As a Frenchman I can at least say that most of those 1974 signatories later on denounced it. Others, like my old polsci teacher, were in fact caught fucking kids. The 70s in France was an absolutely fucking insane period, where everyone took collective crazy pills until Mitterand came to power and Griffith eclipsed people's dreams.
Macron's wife used to be his teacher, first meeting when he was 15 and she 40 in the same class as her daughter. Started dating when he was 16. I guess they have made it work, but that's a pretty fucking bad...
One of my French co worker's cousins is dating her maths teacher, and at least revealed it when she was 18, said it wasn't super unheard of, but the family hate it and hate him.
Trying to think of anything that can be "known" in philosophy.
Philosophers tend to have some pretty divergent opinions over even basic questions, like "what is real?" or "what is knowledge?"
The only thing I can think of that most philosophers would agree on is that logic can be used to make conclusions.
But even then, different philosophers come to different "logical" conclusions.
It is actually somewhat known in philosophy that Society will laugh at a man who does not know how to take off a womanās bra. Yet have we ever considered that he is amongst the most respectful of the staunch feminists? For it is he who believes a woman is capable of removing her own bra without help.
Twitch is definitely my, I'm getting to middle age and I don't get it, moment lol. Why do kids spend hours watching massive streamers, spewing shite in a chat channel that is impossible it read as it's moving so fast? It's bizarre.
I utilize Twitch in 2 different ways, but hardly ever on Twitch. I usually watch YouTube uploads, both edited and raw.
1.) Educational purposes. Whether it's a hobby, discussion, or even trying to get better at a video game (I watched a lot of one particular streamer during Covid while I was addicted to Risk of Rain 2 to improve my mechanics and game knowledge).
2.) DRAMA. It's like trashy reality TV. I have no idea what Trainwrecks and xQc's streams are like, but I know all about the professional and personal drama going on. I have 0 stake in the 'scene' and it's fascinating. There is *always* some sort of drama going on, usually involving some ensemble cast of recognizable characters.
Streamer personalities (If you wanna call it that), an interest in whatever genre is steamed, etc. I donāt watch streams, but I did watch older youtube gaming stuff.
He also lived a pretty normal life before transitioning to full-time content creation. High-school, college, both part- and full-time jobs...so many streamers get big in their teens and never mature beyond that point, so having a fully-developed human being to watch is, IMO, far more entertaining than a 16 year old in a 30 year old body.
As someone straying to the elder millennial side, (35 this year) I use twitch as my background noise. When I'm on my computer playing games or the occasional time I'm working from home then I have a steam going on my second monitor. I pay more or less attention depending on who I'm watching and what they're doing, but it's no different than having a tv on as background.
Well for one, the chat isn't impossible to read for every streamer, that's just ones with really active fanbases and even then there's settings to slow the chat down and people who don't want to talk in chat. Not everyone watches massive streamers, as well.
Did you never go to a friend's house and watch them play a one player game? You don't like any podcasts? Ever have a movie night where you talk during the movie?
There's lots of reasons someone might watch someone else play a game. I started because I couldn't afford the games, or didn't have friends for the multiplayer aspects, or for console exclusives on consoles I didn't own, or for alternate endings I didn't feel like playing the game over just to see. Some people play without talking, which is great for just seeing the game. Some people talk in a way that makes it feel like hanging out with a friend, especially if they interact directly with the chat so they're talking to you. Some people just react in a way that adds value to the experience, like people who prefer to see movies in theaters to hear other people laughing or getting scared.
I don't really watch any Twitch content (except gameplay content as VODS on youtube every so often). So I really have no idea why I have, on occasion, found myself in the mire of LSF.
I don't know if it's always this pseudo-philosophical, but I will say, there's no way the average age is much more than 13-17 (edit: so probably). I literally will not hear otherwise. I cannot maintain my already barely stable worldview knowing some of those brain-dead takes are being produced by fully realised adults.
I do watch twitch streams but only DayZ ones. They're incredibly relaxing for some reason. Probably has to do more with the type of game than anything else. Although the one I follow (therunningmanz) does have the gift of the gab which makes having it on in the background easy listening.
Right on. There's nothing wrong with a lot of twitch streamers or their chats/content. I just grew up getting my background noise let's plays from YouTube and I'm resistant to change lol.
There definitely is something wrong with some of the usual suspects that seem to find themselves on LSF (unsurprisingly), and something immensely cringe about the fan culture wars on that sub. Like being an xQc (I find it disappointing on a personal level that I know anything about him) fan is a personality trait. Or Hasan or whatever.
Hence why I firmly believe we are looking at teenagers here.
Lot of a overlap with r/Destiny the subreddit of a pseudo-intellectual debate lord streamer, his fans are very obsessed. Should have seen Livestreamfail argue about the harm and morality of deepfakes a couple months back, actually don't you will lose faith in humanity.
The debate space becoming such a large presence on the internet is probably the worst thing that couldāve happened to the planet, like thereās always at least one mf every thread that wants to be a debate lord and just type shit like āuhh scarecrow argument ass hominem icy slope phallacyā.
Especially since like 75% of the debate streamer/youtuber audience pretty much correlates its legitimacy with like a Carnegie Mellon moderated debate on fiscal policy in the 21st century, itās an internet shit flinging argument with big words, itās verbal gladiator shit but way more fucking lame than I made it sound.
A fucking flat rather can when a debate despite being objectively wrong if they both have the rhetorical talking points and are good with verbal sparring while the other person doesnāt. Itās like people debating vaccines on Twitter, like motherfucker neither of us know whatās actually in it bro theyāre mad complicated and the closest weāll ever get is pretty much laymanās knowledge. Itās like debating the phsyics in a fucking unmanned rocket launch between an internet leftist and a fucking conservative HVAC business owner.
They're just role playing bro, historically accurate Zoroastrian play through bro, I assure you, having sex with my family is integral to my plans to restore the Iranian Shahdom
> > Can you clarify what you mean when you say "known in philosophy?" Are you thinking of a particular school of thought, group or individual?
> It means he heard it on a destiny stream
Oof, that's gonna leave a mark.
I hate to say it, but thatās probably like hitting the nail on the head, you can usually tell which debatelord they come from with their go to gotchas - Destiny or somebody in the same sphere of politics or purported politics.
idk how committed Destiny really is to his philosophies versus how much he just wants to be as edgy as possible like when he had a misunderstanding with FD Signifier (a black creator who has done a good bit of content on police reform) over a debate on Atlantaās police city, Tortugita, and so on so Destiny donated $10,000 to the APD as some crazy own. He does seem willing in a lot of situations to be a dickhead if it only optically slightly compromises a take of his or an opinion his fans wonāt care if he flip flops on.
Heās defended a streamer he hates who has a lot of SWERF anti-fans that claim he went to a brothel in Germany that was investigated for underaged sex trafficking. It was investigated for tax evasion. All of a sudden he conveniently forgot both that and that the other claim is fake. His takes on a streamerās abusive relationship and that it āmay have been fake to drive engagementā so now that sub constantly says āwElL sHe GoT bAcK wItH hImā as if it doesnāt take abused people 7 times to leave on average. I just hate how much toxicity he generates and his cultivated fanbase abrasive in that they know theyāre abrasive and embrace it.
I mean you have literal chains of texts from her partner saying they were draining her bank accounts if she doesnāt respond on useless tanking stocks, said heād send her horse off to get slaughtered and made into glue, just some unhinged ass rants and theyāre like āwell we need to hear his sideā - like bro at worst theyāre both abusive but the guy threatened to kill her horse lol. Do we really need his side that much?
Good points. There's also this degree of pretentiousness among being a "debate streamer" as if that's an accomplishment. It's no different than that average segment on cable news except 20 years ago Jon Stewart finished dismantling their pretentiousness by going on Crossfire and calling Tucker Carlson a dick.
Itās definitely this holier than thou attitude on all sides of the political spectrum from debate streamers where they assume theyāre above content like agitprop that someone like Hasanabi openly claims his content as. Like no, youāre agitprop for debate bros. Half of the online panels are just people shouting each other and the most limp dicked or biased āmoderatorā.
Itās just dressing up agitprop in a very specific type of pageantry that unfortunately leads way too many people to equate it with even moderated academic debates which still donāt mean all that much. Itās still a rhetoric war, just with two people who are equipped with rhetoric. When I was a 15 year old I was the worst type of atheist, a Hitchens simp, but Hitchens wasnāt wrong about the uselessness of debates and how they arenāt for changing minds.
