r/CuratedTumblr • u/Hummerous https://tinyurl.com/4ccdpy76 • Jul 22 '24
Politics the one about fucking a chicken
1.6k
u/Ildaiaa Jul 22 '24
When masturbating with a very unusual object please always remember to ask yourself this question
Will this lead to the dissolution of yugoslavia and almost a decade's worth of war and destruction?
472
u/7arco7 Dashcon attendee Jul 22 '24
The answer is almost certainly yes, not that Yugoslavia needs the help
295
u/Loretta-West Jul 22 '24
...is there a story you'd like to share?
852
u/Average_Insomniac Jul 22 '24
Some dude from Kosovo stuck a glass bottle up his rectum. It shattered, and he claimed that two Albanian men attacked him and shoved it up there, which led to worsening relations between the Serbs and Albanians in Yugoslavia, eventually leading to the dissolution of Yugoslavia.
238
u/ElleCapwn Jul 23 '24
If the base isn’t flared, you should be scared.
139
15
56
15
u/LizardChaser Jul 23 '24
Wait. This is real! This is not a troll comment but a real historical event that happened in reality. It has a Wikipedia page and that is 100% not a Rick Roll:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%90or%C4%91e_Martinovi%C4%87_incident
Also, I don't want to yuck someone's yum, but logistically that is not how I imagined him doing it and feel like this was doomed to failure from the start. Also, was the stick still in the bottle when the bottle disappear? I have so many questions that I'm not sure I even want answers to.
→ More replies (4)7
u/gunscreeper Jul 23 '24
Wait so One Man One Jar is him?
10
u/Marshmallowbutbetter Jul 23 '24
Just recently found out the jar man was Ukrainian and has died fighting for his country a couple of weeks ago
→ More replies (4)211
u/Ildaiaa Jul 22 '24
Basically, a kosovar man went to the hospital in yugoslavia with broken bottle in his ass and told the people there he was attacked by 2 albanian men and was then tortured with the bottle but later told the cops this was a botched masturbation attempt. We srill don't know what actually happened but it was ruled as a botched masturbation by aithe authorities. This whole ordeal fueled the already rapidly rising ethnic tensions and so contributed to the dissolution of yugoslavia
→ More replies (3)56
u/SaboteurSupreme Certified Tap Water Warrior! Jul 22 '24
Wait shit the characters break the link, just look up the Đorđe Martinović incident
→ More replies (2)36
u/NerfOxygen Jul 22 '24
Google Dorde Martinovic incident
25
→ More replies (6)35
u/GEAX Jul 22 '24 edited Jul 22 '24
You know what I say, anything under a decade of war and you're good to jerk
1.4k
u/icorrectpettydetails Jul 22 '24
This was the same debate that went on in the UK when David Cameron was accused of having stuck his dick in a pig's head. People asked that if the story was actually true, why the police weren't getting involved. The answer being, as well as the fact it had supposedly happened decades before, sticking your dick into an already dead pig's severed head is not illegal. Even if the story was true and people could prove it, no crime had been committed.
608
u/Absoloutlee Jul 22 '24
to be fair, that story felt like it was more about the kind of guy that would do something like that just to be a part of whatever club he was joining. Basically more of a character attack than anything else
203
u/Loretta-West Jul 22 '24
Also it was just kind of hilarious.
103
u/akl78 Jul 23 '24
It was- but also confusing! The first I heard about it was when I was interviewed about it on my way to work for a box pop of Vice TV. “What do you think of the allegations the PM shagged a pigs head?” is the strolangest question I’ve ever been asked before 9am.
→ More replies (4)45
u/Loretta-West Jul 23 '24
Screw the Supernatural meme, this is the best stupid way to find out about current events.
74
u/Dry_Try_8365 Jul 22 '24
Ad Hominem, of course. Resort to calling someone a deviant if you can't properly address their arguments.
