Hopefully, the Voice of a New Generation

by on

Relatedly:

16 Comments for “Hopefully, the Voice of a New Generation”

  1. posted by Jorge on

    And the newest video on her page: “Is My Body Ugly? : Vagina, Stretch Marks & Fat” Ugh. Women talk too much about their bodies. Could I as a man get away with even mentioning making a video like that? (TABOO~M!)

    It’s her whole video selection! Vaginal fisting? A porn star teaching to “sq—– on command”? 7 sex positions for stimulation? It’s like Dan Savage bordering on Howard Stern as a soccer mom vloger. This is far beyond playing Batman and Catwoman in sex positivity, or should I say Harley Quinn and Poison Ivy? The absence of a trigger warning is not well taken.

    And you think it’s a good thing that the progressive left’s schism is cutting her off and making her the “voice of a new generation”? Well, I don’t. I think it replays half the plotline of the new Harley Quinn movie. It makes her and her constituency isolated from both the right and the left and vulnerable to a hateful general public.

    The leftists need to take her back.

  2. posted by Nelson G on

    Arielle Scarcella is a grifter and con-artist who has done more than her fair share of aiding and abetting the TIM community normalize sex by deception. In 2017 she produced a video featuring herself and a “trans-woman” coaching and grooming a minor into transgenderism.

    It’s one thing to have disdain and contempt for the left. It’s something else when you’re so desperate to make your case you make this person the pillar of your argument.

  3. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    And you think it’s a good thing that the progressive left’s schism is cutting her off and making her the “voice of a new generation”? … The leftists need to take her back.

    Why? She’s a flash in the pan surfing the waves of false outrage for the sake of publicity and market share in the blogosphere, someone nobody will even remember ten years from now. Think Milo Silliopolous.

    If conservative homosexuals think that she is “the Voice of a New Generation”, more power to them. If nothing else, an influx of people like her into conservative homosexual ranks might make LCR meetings less tiresome. Remember how they all creamed themselves when Milo became “the Voice of a New Generation” about a quarter generation ago?

    • posted by Jorge on

      Why?

      Freaks belong with their own kind.

      Think Milo Silliopolous.

      Precisely. Milo by all appearances has survived his fall without spiraling into anything out of control. He might even have a comeback (he won’t). That’s undoubtedly because of connections he maintains among the right.

      You seem to think these sort of people are lone wolves. But where they go, many others rise and fall. A just and stable society requires that they have a place in it.

      • posted by JohnInCA on

        Freaks belong with their own kind.

        If we listened to people that said things like that, we wouldn’t have one political party on our side, we’d have zero political parties on our side.

        • posted by Jorge on

          Sorry, I have the exact opposite view. Solidarity is power.

          • posted by JohnInCA on

            To be clear, are you the same “Jorge” who supported Santorum back in 2012?

            ’cause if so, I’d love to hear either (A) how you reconcile “freaks belong with their own kind” and support for a man that thinks sodomy laws are nifty keen, or (B) you explain what changed your mind on your conservative (who is most certainly not your “own kind”) support.

          • posted by Jorge on

            You just asked a prude with a Spanish name how a “West Side Story” reference to left-wing reactionarism reconciles with social conservative reactionarism.

            That wasn’t your best moment.

          • posted by JohnInCA on

            I just asked a person with a user-name Jorge, who just, apparently un-ironically, said “freaks belong with their own kind”, if they’re the same “Jorge” from 2012 who supported a politician who wanted to put “Freaks” like “Jorge” in prison.

            Name origins, theatrical references, and prudery are all non-sequiturs.

            SImply put, if you are that same “Jorge”, then your lack of self-awareness (that your own advice would have you leave your chosen political party) is a big bit of context to understanding the innaneness of your response here.

  4. posted by Kosh III on

    I’ve never heard of this gal and thankfully never will again.
    What makes her “left?” Suport for Medicare for All, free public education, government run roads and highways, government monopolies on electricity, water and sewers, Social Security?
    Bogus outrage.

  5. posted by Kosh III on

    https://www.rawstory.com/2020/02/texas-gop-official-compares-lgbtq-republicans-to-murderers-and-burglars-in-unhinged-facebook-rant/

    Mr Miller, tell us again how the Regressive Party has changed it tune by having folks like De Maio and Grenell?

    If she rejects adulterers and fornicators then look no further than the White House.

  6. posted by Jorge on

    I just asked a person with a user-name Jorge, who just, apparently un-ironically, said “freaks belong with their own kind”, if they’re the same “Jorge” from 2012 who supported a politician who wanted to put “Freaks” like “Jorge” in prison.

    “Name origins, theatrical references, and prudery are all non-sequiturs.”

    That they are non-sequiturs is precisely why I do not respect your question.

    They are clues that can lead to reasonable suppositions, the ability of which to make should lead you away from asking rigidly stereotypical questions in the first place. Stating things unironically is something I have an almost pathological inability to do.

    • posted by JohnInCA on

      Asking someone to confirm if they’re a similarly-named person is “rigidly stereotypical”?

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      Asking someone to confirm if they’re a similarly-named person is “rigidly stereotypical”?

      Careful. You might be provoking the Jorge formerly known as Jorge into one of his signature word salads.

      • posted by Jorge on

        You’ll be fine as long as you don’t make any references to the #MeToo, Brutus movement.

        We’re Trump’s most loyal supporters.

  7. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    “His gayness isn’t sufficiently transgressive.”

    I assume that you are using the word “transgressive” in the standard sense, that is “a violation of accepted or imposed boundaries, especially those of social acceptability”, rather than to denote a weird conservative word-play on “transgender”. I ask only because I’ve noticed that the hard right, like evangelical Christians, seem to be developing a vocabulary of their own.

    Assuming the standard sense, my own view is that for many/most conservatives, Mayor Buttigieg’s marriage is more than sufficiently transgressive in and of itself (c.f. 2016 Republican Platform, Rush Limbaugh, and so on), not to mention offensive.

    As Stephen is old enough to know (but also apparently old enough to have forgotten the many articles/essays he wrote on the subject in the 1990’s), there has always been a radical fringe of the LGBT movement that disdained the grassroots understanding of gays and lesbians that marriage in and of itself was a positive goal, a goal that stood at the root (personally, culturally and legally) of our long struggle for equal treatment under the law.

    That fringe lost the argument long ago, and it is irrelevant in the context of Mayor Buttigieg.

Comments are closed.