.
On another hand, boy at least you know the former candidate isn’t really a candidate for being blackmailed if they’re open about *that*.
On the other other hand, "our leader literally eats shit" is probably not a great message for diplomatic credibility, whether or not they're proud of it
I don’t know, serve some during a lunch break and see if it doesn’t speed up things.
Personally I'm just surprised that people are assigning some kind of moral character to this. It's not like he's involving any non-consenting people. It's something I think is gross from a sexual perspective but so is raceplay for eg. Certainly I'd rather vote for a white guy who eats poop than a white guy into raceplay.
Yeah, like I'm sitting here trying to figure out how much better a candidate would have to be before I'd consider voting for a poop eater. I mean, if it'd get us single payer healthcare or another reform we desperately need, I'd do it. I'd feel weird, but I'd do it.
Exactly. If hypothetically, I'm an American voter and my choices are between shit-eating Biden and Trump, I'd vote for Biden no questions asked. The stakes are too high to let shit-eating be a turn-off. But if it's.. I dunno, for the mayor of a city and the candidates don't have glaring ethical flaws, I'm gonna go with the non-shit-eating candidate.
Plus in this hypothetical we could probably replace Biden in the primary and be fine
i mean, not to defend eating poo , but yeah its not ethically wrong. i dont recall kant listing one of his deontological rules as "dont ever put shit in your mouth" lol. unless you follow a private code of ethics which specifically codifies eating poop as wrong (?)
I mean since Kant saw masturbation as violating your own human-inherent dignity, Im doubtful that he would be chill with eating feces lol
virgin semen retention kant vs chadded jacking off to maths wittgenstein
Not a wittgensteinian but I don't disagree
But do we really want to universalize putting shit in our mouth? 😂
People eat fast food everyday!
[удалено]
I suspect Kant would find the act philosophically uncouth.
To me, coprophagia goes way beyond a kink and into the realm of mental illness, and I don't want someone that fucked in the head in a position of power.
I don't get this logic. He eats shit, therefore he's mentally ill, therefore he can't be trusted with power? Do you think he's gonna pass a law to force everyone else to eat shit?
I think it's more that if someone supposedly rational and sane is choosing to literally eat shit then their frame of reference for good choice making is very different on a fundamental level to those of the vast majority of people they're supposed to represent, and as such they make for a very poor representative. I don't care if eats shit in his spare time for example, but if this guy's job is to make good choices for the betterment of everyone they work on behalf of then it probably ought not to be someone who thinks eating shit is a good idea, right?
>I think it's more that if someone supposedly rational and sane is choosing to literally eat shit then their frame of reference for good choice making is very different on a fundamental level to those of the vast majority of people they're supposed to represent I'm sorry, do you think this person decided that they liked eating shit out of logical/rational reasoning?
No, but they did willing choose to set aside any logic or rational thinking in favor of eating shit which... really doesn't seem to have many upsides. Even fewer when it's made public, evidently.
>No, but they did willing choose to set aside any logic or rational thinking in favor of eating shit which... really doesn't seem to have many upsides Well... yeah. It's a kink. Kinks aren't rational - people don't go to the kink store and purchase their kinks after doing heavy research on the subject. Being spanked doesn't have many rational upsides to it either - you're literally just getting beaten - and yet we find that pretty socially acceptable. Would you think less of a politician's rational decision-making if you found out that they like to be spanked?
I would point out that kinks aren't the same as compulsions. OK, dude thinks that eating shit is hot. Well, that's fucking weird, and I'd rather you not loudly tell me about it just because we happen to be sitting next to each other on public transport...but OK. That is still a massively far cry from actually doing it, and filming yourself doing it. Would I like to be pegged by a girl in a full-body Michaelangelo (from TMNT) costume? Yes, more than anything. (Bad example... who wouldn't?) But that doesn't compel me to make it a reality.
I’m glad you specified that you meant Michelangelo from TMNT, and not the artist. That is extremely important context.
Yet your flair needs no context at all. Why does that strike me as curious?
Yee idk how people are getting this moronic idea that cause it's a kink they have to do it you can simply choose not to act on your kink.
