you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 125 points 1 year ago (27 children)

Yes, a cartoon lesbian couple is highly inappropriate for the grandson of a drug huffing, ho banging gangster.

  • source
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 66 points 1 year ago (23 children)

    While his take here is shitty, I think doing drugs and having sex with women for money is not something that warrants out right condemnation imo.

    His involvement in murder and assault, and the sexual assault and battery accusations are much more damming and legit reasons to shit on him though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 53 points 1 year ago (20 children)

    it's not condemnation, it's pointing out hypocrisy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (15 children)

    I don't know if hypocrisy is the right term. Maybe in an extremely broad sense but then it starts to lose its meaning.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    the man has financed and produced lesbian pornos. i don't think it's that broad.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (13 children)

    Okay but nobody said that. They said 'how dare somebody who likes drugs and has done sex work hate someobe marginalized!'

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (12 children)

    i'm reading it as a dig on things that are indicative of his general demeanour and the way he has historically wished to be perceived. it's not about smoking weed and banging hoes (both of which i must point out are illegal in most of the world still), it's about being someone who hoes weeds and bangs smoke, and then drawing the line at a queer couple. it's not "a person", it's specifically snoop.

    in that situation, him also having produced pornos lines up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (11 children)

    And thats problematic in just... So many fucking ways.

    Like i genuinely dont even know where to start, but maybe: it feels a little homophobic, and also you're accepting the puritanical cultural framework of what is and isn't transgressive, that makes a drag queen reading books to kids more outrageous than avpriest fucking them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (10 children)

    no? i'm talking about a single person. i'm not generalising in any way.

    nowhere did i state that any of the things he's done are wrong or right, simply that he has inconsistent beliefs. my own beliefs did not come into it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (9 children)

    What you center in discourse is part of the message tho.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (8 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    I cant tell if youre being obtuse and tedious or genuinely curious here

    But have you stopped beating your wife?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    i just find it so annoying when specific statements are generalized to turn an argument around. it's the typical internet argument of "oh you like pancakes? why do you hate waffles? don't you know more people like waffles? why are you shitting on them like this? you asshole"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    what's the splash damage from calling snoop a hypocrite?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Scroll up. This was explained. If you think it was not adequately explained; we do not need to speak.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    what i see when i scroll up is you pivoting from "this specific guy is a hypocrite" to "someone saying this after having done that is a hypocrite" and condemning that. but those two things are not equivalent at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    But there's nothing wrong with fucking or doing drigs, and the perspn 'pointing out hypocrisy' didn't mention that hes a rapist

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Conservatives THINK there's something wrong with that shit though. He's acting like someone who thinks there's something wrong with that shit, while still trying to cash in on that image

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • And im saying we shouldnt validate that. Fuck them, they're wrong about basically everuthing, including being conservative.

    Like the greek classics statuewank guys who dont want to see the original pain jobs or all the gay sex people had in front of them.

    Like, if they can't compromise, cant consider us human, why pretend, why try to compromise with them? Just tell them its whatever compromise the left comes up with by ourselves, or the highway. I bet it would even work better politically.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Broadly it might not be worthy of condemnation, but in the context of "child appropriate" it would seem to be way less appropriate than what he is complaining about.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)