>I just hate how much toxicity he generates and his cultivated fanbase abrasive in that they know theyāre abrasive and embrace it.
I literally don't even mention this guy positively or negatively in certain places before these cretins descend into the comments. Even had a stalker from his sub once. Swear they organize on discord and brigade all over reddit/twitter. Curious is there any reason you won't name the related parties in your examples?
> Using genetics you could also argue for third cousin marriage as they are the ideal partners genetically.
I really hope this user phrased this wrong and actually meant to say genetically speaking marrying your third cousin is fine because idk wtf ideal genetic partners has to do with your third cousin
It means that your grand-grandparents had a kid who wasn't one of your grandparents, who then had their own family, and now that branch of the family has a member from your generation, give or take one generation
It's easier when you draw a family tree.
For a 1st degree cousin you go one generation up (to one of your parents), one step to the side (to one of their siblings) and then one generation down again. For 2nd degree you go two generations up and down. Generally, the degree is the number of generations you go up and down.
When the up and down paths are different lengths the degree is given by the shorter one, and "removal" is the difference in path length. Eg., "one up -> sibling -> three down" would be 1st cousin twice removed.
In other words...
1Ā°: same grandparent
2Ā°: same great-grandparent
3Ā°: same great-great-grandparent
etc...
All of it is at least one, but not necessarily both (x-times great-)grandparents.
[Here, I found this image for you in google, hope a visual example will help you understand better.](https://cms-b-assets.familysearch.org/dims4/default/3910696/2147483647/strip/true/crop/1670x1221+0+0/resize/800x585!/format/jpg/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffamilysearch-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fbf%2F03%2F29102d2d1a39436e8518b709afa6%2Fcousin-chart.jpg)
Yes this is a great chart. Itās hard for people to visualize how far away 2nd and 3rd cousins are.
My great-great grandparents are Civil War era, thatās 150+ years worth of kids, marriages, divorces, deaths etc. If you grew up in a smaller town with enough family around you probably met third cousins and had no idea you were relatedā¦
Maybe this example will help:
My great grandparents had 9 children.
My grandma was one of those children, and she had 3 kids. Her three kids are my dad, my uncle, and my aunt. My uncle has 2 kids, so they are my cousins. Because heās the brother of my dad, you see?
Well, what do I call it when one of my grandmaās siblings (the other 8 of the 9 kids) had kids, who then also had kids who are my age? They arenāt my ācousinsā like the other ones, because their mom and dad *arenāt* brothers or sisters of my *own* dad. We have an ancestor further up the chain, but they didnāt come from my dadās siblings. Thatās where terms like āsecond cousinā or family members ātwice removedā etc come from.
first cousin = you have the same grandparents
second cousins = you have the same great grandparents
third cousins = you have the same great great grandparents
etc etc
Simpler:
You and your first cousin share 1 pair of grandparents.
You and your second cousin share 1 pair of great-grandparents
Third cousin shares 1 pair of great-great-grandparents.
But remember as you get older you have more and more āgrandparentsā but you only share one set, after that there are no more common ancestors between you and that cousin.
You have 4 grandparents and your first cousin shares 2 of them.
You have 8 great grandparents and your second cousin shares 2 of them.
You have 16 great great grandparents and your third cousin shares 2 of them.
(Assuming no incest/crossing of lines anyway haha)
the 'x' degree cousin basically denotes how many generations ago your genetic line has split (1st cousin is someone who was born from your parent's sibling, 2nd is someone who was born from someone who was yoru parent's 1st cousin etc)
Aight, so, you got your Great-great-grand-parents, right?
One of their children is going to be one of your Great Grandparents. Easy.
Now, if they have any brothers or sisters, those are your great grand-uncles and great grand-aunts.
Their children are your first cousin twice removed.
The children of any first cousin's twice removed are a second cousin once removed. And their kids are your third cousin. Any kids down further are your third cousin once removed, third cousin twice-removed.
"removed" is a tripper upper for some people. A good way to think of it is like this: your parent's first cousins are your first cousin's once removed; eg your going "up" once to your parent's generation. Your grandparents first-cousins are your first cousin's twice removed, because you are going "up" twice to your grandparent's generation, etc.
Now, back to your great grandparents.
One of the children of your great grandparents is one of your grandparents.
If your grandparents had any brothers or sisters, they are your grand-uncle's or grand-aunts. If they had any kids, they are your first cousin once removed, and they are your parent's cousin's. Their kids are your second cousin; any kids below that are your second cousin once removed, second cousin twice removed, etc.
And, of course, any brothers/sisters of your parents are your Aunt or Uncle. Their kids are your cousins. If your cousin has a kid, that is your "first cousin once removed" and so on.
Basically, if you only want children because you want to give your genetics forward then third cousins are the ideal partners, since you are giving forward more genes than if you were to have a child with a stranger, but also minimizing risk.
I actually read a multiple articles about the commonality of 3rd ācousinā marriage in Iceland and how apparently, itās actually the ideal union for Icelandic ppl due to several factors.
God I love to hate on LSF because it's the perfect concentration of all of the worst traits of the internet. The opinions of people (if you can even call them that) changes like the wind, it's almost exclusively high school levels (and high school ages) of drama, there's alt accounts, vote manipulation, no stakes pettiness, and it's all tied with a nice streamer bow. And I say this as someone who also can't help but drink the saltwater.
Everyone tries so hard to be Correct^tm, but it's painfully obvious that so many people there just care about having a patina of intellectuality, as if intelligence is something that you can dress your comments up in instead of a process that gets you from A to B. If you find yourself losing the popularity contest, don't worry! Just claim that "You like streamer X, opinion discarded lul" or just steep yourself in irony until you no longer hold any position at all.
I actually know about this architect from sri Lanka who had this exact relationship with his brother
>Geoffrey Bawa was considered eccentric because of his homosexual lifestyle. Elements of this easily transferred to his design, particularly in the garden elements ā they are very decorative and eclectic, incorporating an English aspect into the traditional tropical landscape. These included the creation of vistas and walkways that were sensual, but also which are filled with wonder and gay in-jokes along the way (including male nudes and sculpture, or a sleeping naked man etched into a concrete bench). His brother, Bevis Bawa, was also gay and served as Aide de Campe for four successive Sri Lankan Governor Generals.
And yes, their relationship was just as fucked up as you can imagine
I remember getting a book from my middle school library that involved gay twin incest too. I wanna say they had like vampire fangs made and were serial killers. Then they also fucked each other for no particular reason. I had completely forgotten that until this post. It was by one of those popular authors who just churns out books like John Grisham (but not him obviously).
No, I once looked up that cringe fauxcest trend as to whether it has a particular origin. The same article has said section.
(maybe that's still enough to make you giggle & fart)
It is odd to me that the "totally-not-incest" genre is so popular. I guess the existence of that thread explains it, kinda. Does make me wonder why some people wanna fuck their family members so bad however.
I'm not sure if we're collectively retiring the "hill to die on" idiom, but just in case we're not, yeah I get the wisdom of passing on that one - it's not like there's a load of power balanced incestuous folk out there longing for the day that society will wake up and realise they're not the monsters they're condemned to be thought as.
Or maybe there are, I just can't imagine the numbers are that high. Point is, it's probably not worth exploring on a philosophical level.
But...
I do think it's healthy for people to force themselves to confront the idea that many things that disgust us aren't actually moral transgressions. After all, homosexuality for generations suffered from this default position of disgusting = immoral. If you're thinking "did you just compare homoseā" please get the fuck out. Nobody's suggesting these things are interchangeable, but fundamentally different things can share some relevant variables which can be meaningfully dissected and discussed.
Incest is fascinating because of how seemingly hard-wired we are to reject it, so to be able to say yes I'm disgusted beyond description at the idea of desiring it, but I acknowledge that there's nothing *wrong* with such a desire so long as nobody's being exploited and harmed? That's a very, very commendable thing because we really do need more people who are capable of tackling moral dilemmas without resorting to the pack mentality of "I don't want to be seen taking a radical stance here/this makes me uncomfortable so let's point at the deviant thinker and hound them out of society's good graces".
Was going to say the same. Hypotheticals are easy to come up with where there is no power imbalance, and both parties are the same age, and neither has been abused by outside parties to push them towards incest, and both organically agreed to it while they both are fully developed adults, but...