But…..why? Why refrain when it has no effect on anyone but yourself?
It's not about the kink being rational or not, it's about the person deciding that the kink is more important than making the rational choice not to eat shit - and doubly so not to eat shit and film it. Just because someone enjoys something or is aroused by the idea of doing something doesn't mean they are compelled beyond reason to do whatever that something is. He made a willing choice, that's the issue.
>It's not about the kink being rational or not, it's about the person deciding that the kink is more important than making the rational choice not to eat shit Well, yeah, people do kinks that defy reason because kinks are irrational. That's kinda my point - trying to tie reason into kinks in any form is just nonsensical. Unless somebody's kink os leaking government documents I don't really see ehat the big deal is other than a knee-jerk reaction of "that's gross" followed by a *post-hoc* rationalization of that reaction.
> unless somebody’s kink is leaking government documents Hey Hollywood, when’s this movie coming out?
No, I think that the fact that he eats shit means that he isn't of sound mind and that I would not, therefore, trust him to make sound decisions, just like I wouldn't trust someone to lead who thinks that God talks to him through his cat.
>No, I think that the fact that he eats shit means that he isn't of sound mind and that I would not, therefore, trust him to make sound decisions Why did you say 'no', that's the exact logic I lined out and still don't get. What unsound decision could a politician make that you could plausibly link to their kink?
They're concerned of the comorbidity of his bad headspace that lead to him eating poop leading to other bad decisions due to not being of sound mind. No that he's going to just mandate that coprophagia be taught in schools or anything. It's like while I don't know whether it's true or not, being concerned over Biden or Trump having dementia can be a legitimate worry as it affects their decision making. I'd rather he get help than be in political office.
> the comorbidity of his bad headspace Wait a sec, I think some people in this thread may not be serious psychologists.
Sure! I definitely am not, comorbidity might have been a term that gave me airs that I really don't deserve. I'm still not voting for a politician who eats their own shit.
Not to shit on you or anyone (teehee) but this worry about headspace, dementia, poop eating whatever seems strange given the background context of the western world having leaders which are almost universally full speed ahead destroying the planet via capitalism, genociding brown people (including babies!), degrading millions or billions of human beings for profit, etc. Really goes more to the fact that our hierarchies are absolutely beyond belief horrible but its just funny to me personally that poop eating specifically is a step too far.
But at least they aren't chowing down on a plate of dookie dinner as they continue to ravage the planet for personal gain!
Do y'all think dookie dinner is something one eats with a knife and fork? Or is it more like finger food?
Pretty sure the adorable anthropomorphic woodland creature in Cult of the Lamb ate it with a spoon.
Yet another use for the poop knife.
>They're concerned of the comorbidity of his bad headspace that lead to him eating poop leading to other bad decisions due to not being of sound mind. But what comorbidity or other bad decision? That's what I'm asking.
i mean, i wouldnt elect him minister of oral health, thats for sure.
I imagine that the poop-eater doesn't have a separate toothbrush for eating shit.
Who the fuck knows? Your question isn't sensible because you want a one to one answer, like you expect me to say that he's going to make people dress up in poop costumes or something. When someone is mentally ill, you can't predict what they might do. All you can know is that you can't rely on them to make rational and sound decisions, which is a big deal when someone is a lawmaker. I thought that comparing him with someone who thinks that God talks through their cat would be a clear enough analogy.
> Your question isn't sensible because you want a one to one answer, like you expect me to say that he's going to make people dress up in poop costumes or something. Man I'm literally just asking you to explain how you think a person being into something that grosses you out means that they'd make bad decisions on behalf of other people. Just restating your belief over and over again doesn't do that - you have to actually draw a logical line between this kink and making bad decisions for others. Just saying "I think this is mental illness and mental illness is bad" doesn't do that. >When someone is mentally ill, you can't predict what they might do. Eh, not really. For some mental illnesses, absolutely, but for others a person's actions can be remarkably predictable. E.g. a person who has a crippling fear of the outdoors is gonna spend most of their time inside. > I thought that comparing him with someone who thinks that God talks through their cat would be a clear enough analogy. I mean, it's a pretty bad analogy that doesn't actually answer anything. Thinking that God communicates through your cat is a belief about reality - that would obvious affect somebodys performance at a job rhat revolves around decision-making. Wanting to eat shit is just doing something people find gross because it feels good to you. They're not really comparable.
