It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
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 ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
Journal of Controversial Ideas
This sounds like the name of a publication that posts articles promoting race science and Holocaust denial
You asked me whether it is my view
Yes, it absolutely is his view. Nobody who didn't think that would answer the question in such a way. He's saying yes, but he's too much of a coward to come right out and say it.
(Cw: transphobia [big surprise])
Let's have a look at the first issue!
Are women 'adult human females'
Is it ever appropriate to wear blackface?
"Defending the defense of 'dumb ideas' on campus"
Why would anyone with a finite lifespan waste their time on reading this dreck, much less writing it?
Wow, turns out I wasn't too far off.
Automatically assuming a public figure complaining about having 'controversial' opinions is using it as a smokescreen for bigotry has a remarkably high success rate.
I'm now convinced he wrote the article.
Sure, he supports animals becoming wives, but does he support wives becoming animals? 
These anti-zoophilia liberals are trying to CANCEL this HERO
I do not like the final paragraph. I don't like most of this, but that final paragraph was written with one hand, and that is what I do not like about it.
i looked up the journal and...
Black Pete, King Balthasar, and the New Orleans Zulus: Can Black Make-Up Traditions Ever Be Justified?
In this article, I challenge the widely held view that black make-up traditions are categorically wrong.
Why Shouldn’t Race Be a Costume?―A (Qualified) Defense of Wearing Cross-Racial Make-Up During Halloween
This article challenges the view that wearing cross-racial make-up on such occasions as part of personal costumes—as opposed to costumes that are integral to specific cultural traditions, such as the New Orleans Zulu parade—is always wrong.
Philosophical Reflections on “the Filthiest, Dirtiest, Nastiest Word in the English Language”1
When, if ever, is it morally permissible to utter the word “joker”? (NB: The word “joker” is a placeholder for another word, the mere utterance of which certain people find unsettling or offensive. See the prolegomenon of this article for an explanation.)
Journal of Controversial Opinions is just bigotry?
Print version of r/unpopularopinion
Oh fuck that's the board I was thinking about, it wasn't askreddit lmao
While the general rule of thumb is that you should never take professional philosophers very seriously, as their income always is derivative entirely from their closeness to powerful patrons (with exceptions like Socrates who was supposedly a stone mason when not being annoying in public, see the existential comics bit about professional philosophers being less serious about their craft than professional bodybuilders), Peter Singer is someone who you should absolutely not take seriously because all of his work is deeply tied into both the Gates Foundation and Clinton Foundation.
Especially if you actually (unlike most people who skim the cliff's notes, hear it second-hand or just read the title) read his works, particularly his seminal piece in famines, you will realize that all that he ever argues for is utilitarianism, but he has no real qualms around how that maximum utility is achieved (though heaven forbid you mention the achievements of communism), with his personal belief in maximum utility being achieved not by actual wealth redistribution (though he spends the majority of his paper talking about it), but instead (as he slips in right at the end) population control.
That's right. The liberal academic darling of why it is good to give away your money specifically believes that that money shouldn't be re-distributed or that maybe the real value is being exploited, no it's that in order for less poor people to starve, there needs to be less poor people. Liberal academics everyone! Spending 25 pages to only say one sentence!
Peter Singer is someone who you should absolutely not take seriously because all of his work is deeply tied into both the Gates Foundation and Clinton Foundation.
Truly his nonsense about efficient utilitarianism was made in a Bill Gates lab. I dont even need a direct connection to Gates to believe it because it is tailor made for philanthropic colonialism, developmentalism, white saviorism, and rejecting any kind of orientation toward, or responsibility for, your own immediate community (if you live in the global north).
Just because you’re articulate doesn’t mean you’re right, it just makes you a sophist.
with exceptions like Socrates who was supposedly a stone mason when not being annoying in public
I think that the story here was that he came from a family of sculptors (see Euthyphro) but that by the time he took up being a gadfly, he was an ascetic who relied on savings and alms. He is usually called a stonemason because we usually think of sculptors, especially Greek sculptors, as working with stone, but this is in large part because the wood sculptures didn't survive.
On the other hand I might be mistaken. Apparently his father helped to build the Parthenon (which is indeed stone). Now I'm trying to figure out where I got the idea of Socrates working with wood. Maybe I'm inverting the "Jesus was a carpenter" (he was actually a stonemason) thing in my head, but I think I read it in the footnotes of a Euthyphro translation or something.
am I missing something or did he not actually answer the question or give his opinion on the question
He absolutely did, but he did it in a specific way so that when people call him out in the future, he can say he technically never did say he supported it!
Intentionally talking in circles seems to be what a lot of philosophy is actually for.
Virgin utilitarian: writes tl;dr papers on why fucking animals is okay aktually
Chad virtue ethicist: "Would Jesus/Socrates/Confucius/Buddha/Aurelius fuck animals? No? Then I shouldn't fuck animals."
nah im not touching this with a ten foot pole
Yup those are the only two choices.
Now imagine you are an animal that is taken good care of but also the owner does not bang you...
The most normal utilitarian
I’m just thinking about how easily he could’ve said he doesn’t think animals should be abused whether the abuse is sexual or not, instead of writing a paragraph of soft core zoophilia erotica.
Don't pretend like a dog never made you horny. 
That is by far the most unsettling usage of that emoji I have ever seen. Thanks please fuck off lol.
Bit Idea: A t-shirt that says "I fucking love animals" with a strategically placed transposition proofing mark.
journal of controversial ideas? no thanks i already can go browse r/askreddit
You are missing the last line:
Which animal would you rather be?
Which is furthermore underlined in the screenshots he posts, strengthening the implication.
I'd much rather be slaughtered than fucked by Peter Singer, thank you very much.
Me protecting the dogs in my home from Peter Singer like
You can take the creep out of Epstein's island, but you can't take Epstein's island out of the creep. 
Well that was upsetting to read.
Anyhoo, I've been vegan for 8 days and counting, and not once have I wanted to fuck an animal.
Deranged Hexbear trolls do not miss.
this man is a wall candidate now for sure
People should have stopped taking anything this guy says seriously decades ago. Peter Singer was always a quack/charlatan. From his definition of specieisism, to being a misanthrope, his disregard of ethics, I don't know why anyone would take him seriously.
Lmao this is some v*ush-tier shit