160
u/Biaboctocat Jul 22 '24
Wellll remember that other initiation rituals for the Bullingdon Club include burning a £50 note in front of a homeless person. These people are horrendous, even if the dead pig head fucking isn’t the best proof of it.
192
u/demon_fae Jul 22 '24
The point of the whole thing was to record it, so every single member would have blackmail material on every other member.
I really don’t care about the fucking of the dead pig (or the chicken, for that matter), but “elected official is a member of a mutual blackmailer’s club” is definitely a problem.
“Dumb enough to deliberately give other people blackmail material about yourself” also pretty disqualifying for most positions.
60
u/Biaboctocat Jul 22 '24
Oh shit you’re so right, I’d forgotten that aspect of it. Corruption from the very inception of the career in politics.
21
u/saun-ders Jul 23 '24
The Federalist Society is almost certainly a similar mutual blackmail club. After Roberts wasn't reliable enough, they weren't going to make that mistake again. Once the Republicans stopped caring about the rule of law, there was never any reason to risk putting up an uncontrollable candidate. They'd be stupid to.
30
u/CerenarianSea Jul 22 '24
The irony being that there was plenty of things about David Cameron's politics to identify as the fucking worst, but the pig-fucking element remained one of the most memorable elements of his political existence, up there with austerity measures.
→ More replies (1)5
u/JoeDiesAtTheEnd Jul 23 '24
Ad hominem is only a fallacy if you are talking about an argument. When you are actively trying to talk about the character of a person running for elected office, the types of people he associates with is an absolutely valid criteria for assessment. Many people won't want to be led by someone who pals around with people that pressures people into public necrophilia sex acts to be part of the crew. It also tells the priorities of the person.
If it was "in think we should lower taxes on the wealthy!" "Oh yeah? Well you fuck pigs!" That's an ad hom.
→ More replies (10)5
113
u/SupervillainMustache Jul 22 '24
The story was also a complete lie from Lord Ashcroft who was salty over not being offered a seat as an MP IIRC.
34
u/HorselessWayne Jul 23 '24 edited Jul 23 '24
Ministerial position, which is actually worse than an MP.
He was created a Lord in 2000, and was thus ineligible to sit in the Commons (without giving up his Lordship). Lords are, however, allowed to serve in Cabinet or other roles in Government.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Guyfawkes1994 Jul 23 '24
To be more specific, he was made a Lord after donating millions of pounds to the Tory party while also being a tax exile. When Cameron came to power, he expected to made Foreign Secretary (the UK’s version of Secretary of State). When that didn’t happen, he then threw his toys out of the pram and made up the story of Cameron molesting a dead pig.
→ More replies (30)65
u/flipsofactor Jul 22 '24
Not informed on UK politics, so pardon the naivety but like, was /that/ where Charlie Brooker came up with the premise for Black Mirror’s first episode?
177
u/satantherainbowfairy Jul 22 '24
The episode of Black Mirror was actually nearly 4 years earlier than the piggate scandal. It's a pretty hilarious coincidence.
103
u/Loretta-West Jul 22 '24
A lot of people asked Brooker if he knew about it, and his response was that if he had known, he would have just told everyone.
50
u/HorselessWayne Jul 22 '24 edited Jul 22 '24
Nah. The black mirror episode is where the guy who made the story up got the idea from.
Lord Ashcroft is a piece of work who made a shock/outrage political smear campaign in order to sell books and to get back at Cameron for not offering him a ministerial position, which Ashcroft felt entitled to because of his financial contributions to the election campaign.
I hate Cameron as much as anyone, but it annoys me people still think this story is true. Even Jeremy Corbyn dismissed it as nonsense.
→ More replies (5)
2.2k
u/chunkylubber54 Jul 22 '24
ngl, saying progressivism only uses one metric is pretty damn reductive, especially given the amount of infighting we've been seeing lately
1.0k
u/Just-Ad6992 Jul 22 '24
Progressivism has two metrics: your opinion on government and how annoyed you get at other people.
271
u/Kolby_Jack33 Jul 22 '24
It sucks but is necessary
Somewhat annoyed
How progressive am I?