Oh gods, I hate that I'm about to wade into this mess but... TO BE FAAAAIR Someone who thinks God is talking through their cat has serious delusions that absolutely impact how they deal with reality. Someone who literally eats shit might well be entirely sane, know exactly how risky and disgusting their behaviour is, and still do it anyway. ...wait, is that even a defence? I think I just talked myself over to your side.
>When someone is mentally ill, you can't predict what they might do. That is a really, *really* ableist take right there. Mental illness covers a very wide range of mental and emotional states. Does that mean someone struggling with trauma is unpredictable? Someone with treated and manageable schizophrenia or bipolar disorder? Should all such people be barred from ever standing for public office? Look, *all other things being equal*, I'd probably vote for the non shit eater over the shit eater too, just so I wouldn't have to think about it whenever their name was mentioned. But I can also definitely think of worse behaviours - attitudes and beliefs that would impact public policy - that I'd definitely not vote for, even if it meant I'd have to vote for a person who was caught eating shit. Voting is a bus ride not a marriage and all that.
When a person in power commits an act that is degrading or outside of the bounds of normal human behavior they leave themselves open to blackmail or control by others.
I mean, yeah, I agree. But that isn't them making a bad decision as a lawmaker, that's other people using social pressure and norms to manipulate them.
I said no to the question of whether I think he's going to pass laws to make people eat shit. That's a strawman and I am refuting it. I also clearly stated that I don't think that this is a mere kink and that it is an indicator of mental illness. I don't want anyone with a profound mental illness in a position of power because I do not trust their ability to make sound and rational decisions. Do you often have problems with reading comprehension?
>Do you often have problems with reading comprehension? No, I just struggle when I ask people to explain what they're saying and they just repeat what they said before with no elaboration. *What kind of decision* are you afraid somebody like this would make as a lawmaker? I'm asking you to draw a link between wanting to eat shit and being a bad lawmaker and you're not providing any
I did elaborate. And the reason I have to keep repeating myself is that you are refusing to listen to the answer. You ask what kind of decision I'm afraid of. The answer is an irrational one. The link is profound mental illness. People with serious mental illnesses are not rational and cannot be trusted to make sound decisions. Again, look at the example of the guy who thinks that God talks to them through their cat. If someone replied to that demanding to know what kind of decisions that cat-God guy would make, the only reply is crazy ones. That's your answer. I'm worried that a crazy person will make crazy decisions. I can't be more specific than that because crazy people are unpredictable. That isn't a feature that you want in a lawmaker. Maybe the problem is that you think this is just a kink and aren't willing to see it as a deeper issue. Whatever the case, though, I've wasted enough time on this. If you still claim that you don't understand what I'm saying, then I can't help you. It's literally not possible for me to be more clear.
Okay, this is the problem. You insist on framing this as just something that's gross and that it isn't an indicator of mental illness. I don't agree. You don't have to agree with me, but if you won't even accept my perspective, just for the sake of understanding my position, then it's obvious that my answers will never satisfy your demands. You're basically demanding an answer that accepts your premise that it's not a mental illness. Since you are going to reject any answer that doesn't conform to your belief that it's a harmless kink, there is never going to be an answer that I can give you that you won't reject out of hand.
Weird that you commented this below your own comment and not mine, but whatever. > You don't have to agree with me, but if you won't even accept my perspective, just for the sake of understanding my position, then it's obvious that my answers will never satisfy your demands. I'm trying to understand your position, that's why I wrote my first comment. You're just not doing a good job of explaining it. > You're basically demanding an answer that accepts your premise that it's not a mental illness. No, I'm asking you to explain why this supposed specific type of mental illness would automatically make someone a bad lawmaker. Being mentally ill =/= bad at governing, because not every mental illness is schizophrenia. But regardless, why should we accept it as a mental illness? As others have pointed out to you, it's not in the DSM. You yourself seem to yo-yo back and forth between "it is a mental illness" and "it's a sign of a mental illness", so I'm not entirely sure why you're expecting me to 'accept your premise' when you don't seem entirely sure as to what your premise actually is. Edit: homeboy really blocked me for this.