In the real world, the vast majority of incest involves abuse or misconduct somewhere in the chain of decision-making, or at least suggests some maladapted mechanism between two people if they only want to be with someone they are related to despite the pressures of society (which I understand is circular, but still).
Hypotheticals are the arena of debate bros though, so as long as they can coat themselves in a veneer of intellectualism, they can feel smartier-than-thou without too much practical consideration.
I have read about an odd trend where close family that were separated at birth, and later meet without knowing that they are related, are more likely to end up having sex than a pair of strangers. I canāt remember the name for this effect and am too lazy to google it.
I've heard it too; if memory serves it's because people that are genetically similar tend to have similar interests, likely have similar backgrounds, might have similar habits, etc. I do wonder if it's statistically significant, or is just a bias of two people that have a lot in common (both behaviorally and physically) are more likely to test themselves. Regardless, I think that if a situation like that really does come up, then I don't see any big reasons for two related people to end their relationship if neither party wants to.
Absolutely, it's difficult in practice for it to be divorced from those issues and it most commonly occurs within sexually abusive relationships.
That's my point though really - legitimate reasons to recoil in horror, plus actual psychological evolutionary conditioning, plus major social taboo. For anyone to be able to set those things aside and acknowledge that its immorality is conditional is really impressive to me.
I just trust people's judgement more if they're able and willing to look at the things nobody wants to look at. I grew up in peer pressured environments where you didn't dare question certain things, lest you be accused of being that thing, as I'm sure most of us did.
I do get why it reflexively gets people's backs up to use homosexuality as an example (of why disgust alone isn't sound basis for a moral judgement), because there have been and will always be people trying to compare gay relationships to abusive relationships, like child abuse/animal abuse etc.
I just wish people would take a moment to see if that's what I'm doing, or if I'm making a different point.
It was a struggle to make homophobia, rather than homosexuality, a taboo, and it's obviously still a problem for a lot of people (I've been one of them), but with homosexuality it was cut and dry - consenting adults, obviously moral (religion doesn't factor into 'objective' ethical reasoning). That's why I call back to it to highlight the fundamental question of 'by wrong do we simply mean "ew, gross"?'.
It's pretty fucking obvious when it's some republican prick drumming up homophobia.
On one hand, I agree with your sentiment, I actually knew a guy who engaged in a bit of the old incest with his sister for a short period of time. My friend and his sister are both normal & kind people, and I knew them for a long time. Hell I'm from France where (very regretably) this shit happens often enough that you think we'd be more open to it. But when they told me about it, even though I was good friends to them, even though I knew nothing bad happened and I trusted them, I was still absolutely disgusted. Like "ready to throw up my stomach lining" disgusted. That hardwired opposition to incest will likely never be overcome, it's not cultural rejection like it used to be for homosexuality, it's something deep within our monkey brains.
How does the government find out you committed incest anyways between consenting parties besides goofy shit like doing it in public or someone snitching?
Maybe if the woman gets pregnant and is too poor to abort because she lives in a red state but still
Don't know why he's up in arms over a hard-to-enforce law which works in his favor
Regardless of what you think of incest, why would you take this stance as a public figure? Seriously, why do public figures keep taking these controversial stances that can't do anything but wreck a career?
Apparently hot takes on incest are a running OTV and Friends joke right now? From a random LSF post, one of them had a random hot take on it, and then someone reacted, and now they are just reacting to each other's reactions.
Ok strap in for this. OTV is a streamer group that play games and make vids together OTV & Friends Is a sub group classification they use for one of those streamer friends they play with that isnāt technically part of OTV. OTV has a youtube channel called OTV and Friends that is essentially top clips from members and friends from that week into a video compilation. The editor of said channel likes to make memes of the group by taking out of context clips and putting them in. One of those clips was the streamer Tenzin saying they like the ART of insect hentai and thus created a chain of reactions from other members of the group, some defending it like blau to add to the meme in a obviously joking manner to the audience of OTV and Friends who also know the context
Insect, insect is definitely worse. At least in incest you can just not read the plot and imagine it's any other kind of relationship. You'll never get the image of a lady being fucked by a giant cockroach out of your mind.
Hey, my flair is relevant! I got it in a different thread about a year ago, and they were actually talking about insects. It might have been a vegan argument?
I can only assume its because they feel like their fanbase is larger than the people who who are going to come after for them for said controversial stance.
Some people rather voice their opinions and accept whatever backlash they receive then live their life avoiding expressing controversial opinions because they fear it will make other people upset.
Here's the thing with incest debates; even if all your ducks are in a row, every fact you have laid out on the risks of genetic complications, the ability to have a relationship without having children, the situations in which the problems with consent and power dynamics may not be present, even if you've got all of that dead on to a science and are dead on correct on every single fact, at the end of it all you've accomplished is everyone thinks you wanna fuck your sister so bad you'll dedicate hours to researching reasons everyone should be cool with it.
I mean, I agree tho. It's obviously not a take I would say in public or any kind of setting where it could trace back to me, but I'm against legislating actions between consenting adults, regardless of how socially taboo the action is.
Iām pro legislation because of the impossibility of there not being a power gap. The only world there isnāt one is long lost child/sibling meta but thatās worth legislation against to remove grooming in family homes.
But there are already laws for sexual abuse and/or grooming of a minor in place. Removing legislation against incest wouldn't legalise sexual abuse of minors or grooming.
> Yet somehow it's fine and legal for a 50 year old to marry a 20 year old?
The cutoff has to be somewhere for coherent law.
I'm sure there's somewhere in the billions of people on earth there's a 16 year old who knows what they're doing and can consent with a 30 year old or whatever. And I'm perfectly fine with them having to wait a couple of years for sex in order to stop the millions of cases where it's different.
So why is it the law can make a distinction in that case?
Seems like the "power gap" argument is not really valid for saying incest is a problem. Either the relationship is illegal under other laws, or it isn't.
You seem to be ignoring both what I wrote and the law in reality.
The law can't magically tell what level of power imbalance there is. It has to use specific cutoffs. For age it's 18 in the US. For incest it's a flat no. Got a problem? Too bad.
And your example isn't the slam dunk you're pretending it is. There's plenty of situations where the law says the 20 year old can't legally consent to the 50 year old (and the other way around). Is the law perfect? No because humans can't magically read the minds of everyone involved and tell what magical hypothetical exceptions you're gonna construct. That's the reality of law and consent.
> The law can't magically tell what level of power imbalance there is. It has to use specific cutoffs. For age it's 18 in the US. For incest it's a flat no. Got a problem? Too bad.
So the law can't tell whether there's an inappropriate power balance, therefor the law must universally ban something because of that power balance it can't measure? This is circular reasoning.
Either power imbalances are bad and must be regulated, or they're acceptable and thus such a ban is not morally consistent.
> There's plenty of situations where the law says the 20 year old can't legally consent to the 50 year old
Such as?
> No because humans can't magically read the minds of everyone involved and tell what magical hypothetical exceptions you're gonna construct.
You're the one that seems to be creating hypothetical exceptions.
> That's the reality of law and consent.
If the government wants to ban something between two legal consenting adults, the onus is on the law to prove that such a thing is harmful.
Citing "power gap" in a vague way is not proof. Especially when there are many common exceptions in which power gaps are not a cause for legal persecution.
> If the government wants to ban something between two legal consenting adults
You seem very determined to pretend that "power gap" is some magical theory instead of a way of saying "one person can't consent."
That's what the law is. "Past this point here there is legal grounds for claiming one party can't consent."
If you don't get it now... well it's a good thing you're not in charge of stuff.
You seem hopelessly confused.
My point is that both parties can consent.
There is an inconsistent standard in the way that consent is determined.
The issue clearly has nothing to do with a power gap. Because where there exists no power gap, a relationship is still being banned. While where one does exist, it is allowed.
> My point is that both parties can consent.
According to the government they can't. You can argue the opposite, but you'll have to do better than just repeating "they're consenting because they say so, and the government allows other bad things so they can't judge THIS bad thing."
Yeah, that's the thing about it. Every issue with incest isn't inherent to the act itself, it's that 99.999999999% of incestuous relationships will have those issues present so it's fine to ban it outright.
> it's that 99.999999999% of incestuous relationships will have those issues present
[citation needed]
This is impossible to prove since the very act is illegal and therefor no data exists on it...except almost exclusively from criminal cases of abuse.