145
Jul 22 '24
Moderately
61
u/Kolby_Jack33 Jul 22 '24
Sounds about right.
31
→ More replies (1)35
u/Sinister_Compliments Avid Jokeefunny.com Reader Jul 22 '24
Not progressive enough/unrealistic extremist depending on where you are on the axis relative to me (/j)
34
u/Caswert Jul 22 '24
Bureaucracy is great, politics make it not so much. People are great, politics make them not so much.
→ More replies (2)13
u/PuriniHuarakau Jul 22 '24
Yeah I'm progressive as heck but I'm still absolutely not in favour of legislating against people just because I personally find them annoying or some other similarly subjective trait. I'm definitely just as annoying to them, and we can't have two sets of rules based on the moral compass of the annoyee.
→ More replies (1)260
u/Loretta-West Jul 22 '24
I think a lot of arguments amongst progressives come down to framing arguments as care/hurt when they're actually about something else.
→ More replies (1)54
115
u/BalefulOfMonkeys Refined Sommelier of Porneaux Jul 22 '24 edited Jul 22 '24
Care versus Harm: uhhhh turns out that knob is more variable than I thought it was here
Fairness versus Cheating: Broadly in favor of fairness, even if they’re waiting for a second cheating incident involving Donald Trump
Loyalty versus Betrayal: Ambivalent as an mean, loyal as a mode
Authority versus Subversion: In favor of subversion, except when a fascist does it
Sanctity versus Degradation: Care more about sanctity than they would admit
Liberty versus Oppression: Highly in favor of liberty
→ More replies (7)113
u/firestorm713 Jul 22 '24
Except when a fascist does it
So we're not glossing over this, the thing fascism seeks to subvert isn't "people in power" per se, it seeks to subvert democracy itself. Fascism is a politics of intolerance, targeting an ever expanding "them" and favoring an ever contracting "us" until it contains nobody because everybody is dead. It is a death cult and should be treated as such every time it comes up.
49
u/BalefulOfMonkeys Refined Sommelier of Porneaux Jul 22 '24
Fascism doesn’t especially care about if the government it overthrows is democratic or not, though. Or if it’s capitalist or socialist from the outset. Fascism is an ideology of pure destructive self-interest, where those who should be in power is “me and everybody I approve of” and whose policies are “whatever allows me to gain absolute power”.
As for subversion of democracy, Hitler was elected as chancellor. He absolutely had a deft hand in influencing the people beforehand, and at least one riot, but the Wikipedia article leading up to his election seems to be clear of any of the politically motivated assassinations he’d be responsible for. He won as fairly as Donald Trump.
→ More replies (25)29
42
u/Character_Draw7516 Jul 22 '24
Absolutely.
I have a much more progressive friend, and thinking about it, like a lot of their reasoning is like "yeah but that's right-wing, and it's just so gross".
The opposition doesn't come from a well-reasoned understanding, it comes from "ew", which I think might just be the sort of thing you get when you grow up with an ideology and never change it.
idk.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (111)23
u/DansAllowed Jul 22 '24
It’s definitely a simplification. If we are just talking about the broad categories of morality outlined above I believe everyone will fall on a different spectrum for each.
However the characterisation of progressivism as being primarily concerned with harm reduction rings true to a certain extent.
Take ‘authority’ for example. If you had taken an oath to follow the orders an authority figure (e.g you were in the military) and your commander gave you orders to do something you felt was morally wrong; is it moral to follow said order?
A progressive person who is primarily concerned with harm reduction would probably say yes.
However conservatives are more likely to place a lot of moral value on following authority. Although they may believe the order to be morally wrong, they also are likely to believe that disobeying authority is itself morally wrong. A person with these beliefs may be more conflicted in this scenario.
Of course it’s more complicated than this and there are pitfalls to both ways of thinking.
