this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2025
39 points (100.0% liked)

Slop.

715 readers
441 users here now

For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Do not let the armies of bile-spewing neofascists on social media fool you into thinking that neofascist intellectuals are nonexistent; any movement can gain intellectuals. That being said, while Kirkegaard has at least some of the form nailed down, he is too clumsy to manipulate anybody who is not already inclined to agree with his politics.

For starters, Kirkegaard does not build up to his conclusions by seducing his audience with a series of facile truths, like a more competent manipulator would. Instead, he trusts his audience to already agree with the dubious conclusion that intelligence is measurable rather than a matter of opinion. Simultaneously, he trusts his audience to take evolutionary psychology without a grain of salt.

Kirkegaard also makes the amateur mistake of letting his mask of professionalism slip by injecting his research with subjective language or, in other articles, taking potshots at somebody. Although it is less prominent in this particular entry, I think that we can still see something that clearly does not belong here:

This suggests some kind of confounding factor, e.g. Asians living in more removed or sexually liberated places (choose your own description!).

Of course, the elephant in the room here is the author’s laughworthy assumption that preference for certain body parts is in any way correlated to intelligence. What is to stop somebody with (say) a doctorate from preferring buttocks over breasts? The answer is nothing. Contrary to what evolutionary psychologists believe, there are plenty of ordinary men (including White men) who are otherwise attracted to women yet simply do not find breasts sexually arousing, as Clellan S. Ford and Frank A. Beach documented in Patterns of Sexual Behavior.

However, the crux of Kirkegaard’s tosh is not merely that favouring breasts over buttocks likely means that you are ‘more intelligent’, but that your race is ‘more intelligent’. Yes, White supremacists, not being satisfied with disparaging other ethnicities as ‘unintelligent’, also feel the bizarre need to disparage their sexual preferences. I can only assume that neofascists see something ‘homosexual’ and therefore ‘weak’ or ‘feminine’ about favoring buttocks over breasts, because otherwise I am unsure what they hope to accomplish here. I have no doubt that they feel entitled to police others’ sexual preferences, but that does not explain why they would devote any attention to this.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] someone@hexbear.net 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What Kirkegaard failed to consider was how everyone has a butt.

[–] Umechan@hexbear.net 4 points 2 weeks ago

Yes, his entire theory sounds very anti-male to me.