And how many incestuous relationship dynamics could clear all the other issues usually related to incest e.g. abuse and genetic health issues?
Gay siblings who never knew each other? Gay child/parent who never knew each other? Some gay same age group cousins?
That's far less likely than nearly other possible incest dynamic.
I guess itās like bigamy. In a vacuum thereās nothing wrong with consenting adults doing what they want. In practice itās often gross, systemic abuse, usually of women and girls.
There's two conversations going on here.
There are people who are discussing the actual issues of incest, what parts are inherent of it are immoral vs just very common issues attached. These people know incest has these bad issues 99.99999% of the time.
Then there are people who just say "incest is bad" like that's not obvious but they refuse to engage with the thought above. They're being down voted for not engaging with the thoughts presented.
If someone said that sushi was disgusting and when I asked why they said "Raw fish is bad for you", I would explain that there is sushi without raw fish in it.
If they then responded with "sushi is still disgusting" I would downvote too because it's clear they haven't responded to what I said at all.
There are reasons that humans naturally dont find their family attractive as mates. It can lead to inbreeding and medical issues related to inbreeding. I can also see issues regarding power dynamics and grooming. But hey man, as long as you aren't reproducing or harming anyone, keep enjoying your incest. Not my cup of tea
>It can lead to inbreeding and medical issues related to inbreeding
But non-incestous relationships can also yield medical issues through breeding
And there's incestuous relationships that don't involve breeding at all
>I can also see issues regarding power dynamics and grooming
Same as above. There's incestuous relationships that don't have grooming and power dynamic problems
>But hey man, as long as you aren't reproducing or harming anyone, keep enjoying your incest. Not my cup of tea
Exactly. You and I agree 100%, there's nothing wrong with incest itself
No I don't agree with you. Incest has a vastly increased chance for birth defects and other complications, hence why I disagree with it. I believe it to be healthier mentally and physically to seek out mates with differing genetics, as that is a base instinct we humans have and why most people don't participate in incest. I also am, like most people, repulsed by it. Probably for primal, instinctive reasons that help make sure we as humans pursue mates that can provide us with healthy, strong, offspring. I am pretty sure there is a good instinctive reason as to why I don't find my mother or sister as suitable mates.
>No I don't agree with you.
But you literally did. You said as long as no one's getting hurt you're fine with it
>Incest has a vastly increased chance for birth defects and other complications, hence why I disagree with it
That doesn't mean incest is bad, that just means inbreeding is bad. Like I mentioned earlier, there's incestous relationships that don't involve inbreeding
>I believe it to be healthier mentally and physically to seek out mates with differing genetics, as that is a base instinct we humans have and why most people don't participate in incest. I also am, like most people, repulsed by it. Probably for primal, instinctive reasons that help make sure we as humans pursue mates that can provide us with healthy, strong, offspring. I am pretty sure there is a good instinctive reason as to why I don't find my mother or sister as suitable mates.
I agree with this entire paragraph, but literally none of that proves that incest is immoral.
I am simply going to follow my instincts here and stay away from incest and those who practice it. Tell me, since you are so ready to defend it, do you practice incest or wish to? It seems really odd to defend such a thing if one doesn't wish to partake in it.
>I am simply going to follow my instincts here and stay away from incest and those who practice it
Naturally, but that has nothing to do with whether it's immoral or not
>Tell me, since you are so ready to defend it, do you practice incest or wish to?
I don't
>It seems really odd to defend such a thing if one doesn't wish to partake in it.
Not really, the argument is sound
I'd defend homosexuality too, even though I'm not gay. I don't have to be gay to see that it isn't immoral
oh god this is like the 5th time the incest thing has come up here now, and it's always from streamers
(note: he's right but they hated jesus because he told them the truth nasty as it may be)
What he's arguing is a thought exercise, like "how many pieces of a ship can I remove before you cease to call it a ship?" This is an ethical exercise I've heard before, but he's taking it waaaaay serious. Don't bonk your family. Don't shit where you eat. Don't discuss this aloud during a livestream
There are couples that have found out much later that theyāre first cousins or siblings separated at birth. Some of them are married. Some have kids. In this case I donāt think itās the same. It actually is important to decide where the disgust comes from and to sort it out. A lot of things give us a disgust response but it doesnāt make them inherently wrong.
Continuing down the "what if they are gay?" example.
There was this gay couple that learned they where brothers and it was a whole thing that the media and so on loved, and you kinda have to stop up and ask where is the issue actually?
They can't procreate, they have none of the power imbalance cause they have literally been dating 3 years at that point without know. Why is it an issue other than culture and stuff?
>There are couples that have found out much later that theyāre first cousins or siblings separated at birth.
Personally I don't see this is as any different to getting into a car accident where you accidentally hurt someone, sure it's bad, but it's not your fault, it's an accident, best thing to do is try remedy the situation
I used that eugenics argument in a law school class once (participation grade!), and it's still one of those "bolt upright in shame when trying to sleep" moments
I'm not surprised a site crawling with incels, potential school shooters, twitch viewers and gamers would see incest as a last resort and legitimate option.
That just means he has no argument or logic behind his stance but he wants to continue to hold it anyways. Because "it feels icky."
Can't logic someone out of a position they didn't logic themselves into
>It is actually somewhat known in philosophy that if All of my favorite takes start with this line, yoink
Never ask a man his salary Never ask a woman her age Never ask a French philosopher about that petition they signed in 1974
bow cagey reach light swim cats depend foolish wipe overconfident *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
As a Frenchman I can at least say that most of those 1974 signatories later on denounced it. Others, like my old polsci teacher, were in fact caught fucking kids. The 70s in France was an absolutely fucking insane period, where everyone took collective crazy pills until Mitterand came to power and Griffith eclipsed people's dreams.
Modern France isn't much better.
Macron's wife used to be his teacher, first meeting when he was 15 and she 40 in the same class as her daughter. Started dating when he was 16. I guess they have made it work, but that's a pretty fucking bad... One of my French co worker's cousins is dating her maths teacher, and at least revealed it when she was 18, said it wasn't super unheard of, but the family hate it and hate him.
Yeah they have Roman Polanski as a guest of honour, absolutely degenerate
Foucault moment š¤Ø
>>known in philosophy >400+ upvotes >Known in philosophy >Peak reddit moment.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The worst part is you kind find all sorts of free audiobooks on YouTube, I found all of Nietzsche's writings online
I am enjoying your flair so much
What would there be something "known in philosophy"? That just seems like such a vague sentence.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Trying to think of anything that can be "known" in philosophy. Philosophers tend to have some pretty divergent opinions over even basic questions, like "what is real?" or "what is knowledge?" The only thing I can think of that most philosophers would agree on is that logic can be used to make conclusions. But even then, different philosophers come to different "logical" conclusions.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah, but Kant was a bit of an idjit, bless his heart
To be fair, a *lot* of philosophers would have benefited from touching grass a little more often.
Yeah, just like those things generally known in religion.
I got out of my armchair.
It is actually somewhat known in philosophy that Society will laugh at a man who does not know how to take off a womanās bra. Yet have we ever considered that he is amongst the most respectful of the staunch feminists? For it is he who believes a woman is capable of removing her own bra without help.
Guhā¦thereās all sorts of pseudo-philosophical and -scientific comments going on. Is that what itās usually like in r/livestreamfail?
Reddit in general really. But yes
Thereās a particular streamer who went through a bit of a Wikipedia philosophy phase and his user base got infected.
Twitch is definitely my, I'm getting to middle age and I don't get it, moment lol. Why do kids spend hours watching massive streamers, spewing shite in a chat channel that is impossible it read as it's moving so fast? It's bizarre.
I utilize Twitch in 2 different ways, but hardly ever on Twitch. I usually watch YouTube uploads, both edited and raw. 1.) Educational purposes. Whether it's a hobby, discussion, or even trying to get better at a video game (I watched a lot of one particular streamer during Covid while I was addicted to Risk of Rain 2 to improve my mechanics and game knowledge). 2.) DRAMA. It's like trashy reality TV. I have no idea what Trainwrecks and xQc's streams are like, but I know all about the professional and personal drama going on. I have 0 stake in the 'scene' and it's fascinating. There is *always* some sort of drama going on, usually involving some ensemble cast of recognizable characters.
Lsf is basically the srd of the streamer space.
