/k/ - Weapons

So wait… Drone warfare makes you gay because killing on the field and going right back to home life fucks with your mind? Or does drone warfare just naturally attract gays?

>>561202

prove not proce

>>561200

Apparently drone warfare makes you gay because there is such a contrast between the horrors of killing via a screen and the home you go back to after work.

I mean MAYBE just MAYBE there is some truth behind it. Sitting on an uncomfortable chair may have an impact on your potency. If you go home to your wife after a long day of fast food and bombing huts in the desert and you can't get one up because you jerked it all day to trap hentai, then you may have a sexual problem or whatever.

But I highly doubt that the drones made you gay. If anything the traps did.

Hmm. If Drones are 'genderqueer bodies' then I think it's time to mount v8 powered fucking machines on UGVs (dragon dildos on the arm of course) in order to create a whole new category of war crime.

Mechanised combat super-rape, it's so hot right now

>>561198

>narrative methodology

<I'm talking complete horseshit and use long words because I think it makes me look credible

>queer phenomenology

<Look at how gay I am! Isn't it wonderful that people can be as gay as this! Homos rule, Heteros drool!

>unresolved disorientation

<Everyone else must be as emotionally frail and weak as me! Therefore everything that I don't understand is 'disorientating!'

Hope that translation helps Deutschebro.

>>561218

kinda like this?

>>561246

Postmodern horseshit

>>561207

>They seem to figure that as long as people who haven't studied their field don't understand what they're talking about they're doing legitimate scholarship.

Those departments throw a tismfit when called out on their shit.

Usually they complain how its totally the fault of the predatory publisher and not the people who peer review the word salads they consider articles, then go back to submitting to the same publishers when attention wanes.

Sokal's hoax paper "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" and the more recent "The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct" by Boghossian and Lindsay does a pretty good job at exposing the scholarship to be nothing but a massive unintelligible circlejerk.

>>561257

>"The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct" by Boghossian and Lindsay

https://www.skeptic.com/downloads/conceptual-penis/23311886.2017.1330439.pdf

>Abstract: Anatomical penises may exist, but as preoperative transgendered women also have anatomical penises, the penis vis-a-vis maleness is an incoherent construct. We argue that the conceptual penis is better understood not as an anatomical organ but as a social construct isomorphic to preformative toxic masculinity. Through detailed poststructuralist discursive criticism and the example of climate change, this paper will challenge the prevailing and damaging social trope that penises are best understood as the male sexual organ and reassign it a more fitting role as a type of masculine preformance.

I'm trying to work on a summary of that in actual language, but pic related really is my face when. So far all I've got is something along the lines of

>PENISES DOESN'T REAL!!!!!!

Please tell me that the publishers & reviewers were in on this joke. Please. Dear God, is that too much to ask?

>>561183

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

>>561262

Sorry anon but western universities are full of retards like that, and your tax dollars subsidize them :^)

>>561262

I'll do my best attempt to translate. This shit is like going through a Slaaneshi text

>Anatomical penises may exist, but as preoperative transgendered women also have anatomical penises, the penis vis-a-vis maleness is an incoherent construct.

Penises exist on men, but since "men" who decide they're women also have penises (before they get them lopped off), an actual, physical penis as representative of maleness is an incoherent construct. (They believe transgendered men are actually 100% women, even before they cut their dicks off or have any sort of "therapy". In essence, they're saying some women have penises, so the physical penis can't represent masculinity.)

We argue that the conceptual penis is better understood not as an anatomical organ but as a social construct isomorphic to preformative toxic masculinity.

The penis as an organ itself isn't what gives a man his oppressive, masculine powers, but rather the idea of a penis and the actions that idea inspire.

>Through detailed poststructuralist discursive criticism and the example of climate change, this paper will challenge the prevailing and damaging social trope that penises are best understood as the male sexual organ and reassign it a more fitting role as a type of masculine preformance.

Apparently, society is damaged by the idea that a man gets his shitlord powers from his actual, physical dong rather than the idea of his dong. They're going to prove this with marxist mumbo-jumbo and examples of climate change.

>>561276

>physical penis as representative of maleness is an incoherent construct.

So humanitards have finally stopped using dick comparisons as evidence of female oppression?

>>561276

<They're saying some women have penises, so the penis isn't masculine

>It's about feminine dicks

>Some fag wrote an entire paper to try to prove traps aren't gay

>>561246

Bullshitish. Most of these almost sound like something you would read on /b/ if you look at what they're actually saying.

>HOW “UNMANNED” WEAPONS QUEER THE EXPERIENCE OF KILLING IN WAR

>Killing with drones produces queer moments of disorientation. Drawing on queer phenomenology, I show how militarized masculinities function as spatiotemporal landmarks that give killing in war its “orientation” and make it morally intelligible[…] is important not to lose sight of the possibility of new paths, and the “hope of new directions.”

Translation

<Drones are gay, and so are the faggots who use them.

<They're all pussies who don't have the balls to put their boots on the ground–the whole fucking point of fighting for your country, and instead shoot people through a goddamn computer screen like a bunch of losers. While the existence of these homos might make the future of humanity seem bleak, we must not lose hope that someday we'll find a cure for this faggotry.

>>561262

>The idea of the penis is more important than the actual penis itself

pretty much:

>traps shemales aren't gay because muh feminine dick

Reading through it is a real slog, it's an overly-verbose, buzzword-filled "research article" written by someone with a thesaurus on their lap and a treasure trove of equally dubious sources to cite. Including gems such as: Climate Change through the Lens of Intersectionality, Misogyny in Rap Music, 174 Ways to Call a Penis Something Other than "Penis", and Neopatriarchialist Discources: Capitalist Libertarianism, Objectivism, and Subcultural Desituationism among others. If I had to sum it up, I'd say it's a dried-up, crusty-cunted woman and her beta male orbiter complaining about everything from manspreading, climate change, rap lyrics, male machismo, as well as common English words and phrases and tying it all into a complaint about penises. The thing isn't even that long, it's only six pages and- although it'll take a bit to read- a rich source of laughs once you penetrate it with your masculine gaze. I've capped some of the jucier bits.

>>561183

>literally sexually identifying as an attack aircraft

HAVE WE MEMED TOO FAR?

>>561204

> If you go home to your wife after a long day of fast food and bombing huts in the desert and you can't get one up because you jerked it all day to trap hentai

But how would I be able to get one up to fap to trap hentai if I'd been fapping all day to bombing huts in the desert?

>>562343

>yfw drones are terrible at hitting their target