Gay Patriot Header Image

And Now, Social Juicebox Wankers Are Mad About ‘South Park’ Video Game

Posted by V the K at 8:39 am - October 4, 2016.
Filed under: Gay Culture

Have these people got anything better to do? Sadly… no.

GaymerX, the annual convention aimed at LGBT gamers, has always been a proud safe space, even inviting the much-maligned Anita Sarkeesian to its third convention.

This year, the founder, Matt Conn, departed from the safe space script and invited the latest game in the South Park franchise— and it led to some loud hyperventilating among attendees.

Nora Reed, an outspoken and often enraged internet social justice warrior, claims that the inclusion of the new South Park game at the convention in Santa Clara, Calif., this past weekend was anti-diversity.

As we used to say back in the 90’s, “Get a f–king life you idiotic waste of flesh and oxygen.” Nowadays, we’d tell Nora Reed to go die in a fire. (GDIAF). The 90’s were a more civilized time.

The kicker is, the South Park game hasn’t even been released yet. The wankers are upset about the content it might contain.

(more…)

The Tulip Mania of Queer Theory

Posted by V the K at 8:29 am - October 4, 2016.
Filed under: Academia

In which an academic explains how the Academic Elite became absolutely obsessed with the sexual predilections of a tiny minority of people and elevated them to become the central focus of the humanities.

The TLDR version is this. In the 1990’s, a bunch of liberal white college professors seized on gay rights as a way of taking up or re-living the black civil rights cause of the 1960’s.  One-upmanship followed as professors tried to prove they were more into the cause than their colleagues. Over time, ‘Queer Theory’ became the dominant mode of all academia; because it was trendy and liberal professors wanted to be perceived as “with it.”

From this 30-year vantage point, the intrepid idiom and bold disclosures that thrilled and emboldened the 1990s faculty look less descriptive than hortatory. Take away the magnification and we have a more modest and accurate assessment of parts of our culture—and a less thrilling and theoretical one. Only when we define queerness as anything outside simple and straightforward heterosexual behavior, and only when we interpret homophobia as anything less than full political and personal support of homosexuality, do the sweeping contentions of queer theory hold up. Without that extension, queerness slips back into the margin—not by an act of power, but as the consequence of relative lack of interest.

That’s what we see today, the fatigue that afflicts any theory once the universal claims lose their emotional force, as inevitably happens over time and with repetition. The enclave of humanities research has always had its rituals and taboos, and they lead inhabitants to think that what holds true and proper within also holds without. Reading queer theory and attending queer lectures is to enter an impassioned universe fraught with sexual complication and risk. But most people don’t share the outlook. Representations of sexual variation are common in higher education today, not to mention in movies, TV, and the news, but the vast majority of Americans are firm in their basic sexual aims and selves, and homosexual impulse and homophobic fear and hate aren’t part of their condition. We still have heteronormative attitudes. They are the natural result of nearly all Americans having heterosexual feelings. Queerness is part of the human condition, a small part. Queer theory began with an exaggeration, an overestimation of homosexuality and anti-homosexuality, and the emotional and political and institutional contexts of its origination allowed the exaggeration to stand uncorrected. Queer theory is now a part of American intellectual history, but it will be remembered more as an advocacy effort than as a school of thought. [Emphasis added]