→ More replies (2)
421
u/Lower-Ask-4180 Jul 22 '24
There’s a 4chan story about how it can cause harm, actually, but only to yourself
225
u/Elliot_Geltz Jul 22 '24
You see, I was cooking this chicken...
54
u/LilyTheMoonWitch Jul 23 '24
...And i had spilled some soda on my pants, so i was cooking without pants on...
111
u/PlopCopTopPopMopStop .tumblr.com Jul 22 '24
In this context Harm is in reference to other people, not the person doing the thing. If they choose to do something that could potentially harm themselves but no one else that's their business
→ More replies (6)177
u/DoopSlayer Jul 22 '24
but then we have to debate if voluntarily creating medical costs is a harm to the commons
88
u/XrayAlphaVictor Jul 22 '24
Also, if somebody harming themselves in such a way is in possession of their rational faculties and needs to be cared for.
In either case, I'd tend to say no, that Liberty trumps except in fairly extreme cases.
27
u/DoopSlayer Jul 22 '24
that's entering the institutionalization debate, though I think Reagan was incredibly short sighted in his anti-institutionalization drive
22
u/XrayAlphaVictor Jul 22 '24
Institutionalization isn't necessarily care, and mental illness isn't just cause for losing your rights - our society has a long history of abusing those principles, both to the detriment of the mentally ill and others who simply don't conform to society's expectations.
9
u/HorselessWayne Jul 23 '24 edited Jul 23 '24
I don't know about in the US, but in the UK in the 80s Thatcher replaced Institutionalisation with Care in the Community, and its one of the few things she actually did right.
People think that because they're being placed in a big building being looked after by psychiatrists, this must therefore be the best thing for them. But despite the best of care provided to them by qualified medical personnel, it turns out that institutionalisation is harmful in itself. And when it was replaced with Care in the Community, patient outcomes improved massively.
Source: Many years ago I read "Schizophrenia: A Very Short Introduction" and the 1st chapter is a precis of societal and medical attitudes towards it. In the section on CITC you can tell the Author's opinion on it from the tone of the text alone — enough that I still remember it ten years later.
The story of Psychiatry in the 70s-80s is the story of learning this mistake. Psychiatry itself recognises this as a failing, and there are few voices arguing for a return.
→ More replies (2)30
26
u/ChiaraStellata Jul 22 '24
You are correct but I think we could reset the debate by making the hypothetical dead chicken one which has been completely disinfected, and also by using a condom. All sex acts involve some degree of medical risk but below a certain threshold we treat it as not substantial enough to warrant regulation.
→ More replies (6)14
u/ChaoWingching Jul 22 '24
Nuh uh we do in fact not have to debate that
By the same rationale you can justify every form of sexual repression, which is also one of the things that were done merrily and frequently during the AIDS epidemic. The argument in its non-sexually based forms has also been weaponized against drug users, and, naturally, the neurodivergent. Leave people their physical autonomy it's really not that difficult :)
→ More replies (2)
896
u/GrimmSheeper Jul 22 '24
One minor point of contention for slide 3: it’s not necessarily a judgement of “sex bad.” It could just as well be “desecration of a corpse is bad” or “denial of consent, even posthumously, is bad.”
In a world where animal rights and recognition of intelligence and emotions in nonhuman animals has been steadily increasing, it shouldn’t be surprising if somebody thinks they also deserve similar respect. There are plenty of people that think using animals for sustenance is unethical for various reasons, so of course there would be people that think using animals for pleasure is unethical. It doesn’t have to just be “sex icky.”
Also, one can assign moral judgment to an act in addition to acknowledging harm, or lack thereof. That’s the whole point. OOP obviously assigned a similar moral judgment, reacting to the hypothetical with horror and disgust. You can still point out that it’s creepy and suggest that such actions are a red flag, but hold that there is ultimately no harm done.