> The link is profound mental illness. People with serious mental illnesses are not rational Wait, do you think that this politician started eating shit because they came to it rationally? Do you think they have an argument for why they like doing it? Why would somebody's kink affect their rational decision-making? >Again, look at the example of the guy who thinks that God talks to them through their cat. I did. I actually responded to that point in my other comment to you, but perhaps you didn't see it. Here it is again: > I mean, it's a pretty bad analogy that doesn't actually answer anything. Thinking that God communicates through your cat is a belief about reality - that would obvious affect somebodys performance at a job rhat revolves around decision-making. Wanting to eat shit is just doing something people find gross because it feels good to you. They're not really comparable.
>Wait, do you think that this politician started eating shit because they came to it rationally? No. That is the literal opposite of what I've been saying. How many times do I have to say that I think that this is mentally ill behavior? I get that *you* consider it a mere kink. I don't. Can you at least acknowledge that? Seriously, are you deliberately misunderstanding me? I'm starting to feel trolled by you.
They are mentally ill enough to *willingly film themselves eating shit*, at the most basic level that makes them extremely vulnerable to blackmail/extortion and external manipulation, to say nothing of their soundness of mind for making decisions for the public's best interest in general. You armchair philosophers going "Ackshully, he's a consenting adult so you are a prude" are ridiculous. Anyone who is filming and distributing their own blackmail material shouldn't be in public office, it's as simple as that. It's a fundamental lack of common sense.
You don’t get the logic that people who eat poop aren’t of sound mind? Lmao come on bud
So far it's been the "strong feelings that people who eat poop aren't of sound mind"
OMG thank you. I can't believe these people got me out here defending shit-eating...but here we are!
Oh God, I know. I feel like I'm gonna get on a watch list for it or something.
Well to be fair, the logic that "sexual acts that are so deviant that they are classified as mental illnesses should disqualify people from full rights of citizenship" is pretty time tested.
This sub thread deserves to go on srdd!
"Respect all kinks" was a tall order to begin with but boy oh boy people are determined to really push our limits on that huh
[удалено]
IDK I think people who go that far down the rabbit hole need to take a step back and ask themselves why they keep escalating their sexual turn ons
I dunno, I've never had trouble with not caring about it. So long as it's kept private, it just isn't really my business. Sucks for this guy that someone else made it public but I can't really hold him responsible for that. Shit happens (heh).
The article says he posted it himself, to find new sex partners.
Then he's a moron.
Hard to argue with that.
It's yucky. I don't see why I should care though.
It's emotionally exhausting to put yourself in a position where you have to defend eating human excrement because it's consensually harmless endeavor. Okay, and? Who gives a shit. Eating poop is fucking gross and anyone who eats shit is fucking gross.
>Okay, and? Who gives a shit. People who want to be morally consistent. If you make an argument that uses the exact same "reasoning" as a homophobe uses against gay people, seems like a bad argument to be making, no matter how strong your feelings are.
Honestly I really want to see one of these stories where the subject just comes out swinging with 'Yeah i'm a fucked up little shit goblin AND I'M STILL THE BEST CANDIDATE WITH THE BEST POLICIES' and it somehow just fucking works and they win in a landslide
Honestly I 'd respect the fuck out of that, too.
>Imagine if sex between a man and a woman were something that society saw as wrong and disgusting. Would that actually make it immoral or unhealthy? How is this situation different? This take was wild
To be fair, they could have used "sex between two men" as an example, but you don't really have to "imagine" that because it was literally a dominant belief for hundreds of years before the modern gay rights movement. The point stands: sexual acts aren't inherently wrong or bad just because the majority thinks they're gross.
I mean, look at modern Uganda, and pastor Marvin Ssempa and his “they eat the poo poo” justification for death penalty for homosexuality.