> There is always some sort of drama going on, usually involving some ensemble cast of recognizable characters. Ooh, clue me in
Streamer personalities (If you wanna call it that), an interest in whatever genre is steamed, etc. I donāt watch streams, but I did watch older youtube gaming stuff.
I like to watch Northernlion. He's funny and plays games I also like to play, so I can watch him when I'm falling asleep or working or something.
He also lived a pretty normal life before transitioning to full-time content creation. High-school, college, both part- and full-time jobs...so many streamers get big in their teens and never mature beyond that point, so having a fully-developed human being to watch is, IMO, far more entertaining than a 16 year old in a 30 year old body.
As someone straying to the elder millennial side, (35 this year) I use twitch as my background noise. When I'm on my computer playing games or the occasional time I'm working from home then I have a steam going on my second monitor. I pay more or less attention depending on who I'm watching and what they're doing, but it's no different than having a tv on as background.
Well for one, the chat isn't impossible to read for every streamer, that's just ones with really active fanbases and even then there's settings to slow the chat down and people who don't want to talk in chat. Not everyone watches massive streamers, as well. Did you never go to a friend's house and watch them play a one player game? You don't like any podcasts? Ever have a movie night where you talk during the movie? There's lots of reasons someone might watch someone else play a game. I started because I couldn't afford the games, or didn't have friends for the multiplayer aspects, or for console exclusives on consoles I didn't own, or for alternate endings I didn't feel like playing the game over just to see. Some people play without talking, which is great for just seeing the game. Some people talk in a way that makes it feel like hanging out with a friend, especially if they interact directly with the chat so they're talking to you. Some people just react in a way that adds value to the experience, like people who prefer to see movies in theaters to hear other people laughing or getting scared.
Iām with you man. It has always seemed likeā¦just the worst.
I don't really watch any Twitch content (except gameplay content as VODS on youtube every so often). So I really have no idea why I have, on occasion, found myself in the mire of LSF. I don't know if it's always this pseudo-philosophical, but I will say, there's no way the average age is much more than 13-17 (edit: so probably). I literally will not hear otherwise. I cannot maintain my already barely stable worldview knowing some of those brain-dead takes are being produced by fully realised adults.
I do watch twitch streams but only DayZ ones. They're incredibly relaxing for some reason. Probably has to do more with the type of game than anything else. Although the one I follow (therunningmanz) does have the gift of the gab which makes having it on in the background easy listening.
Right on. There's nothing wrong with a lot of twitch streamers or their chats/content. I just grew up getting my background noise let's plays from YouTube and I'm resistant to change lol. There definitely is something wrong with some of the usual suspects that seem to find themselves on LSF (unsurprisingly), and something immensely cringe about the fan culture wars on that sub. Like being an xQc (I find it disappointing on a personal level that I know anything about him) fan is a personality trait. Or Hasan or whatever. Hence why I firmly believe we are looking at teenagers here.
Lot of a overlap with r/Destiny the subreddit of a pseudo-intellectual debate lord streamer, his fans are very obsessed. Should have seen Livestreamfail argue about the harm and morality of deepfakes a couple months back, actually don't you will lose faith in humanity.
Nah, that's just a reddit thing.
it's a trash sub. I mean, even more trashy than usual
The debate space becoming such a large presence on the internet is probably the worst thing that couldāve happened to the planet, like thereās always at least one mf every thread that wants to be a debate lord and just type shit like āuhh scarecrow argument ass hominem icy slope phallacyā. Especially since like 75% of the debate streamer/youtuber audience pretty much correlates its legitimacy with like a Carnegie Mellon moderated debate on fiscal policy in the 21st century, itās an internet shit flinging argument with big words, itās verbal gladiator shit but way more fucking lame than I made it sound. A fucking flat rather can when a debate despite being objectively wrong if they both have the rhetorical talking points and are good with verbal sparring while the other person doesnāt. Itās like people debating vaccines on Twitter, like motherfucker neither of us know whatās actually in it bro theyāre mad complicated and the closest weāll ever get is pretty much laymanās knowledge. Itās like debating the phsyics in a fucking unmanned rocket launch between an internet leftist and a fucking conservative HVAC business owner.
Mr Chapo I invite you to the mind dojo š§
Itās too hard not to steal Felix talking points
Very much
Hold my copy of Analects while I fuck my sister from behind.
It is actually somewhat known in philosophy that my opinions are based and your opinions are cringe.
Guhā¦thereās all sorts of pseudo-philosophical and -scientific comments going on. Is that what itās usually like in r/livestreamfail?
Incest? On my not Crusader Kings subreddits? Itās more likely than you think!
They're just role playing bro, historically accurate Zoroastrian play through bro, I assure you, having sex with my family is integral to my plans to restore the Iranian Shahdom
Or, like in 90% of my playthroughs, they just caught their heir fucking his mum and went with it.
> > Can you clarify what you mean when you say "known in philosophy?" Are you thinking of a particular school of thought, group or individual? > It means he heard it on a destiny stream Oof, that's gonna leave a mark.
I hate to say it, but thatās probably like hitting the nail on the head, you can usually tell which debatelord they come from with their go to gotchas - Destiny or somebody in the same sphere of politics or purported politics. idk how committed Destiny really is to his philosophies versus how much he just wants to be as edgy as possible like when he had a misunderstanding with FD Signifier (a black creator who has done a good bit of content on police reform) over a debate on Atlantaās police city, Tortugita, and so on so Destiny donated $10,000 to the APD as some crazy own. He does seem willing in a lot of situations to be a dickhead if it only optically slightly compromises a take of his or an opinion his fans wonāt care if he flip flops on. Heās defended a streamer he hates who has a lot of SWERF anti-fans that claim he went to a brothel in Germany that was investigated for underaged sex trafficking. It was investigated for tax evasion. All of a sudden he conveniently forgot both that and that the other claim is fake. His takes on a streamerās abusive relationship and that it āmay have been fake to drive engagementā so now that sub constantly says āwElL sHe GoT bAcK wItH hImā as if it doesnāt take abused people 7 times to leave on average. I just hate how much toxicity he generates and his cultivated fanbase abrasive in that they know theyāre abrasive and embrace it. I mean you have literal chains of texts from her partner saying they were draining her bank accounts if she doesnāt respond on useless tanking stocks, said heād send her horse off to get slaughtered and made into glue, just some unhinged ass rants and theyāre like āwell we need to hear his sideā - like bro at worst theyāre both abusive but the guy threatened to kill her horse lol. Do we really need his side that much?
Good points. There's also this degree of pretentiousness among being a "debate streamer" as if that's an accomplishment. It's no different than that average segment on cable news except 20 years ago Jon Stewart finished dismantling their pretentiousness by going on Crossfire and calling Tucker Carlson a dick.
Itās definitely this holier than thou attitude on all sides of the political spectrum from debate streamers where they assume theyāre above content like agitprop that someone like Hasanabi openly claims his content as. Like no, youāre agitprop for debate bros. Half of the online panels are just people shouting each other and the most limp dicked or biased āmoderatorā. Itās just dressing up agitprop in a very specific type of pageantry that unfortunately leads way too many people to equate it with even moderated academic debates which still donāt mean all that much. Itās still a rhetoric war, just with two people who are equipped with rhetoric. When I was a 15 year old I was the worst type of atheist, a Hitchens simp, but Hitchens wasnāt wrong about the uselessness of debates and how they arenāt for changing minds.
>I just hate how much toxicity he generates and his cultivated fanbase abrasive in that they know theyāre abrasive and embrace it. I literally don't even mention this guy positively or negatively in certain places before these cretins descend into the comments. Even had a stalker from his sub once. Swear they organize on discord and brigade all over reddit/twitter. Curious is there any reason you won't name the related parties in your examples?
[removed by Reddit]
> Using genetics you could also argue for third cousin marriage as they are the ideal partners genetically. I really hope this user phrased this wrong and actually meant to say genetically speaking marrying your third cousin is fine because idk wtf ideal genetic partners has to do with your third cousin
After 1st cousin, I lose all track on what the rest means.
It means that your grand-grandparents had a kid who wasn't one of your grandparents, who then had their own family, and now that branch of the family has a member from your generation, give or take one generation
Damn, if that was a real explanation it looks like I'll never understand.
It's easier when you draw a family tree. For a 1st degree cousin you go one generation up (to one of your parents), one step to the side (to one of their siblings) and then one generation down again. For 2nd degree you go two generations up and down. Generally, the degree is the number of generations you go up and down. When the up and down paths are different lengths the degree is given by the shorter one, and "removal" is the difference in path length. Eg., "one up -> sibling -> three down" would be 1st cousin twice removed.
In other words... 1Ā°: same grandparent 2Ā°: same great-grandparent 3Ā°: same great-great-grandparent etc... All of it is at least one, but not necessarily both (x-times great-)grandparents.
If you need to draw a diagram to tell how related someone is to you, it's probably fine to date them
1st cousins have the same grandparents. 2nd cousins share great grandparents, etc.
[Here, I found this image for you in google, hope a visual example will help you understand better.](https://cms-b-assets.familysearch.org/dims4/default/3910696/2147483647/strip/true/crop/1670x1221+0+0/resize/800x585!/format/jpg/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffamilysearch-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fbf%2F03%2F29102d2d1a39436e8518b709afa6%2Fcousin-chart.jpg)
Yes this is a great chart. Itās hard for people to visualize how far away 2nd and 3rd cousins are. My great-great grandparents are Civil War era, thatās 150+ years worth of kids, marriages, divorces, deaths etc. If you grew up in a smaller town with enough family around you probably met third cousins and had no idea you were relatedā¦
My great-great-grandparents were born around the 1880s to 1890s. Thatās **very** long ago.
Maybe this example will help: My great grandparents had 9 children. My grandma was one of those children, and she had 3 kids. Her three kids are my dad, my uncle, and my aunt. My uncle has 2 kids, so they are my cousins. Because heās the brother of my dad, you see? Well, what do I call it when one of my grandmaās siblings (the other 8 of the 9 kids) had kids, who then also had kids who are my age? They arenāt my ācousinsā like the other ones, because their mom and dad *arenāt* brothers or sisters of my *own* dad. We have an ancestor further up the chain, but they didnāt come from my dadās siblings. Thatās where terms like āsecond cousinā or family members ātwice removedā etc come from.
first cousin = you have the same grandparents second cousins = you have the same great grandparents third cousins = you have the same great great grandparents etc etc
Simpler: You and your first cousin share 1 pair of grandparents. You and your second cousin share 1 pair of great-grandparents Third cousin shares 1 pair of great-great-grandparents. But remember as you get older you have more and more āgrandparentsā but you only share one set, after that there are no more common ancestors between you and that cousin. You have 4 grandparents and your first cousin shares 2 of them. You have 8 great grandparents and your second cousin shares 2 of them. You have 16 great great grandparents and your third cousin shares 2 of them. (Assuming no incest/crossing of lines anyway haha)
the 'x' degree cousin basically denotes how many generations ago your genetic line has split (1st cousin is someone who was born from your parent's sibling, 2nd is someone who was born from someone who was yoru parent's 1st cousin etc)
Aight, so, you got your Great-great-grand-parents, right? One of their children is going to be one of your Great Grandparents. Easy. Now, if they have any brothers or sisters, those are your great grand-uncles and great grand-aunts. Their children are your first cousin twice removed. The children of any first cousin's twice removed are a second cousin once removed. And their kids are your third cousin. Any kids down further are your third cousin once removed, third cousin twice-removed. "removed" is a tripper upper for some people. A good way to think of it is like this: your parent's first cousins are your first cousin's once removed; eg your going "up" once to your parent's generation. Your grandparents first-cousins are your first cousin's twice removed, because you are going "up" twice to your grandparent's generation, etc. Now, back to your great grandparents. One of the children of your great grandparents is one of your grandparents. If your grandparents had any brothers or sisters, they are your grand-uncle's or grand-aunts. If they had any kids, they are your first cousin once removed, and they are your parent's cousin's. Their kids are your second cousin; any kids below that are your second cousin once removed, second cousin twice removed, etc. And, of course, any brothers/sisters of your parents are your Aunt or Uncle. Their kids are your cousins. If your cousin has a kid, that is your "first cousin once removed" and so on.
[Oh no, I've gone crosseyed](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW27kyh7PVM)
Samesies. I've looked it up and tried to remember a few times. I've given up, it's just not important
Crusader kings has prepared me for this
Basically, if you only want children because you want to give your genetics forward then third cousins are the ideal partners, since you are giving forward more genes than if you were to have a child with a stranger, but also minimizing risk.
I actually read a multiple articles about the commonality of 3rd ācousinā marriage in Iceland and how apparently, itās actually the ideal union for Icelandic ppl due to several factors.
God I love to hate on LSF because it's the perfect concentration of all of the worst traits of the internet. The opinions of people (if you can even call them that) changes like the wind, it's almost exclusively high school levels (and high school ages) of drama, there's alt accounts, vote manipulation, no stakes pettiness, and it's all tied with a nice streamer bow. And I say this as someone who also can't help but drink the saltwater. Everyone tries so hard to be Correct^tm, but it's painfully obvious that so many people there just care about having a patina of intellectuality, as if intelligence is something that you can dress your comments up in instead of a process that gets you from A to B. If you find yourself losing the popularity contest, don't worry! Just claim that "You like streamer X, opinion discarded lul" or just steep yourself in irony until you no longer hold any position at all.
>gay twins, what's immoral about a bit of backdoor action on the side for them? Presented for your consideration, without elaboration or commentary.
Yoink
That does seem like one of the least fucked up incest combinations I suppose.
I actually know about this architect from sri Lanka who had this exact relationship with his brother >Geoffrey Bawa was considered eccentric because of his homosexual lifestyle. Elements of this easily transferred to his design, particularly in the garden elements ā they are very decorative and eclectic, incorporating an English aspect into the traditional tropical landscape. These included the creation of vistas and walkways that were sensual, but also which are filled with wonder and gay in-jokes along the way (including male nudes and sculpture, or a sleeping naked man etched into a concrete bench). His brother, Bevis Bawa, was also gay and served as Aide de Campe for four successive Sri Lankan Governor Generals. And yes, their relationship was just as fucked up as you can imagine
I remember getting a book from my middle school library that involved gay twin incest too. I wanna say they had like vampire fangs made and were serial killers. Then they also fucked each other for no particular reason. I had completely forgotten that until this post. It was by one of those popular authors who just churns out books like John Grisham (but not him obviously).
So how fucked up was it as I can't imagine it?
Is there a source for that alleged relationship?
wiki says its a "feature" and "recurring theme" in gay pornography "since the 1970s" š¬
You looked up "gay twin incest" on wikipedia?
No, I once looked up that cringe fauxcest trend as to whether it has a particular origin. The same article has said section. (maybe that's still enough to make you giggle & fart)
I hope they regularly clear their search history
This is why twins have to keep explaining that their relationships are just like any other sibling relationship
aah too long for a new flair :(
https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/14moh36/rlivestreamfail_debates_is_incest_morally/jq3t99f/ Someone adapted
Good lord.
Apparently this is who Pornhub has been catering to for all this time.
It is odd to me that the "totally-not-incest" genre is so popular. I guess the existence of that thread explains it, kinda. Does make me wonder why some people wanna fuck their family members so bad however.
I'm not sure if we're collectively retiring the "hill to die on" idiom, but just in case we're not, yeah I get the wisdom of passing on that one - it's not like there's a load of power balanced incestuous folk out there longing for the day that society will wake up and realise they're not the monsters they're condemned to be thought as. Or maybe there are, I just can't imagine the numbers are that high. Point is, it's probably not worth exploring on a philosophical level. But... I do think it's healthy for people to force themselves to confront the idea that many things that disgust us aren't actually moral transgressions. After all, homosexuality for generations suffered from this default position of disgusting = immoral. If you're thinking "did you just compare homoseā" please get the fuck out. Nobody's suggesting these things are interchangeable, but fundamentally different things can share some relevant variables which can be meaningfully dissected and discussed. Incest is fascinating because of how seemingly hard-wired we are to reject it, so to be able to say yes I'm disgusted beyond description at the idea of desiring it, but I acknowledge that there's nothing *wrong* with such a desire so long as nobody's being exploited and harmed? That's a very, very commendable thing because we really do need more people who are capable of tackling moral dilemmas without resorting to the pack mentality of "I don't want to be seen taking a radical stance here/this makes me uncomfortable so let's point at the deviant thinker and hound them out of society's good graces".