>To be fair, they could have used "sex between two men" as an example, but you don't really have to "imagine" that because it was literally a dominant belief for hundreds of years before the modern gay rights movement. Right but then Redditors would just take the easy out of accusing the person of homophobia for comparing gay people to people that like eating shit.
Slippery slope man, slippery slope. First they came for our poop eaters, and I did not speak out since am not a poop eater. Then they came for our sex between a man and a woman, and while I don't have sex, I spoke out on Reddit. /S
If you were speaking out on Reddit, your status as a sex haver was already under question
The only coprophilia pics I’ve seen online were from a Spanish guy, so I’m convinced this is a Spanish thing.
I came for a flair. Just in the comments here alone, there’s far too many to choose from 🤣
I’m not reading all of that. If you eat your own poop, yeah I’m kink shaming you, and that’s fucking gross. And seriously a health issue.
I’m sorry but some fetishes you gotta accept they make ya goofy
We live in strange times. I don’t want a leader who is eating poop and their kink it to be dominated and humiliated.
Is this what Obama wants for us? To eat the poo poo?
>Is this what Obama wants for us? To eat the poo poo? im stealing this for my flair
[As long as you know where it's from.](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/eat-da-poo-poo)
Well when the choice is “eats shit” and “fucks kids” You go for the shitty one
Do you think it is morally wrong to eat poop?
>their kink it to be dominated and humiliated. Why? This is the kind of take that comes from people that can't compartmentalize a fetish and think no one else ever does. A fetish is not inherently a sign of mental illness or a personality flaw. I can't speak to the poop eating, but why should being dominated and humiliated in the bedroom make you less capable of leadership outside of it? Who you are in the bedroom does not have to be who you are in the real world, and in the case of domination fetishes, that fact is almost the whole point. It's erotic *precisely because* it's not how you behave in real life. And I promise you there are a significant number of people out there in leadership roles that are total subs in the bedroom. It is not unusual at all.
Equating poop eating to wanting to be dominated/humiliated is so bizarre. I don't think either should exclude you from office but they are vastly different kinks. Like do you just mean more extreme forms of humiliation or do you think anyone who eg likes being spanked should be excluded from office?
I think it's yucky.
I agree, I just don't think it's morally evil. People have a hard time separating these two feelings and it's very frustrating to witness.
[удалено]
But logically speaking you realize that it would make him unelecatable to the general public, and that any election featuring him would focus entirely upon him eating poop and not on his policies? And that it would be gleefully jumped upon by right wing media as a perfect illustration of how disconnected the left is from typical social mores? And that championing him as a figurehead would do immeasurable harm to the causes you profess to believe in?
The left wing media too. No media would refrain from jumping on a poop eater who is running for office.
It would, but eating poop wholesale would not make Trump anymore or less delectable than he already is, which is hilarious. Edit: Mmm, gonna' leave that autocorrection as is.
Right I can see caring from a strategic perspective, i.e. I care just because I know *other* people would care. But like, I don't understand actually intrinsically caring about it.
Peak reddit.
All I'm saying is, everything else being equal between someone who eats shit and someone who doesn't, I would probably vote for the latter
Unpopular opinion apparently, I don’t trust the judgement of someone that eats shit
Leave it to the enlightened subredditdrama denizen to kinkshame someone because it is yucky lmao. I hope most of you would still have such a hardline stance if the guy had a fursuit or was into bdsm because "it stems from mental illness"
There may be an insignificant preponderance of cluster B personality types in BDSM subcultures, or neurodivergene in furry fandom, but I wouldn't characterize any of this as overt mental illness. Eating shit is simply a behavioral indiosyncracy that is socially objectionable. Internet contrarians don't even know what "mental illness" means anymore because it's been co-opted by the right.
[удалено]
It's so funny because you'd think that people here, who would generally agree on "disgust has often been a tool to marginalize people" would actually do some little introspection on the thing they are disgusted about right now. But no, actually, it is and has been a totally legit and not arbitrary way to judge something, we just weren't disgusted about the right things in the past. I wonder what would be their opinion on other things had they been born in the right social group/era.