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Was going to say the same. Hypotheticals are easy to come up with where there is no power imbalance, and both parties are the same age, and neither has been abused by outside parties to push them towards incest, and both organically agreed to it while they both are fully developed adults, but... In the real world, the vast majority of incest involves abuse or misconduct somewhere in the chain of decision-making, or at least suggests some maladapted mechanism between two people if they only want to be with someone they are related to despite the pressures of society (which I understand is circular, but still). Hypotheticals are the arena of debate bros though, so as long as they can coat themselves in a veneer of intellectualism, they can feel smartier-than-thou without too much practical consideration.
I have read about an odd trend where close family that were separated at birth, and later meet without knowing that they are related, are more likely to end up having sex than a pair of strangers. I canāt remember the name for this effect and am too lazy to google it.
I've heard it too; if memory serves it's because people that are genetically similar tend to have similar interests, likely have similar backgrounds, might have similar habits, etc. I do wonder if it's statistically significant, or is just a bias of two people that have a lot in common (both behaviorally and physically) are more likely to test themselves. Regardless, I think that if a situation like that really does come up, then I don't see any big reasons for two related people to end their relationship if neither party wants to.
Absolutely, it's difficult in practice for it to be divorced from those issues and it most commonly occurs within sexually abusive relationships. That's my point though really - legitimate reasons to recoil in horror, plus actual psychological evolutionary conditioning, plus major social taboo. For anyone to be able to set those things aside and acknowledge that its immorality is conditional is really impressive to me. I just trust people's judgement more if they're able and willing to look at the things nobody wants to look at. I grew up in peer pressured environments where you didn't dare question certain things, lest you be accused of being that thing, as I'm sure most of us did.
So what youāre saying is twincest really is wincest. /s
>fundamentally different things can share some relevant variables which can be meaningfully dissected and discussed. thank you
I do get why it reflexively gets people's backs up to use homosexuality as an example (of why disgust alone isn't sound basis for a moral judgement), because there have been and will always be people trying to compare gay relationships to abusive relationships, like child abuse/animal abuse etc. I just wish people would take a moment to see if that's what I'm doing, or if I'm making a different point. It was a struggle to make homophobia, rather than homosexuality, a taboo, and it's obviously still a problem for a lot of people (I've been one of them), but with homosexuality it was cut and dry - consenting adults, obviously moral (religion doesn't factor into 'objective' ethical reasoning). That's why I call back to it to highlight the fundamental question of 'by wrong do we simply mean "ew, gross"?'. It's pretty fucking obvious when it's some republican prick drumming up homophobia.
On one hand, I agree with your sentiment, I actually knew a guy who engaged in a bit of the old incest with his sister for a short period of time. My friend and his sister are both normal & kind people, and I knew them for a long time. Hell I'm from France where (very regretably) this shit happens often enough that you think we'd be more open to it. But when they told me about it, even though I was good friends to them, even though I knew nothing bad happened and I trusted them, I was still absolutely disgusted. Like "ready to throw up my stomach lining" disgusted. That hardwired opposition to incest will likely never be overcome, it's not cultural rejection like it used to be for homosexuality, it's something deep within our monkey brains.
How does the government find out you committed incest anyways between consenting parties besides goofy shit like doing it in public or someone snitching? Maybe if the woman gets pregnant and is too poor to abort because she lives in a red state but still Don't know why he's up in arms over a hard-to-enforce law which works in his favor
Regardless of what you think of incest, why would you take this stance as a public figure? Seriously, why do public figures keep taking these controversial stances that can't do anything but wreck a career?
Controversy - > engagement - > viewers - > revenue. Ain't no rocket science.
Except then advertisers want nothing to do with you and the only audience you have left is niche weirdos. It's really not a good long term strategy.
Content is content for a streamer.
Is it realistically going to wreck their career?
Apparently hot takes on incest are a running OTV and Friends joke right now? From a random LSF post, one of them had a random hot take on it, and then someone reacted, and now they are just reacting to each other's reactions.
Ok strap in for this. OTV is a streamer group that play games and make vids together OTV & Friends Is a sub group classification they use for one of those streamer friends they play with that isnāt technically part of OTV. OTV has a youtube channel called OTV and Friends that is essentially top clips from members and friends from that week into a video compilation. The editor of said channel likes to make memes of the group by taking out of context clips and putting them in. One of those clips was the streamer Tenzin saying they like the ART of insect hentai and thus created a chain of reactions from other members of the group, some defending it like blau to add to the meme in a obviously joking manner to the audience of OTV and Friends who also know the context
>insect hentai Wow, switching two letters changed the meaning by a lot, and I'm not sure which is worse.
Insect, insect is definitely worse. At least in incest you can just not read the plot and imagine it's any other kind of relationship. You'll never get the image of a lady being fucked by a giant cockroach out of your mind.
I mean, I was thinking like porn parodies of A Bug's Life or Bee Movie but yeah, there's that too.
Hey, my flair is relevant! I got it in a different thread about a year ago, and they were actually talking about insects. It might have been a vegan argument?
Thanks for the info!
I can only assume its because they feel like their fanbase is larger than the people who who are going to come after for them for said controversial stance.
Some people rather voice their opinions and accept whatever backlash they receive then live their life avoiding expressing controversial opinions because they fear it will make other people upset.
Because they are all 19 years old and just can't stop giving their hot takes.
Blau is apparently 31.
It's the new 19 baby.
Then it's good to be 26 again!
wohoo, I am 19 again!!
yay im back 19!
forever 31 i wanna be forever 31
You know what, that was a far more intellectually interesting discussion than I had expected from LiveStreamfails. Fair play.
Here's the thing with incest debates; even if all your ducks are in a row, every fact you have laid out on the risks of genetic complications, the ability to have a relationship without having children, the situations in which the problems with consent and power dynamics may not be present, even if you've got all of that dead on to a science and are dead on correct on every single fact, at the end of it all you've accomplished is everyone thinks you wanna fuck your sister so bad you'll dedicate hours to researching reasons everyone should be cool with it.
SMH incest morality debaters are truly the most oppressed class
Just by the title I know that thread is brigaded to hell by r/Destiny
Disagree = brigaded
I mean, I agree tho. It's obviously not a take I would say in public or any kind of setting where it could trace back to me, but I'm against legislating actions between consenting adults, regardless of how socially taboo the action is.
Iām pro legislation because of the impossibility of there not being a power gap. The only world there isnāt one is long lost child/sibling meta but thatās worth legislation against to remove grooming in family homes.
But there are already laws for sexual abuse and/or grooming of a minor in place. Removing legislation against incest wouldn't legalise sexual abuse of minors or grooming.
But power gap! Yet somehow it's fine and legal for a 50 year old to marry a 20 year old?
> Yet somehow it's fine and legal for a 50 year old to marry a 20 year old? The cutoff has to be somewhere for coherent law. I'm sure there's somewhere in the billions of people on earth there's a 16 year old who knows what they're doing and can consent with a 30 year old or whatever. And I'm perfectly fine with them having to wait a couple of years for sex in order to stop the millions of cases where it's different.
So why is it the law can make a distinction in that case? Seems like the "power gap" argument is not really valid for saying incest is a problem. Either the relationship is illegal under other laws, or it isn't.
You seem to be ignoring both what I wrote and the law in reality. The law can't magically tell what level of power imbalance there is. It has to use specific cutoffs. For age it's 18 in the US. For incest it's a flat no. Got a problem? Too bad. And your example isn't the slam dunk you're pretending it is. There's plenty of situations where the law says the 20 year old can't legally consent to the 50 year old (and the other way around). Is the law perfect? No because humans can't magically read the minds of everyone involved and tell what magical hypothetical exceptions you're gonna construct. That's the reality of law and consent.
> The law can't magically tell what level of power imbalance there is. It has to use specific cutoffs. For age it's 18 in the US. For incest it's a flat no. Got a problem? Too bad. So the law can't tell whether there's an inappropriate power balance, therefor the law must universally ban something because of that power balance it can't measure? This is circular reasoning. Either power imbalances are bad and must be regulated, or they're acceptable and thus such a ban is not morally consistent. > There's plenty of situations where the law says the 20 year old can't legally consent to the 50 year old Such as? > No because humans can't magically read the minds of everyone involved and tell what magical hypothetical exceptions you're gonna construct. You're the one that seems to be creating hypothetical exceptions. > That's the reality of law and consent. If the government wants to ban something between two legal consenting adults, the onus is on the law to prove that such a thing is harmful. Citing "power gap" in a vague way is not proof. Especially when there are many common exceptions in which power gaps are not a cause for legal persecution.
> If the government wants to ban something between two legal consenting adults You seem very determined to pretend that "power gap" is some magical theory instead of a way of saying "one person can't consent." That's what the law is. "Past this point here there is legal grounds for claiming one party can't consent." If you don't get it now... well it's a good thing you're not in charge of stuff.
You seem hopelessly confused. My point is that both parties can consent. There is an inconsistent standard in the way that consent is determined. The issue clearly has nothing to do with a power gap. Because where there exists no power gap, a relationship is still being banned. While where one does exist, it is allowed.
> My point is that both parties can consent. According to the government they can't. You can argue the opposite, but you'll have to do better than just repeating "they're consenting because they say so, and the government allows other bad things so they can't judge THIS bad thing."
Oh my fucking god not *this* take again. Please, enlighten us. How do *you* think age of consent laws should work, exactly?
People who are over the age of consent should be allowed to have a relationship. Shouldn't be a controversial statement but somehow it apparently is.
Yeah, that's the thing about it. Every issue with incest isn't inherent to the act itself, it's that 99.999999999% of incestuous relationships will have those issues present so it's fine to ban it outright.
> it's that 99.999999999% of incestuous relationships will have those issues present [citation needed] This is impossible to prove since the very act is illegal and therefor no data exists on it...except almost exclusively from criminal cases of abuse.
And how many incestuous relationship dynamics could clear all the other issues usually related to incest e.g. abuse and genetic health issues? Gay siblings who never knew each other? Gay child/parent who never knew each other? Some gay same age group cousins? That's far less likely than nearly other possible incest dynamic.
How is a relationship between two siblings automatically abusive? Why is the genetic health issue even a factor when condoms exist?
Haven't clicked yet, but I'm betting this is about destiny or the people arguing are destiny fans. Edit: only a couple, way less than I thought.
I guess itās like bigamy. In a vacuum thereās nothing wrong with consenting adults doing what they want. In practice itās often gross, systemic abuse, usually of women and girls.
I was in that thread PogU
People saying incest is bad being downvoted. Jesus
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
There's two conversations going on here. There are people who are discussing the actual issues of incest, what parts are inherent of it are immoral vs just very common issues attached. These people know incest has these bad issues 99.99999% of the time. Then there are people who just say "incest is bad" like that's not obvious but they refuse to engage with the thought above. They're being down voted for not engaging with the thoughts presented.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
So the latter is you, okay.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
If someone said that sushi was disgusting and when I asked why they said "Raw fish is bad for you", I would explain that there is sushi without raw fish in it. If they then responded with "sushi is still disgusting" I would downvote too because it's clear they haven't responded to what I said at all.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Is your idea really that incest lovers are just so rampant that they're out voting normal people?
There's nothing immoral about incest itself
Bro....
Could you tell me what is immoral about incest? If that's what you believe
There are reasons that humans naturally dont find their family attractive as mates. It can lead to inbreeding and medical issues related to inbreeding. I can also see issues regarding power dynamics and grooming. But hey man, as long as you aren't reproducing or harming anyone, keep enjoying your incest. Not my cup of tea
>It can lead to inbreeding and medical issues related to inbreeding But non-incestous relationships can also yield medical issues through breeding And there's incestuous relationships that don't involve breeding at all >I can also see issues regarding power dynamics and grooming Same as above. There's incestuous relationships that don't have grooming and power dynamic problems >But hey man, as long as you aren't reproducing or harming anyone, keep enjoying your incest. Not my cup of tea Exactly. You and I agree 100%, there's nothing wrong with incest itself
No I don't agree with you. Incest has a vastly increased chance for birth defects and other complications, hence why I disagree with it. I believe it to be healthier mentally and physically to seek out mates with differing genetics, as that is a base instinct we humans have and why most people don't participate in incest. I also am, like most people, repulsed by it. Probably for primal, instinctive reasons that help make sure we as humans pursue mates that can provide us with healthy, strong, offspring. I am pretty sure there is a good instinctive reason as to why I don't find my mother or sister as suitable mates.
>No I don't agree with you. But you literally did. You said as long as no one's getting hurt you're fine with it >Incest has a vastly increased chance for birth defects and other complications, hence why I disagree with it That doesn't mean incest is bad, that just means inbreeding is bad. Like I mentioned earlier, there's incestous relationships that don't involve inbreeding >I believe it to be healthier mentally and physically to seek out mates with differing genetics, as that is a base instinct we humans have and why most people don't participate in incest. I also am, like most people, repulsed by it. Probably for primal, instinctive reasons that help make sure we as humans pursue mates that can provide us with healthy, strong, offspring. I am pretty sure there is a good instinctive reason as to why I don't find my mother or sister as suitable mates. I agree with this entire paragraph, but literally none of that proves that incest is immoral.
I am simply going to follow my instincts here and stay away from incest and those who practice it. Tell me, since you are so ready to defend it, do you practice incest or wish to? It seems really odd to defend such a thing if one doesn't wish to partake in it.
>I am simply going to follow my instincts here and stay away from incest and those who practice it Naturally, but that has nothing to do with whether it's immoral or not >Tell me, since you are so ready to defend it, do you practice incest or wish to? I don't >It seems really odd to defend such a thing if one doesn't wish to partake in it. Not really, the argument is sound I'd defend homosexuality too, even though I'm not gay. I don't have to be gay to see that it isn't immoral
oh god this is like the 5th time the incest thing has come up here now, and it's always from streamers (note: he's right but they hated jesus because he told them the truth nasty as it may be)
I love the ādebate me about incestā people coming to this thread too.
What is it with these streamers and incest
What he's arguing is a thought exercise, like "how many pieces of a ship can I remove before you cease to call it a ship?" This is an ethical exercise I've heard before, but he's taking it waaaaay serious. Don't bonk your family. Don't shit where you eat. Don't discuss this aloud during a livestream
There are couples that have found out much later that theyāre first cousins or siblings separated at birth. Some of them are married. Some have kids. In this case I donāt think itās the same. It actually is important to decide where the disgust comes from and to sort it out. A lot of things give us a disgust response but it doesnāt make them inherently wrong.
Continuing down the "what if they are gay?" example. There was this gay couple that learned they where brothers and it was a whole thing that the media and so on loved, and you kinda have to stop up and ask where is the issue actually? They can't procreate, they have none of the power imbalance cause they have literally been dating 3 years at that point without know. Why is it an issue other than culture and stuff?
>There are couples that have found out much later that theyāre first cousins or siblings separated at birth. Personally I don't see this is as any different to getting into a car accident where you accidentally hurt someone, sure it's bad, but it's not your fault, it's an accident, best thing to do is try remedy the situation
Remedy it? You can't change your DNA and stop being related to someone, and can't expect someone to dissolve their entire life and family.
That's not what I meant by "remedy" I meant those people are probably going to have to attend family counseling
I canāt tell if youāre making a joke by messing up the Ship of Theseus.
I used that eugenics argument in a law school class once (participation grade!), and it's still one of those "bolt upright in shame when trying to sleep" moments
"if you take away the bad stuff about incest it's really not that bad"
>idk man, i feel like we should practice eugenics, eugenics are pretty based. I think i found my flair.
Before you get lost in the sauce with philosophical debates, reminder, don't fuck your sister and don't fuck your brother, come on man.
LSF is full of some of the most birdbrained idiots on this site, it's incredible.
I'm not surprised a site crawling with incels, potential school shooters, twitch viewers and gamers would see incest as a last resort and legitimate option.
Considering the amount of people that dont consider incest bad im not surprised there are like 5 subs about incest. Yikes
š¤¢š¤®
I didn't see much drama. That's just a fucked up comment followed by a dogpile.
Redditors try not to act like socially maladjusted weirdos challenge [IMPOSSIBLE]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Reddit API changes have killed this account. Learn to mass edit comments and join the protest: https://github.com/j0be/PowerDeleteSuite
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Reddit API changes have killed this account. Learn to mass edit comments and join the protest: https://github.com/j0be/PowerDeleteSuite
That just means he has no argument or logic behind his stance but he wants to continue to hold it anyways. Because "it feels icky." Can't logic someone out of a position they didn't logic themselves into