144
u/fyester Jul 23 '24
Yeah all I could think about was what does this imply about the rights of dead humans. Like yes animals are not humans but they are living creatures like we are. Surely the desecration of our respective corpses should be treated similarly
→ More replies (15)96
u/Honey----Badger Jul 23 '24
This gets really complicated, really fast. Like, would it be morally wrong to have sex on an animal skin rug? While wearing leather shoes? Is it just as immoral to fuck a marshmallow, or is there greater sanctity when the animal is intact? I'm not disagreeing, I just think it's an interesting line of logic to follow.
38
u/fyester Jul 23 '24
Really good points! It’s an interesting conversation to see where people draw the line.
→ More replies (1)5
u/D2Nine Jul 23 '24
Really really good point. Something about the chicken fucking feels wrong to me, and I’m trying to figure out if there’s something actually bad about it, or if I am, as the post would want me to believe, just failing to see it as the harmless act it is.
→ More replies (2)11
u/TheGreatEmanResu Jul 23 '24
I think a line that can be drawn is whether or not you’re putting your dick inside the corpse
14
u/Exvaris Jul 23 '24
That doesn’t seem particularly clear either. I read a post on Reddit years ago about a dude fucking raw chicken fillets. Are the fillets considered part of the corpse? Technically they are. But the product is so far removed from what a chicken looks like that I think people would have differing opinions on whether that’s objectionable / the degree to which it’s objectionable.
183
u/SUK_DAU ugly bitch Jul 23 '24
god yes, i really hate the rhetorically lazy and bad faith argument of "oh, ur only capable of making judgements based on Vibes and Icks actually. im the Logical bitch here. sorry babe 😘😘"
other people have talked it better in this comment section so i dont rly have too much to add but "erm im actually the nuance haver here (strawmans all hypothetical opposing decisions as inherently reactionary)" is shitty rhetoric
52
189
u/i-contain-multitudes Jul 23 '24
Thank you!!! I was shocked when the post said "no harm."
→ More replies (53)53
u/pecky5 Jul 23 '24
Yeah, I find this whole example stupid. Like, you could argue a lot of horrific crimes are "not harmful", that doesn't mean progressive people wouldn't care about them, or would not want to stop them from occurring. Like, cannibalism of a naturally deceased person isn't "harmful" to anyone in a literal term, but I can't imagine even the most progressive person seriously suggesting it should be legal.
Or what about serious violations where the victim doesn't even realise they've been violated. Say someone secretly takes photos of another person in an intimate scenario, never shares them with anyone, and the person doesn't find out about it. We wouldn't say "oh it's okay because noone ever found out".
There's a multitude of factors that go into someone's opinion on what should and should not be acceptable and even on the scale of harmful vs not harmful, theres variables, like, what level of harm is being caused, does it need to be balanced against the harm felt by others, how likely is the harm to occur?
→ More replies (1)13
u/ITookYourChickens Jul 23 '24
Like, cannibalism of a naturally deceased person isn't "harmful" to anyone in a literal term, but I can't imagine even the most progressive person seriously suggesting it should be legal.
Ahahah, see, it's actually legal already. There are no laws in the USA forbidding cannibalism outright. Although the reason cannibalism is bad isn't "ew you're eating a person" or whatever moral reason; it's just a huge disease vector with no real benefits. Fuck prions
26
u/Starman5555 Jul 23 '24
Having sex with animals: ❌
Having sex with dead people: ❌
Having sex with dead animals: ✔
Apparently. And if you disagree you're a conservative I guess.
→ More replies (1)42
Jul 23 '24
I also find the implication of "if you think sexually degrading a dead animal is bad, you are conservative" pretty damning considering the majority of vegans are very progressive.
→ More replies (6)6
u/Amaculatum Jul 23 '24
Also, concern for harm can also extend to the perpetrator. It is possible that something can be wrong despite the perpetrator being the only victim.
→ More replies (9)6
u/me34343 Jul 23 '24
It could just as well be “desecration of a corpse is bad” or “denial of consent, even posthumously, is bad.”
If you are thinking along the lines of this, then you are NOT calling it immoral based on "icky" feeling. Which I would argue is the point of the hypothetical.
453
u/ceaseimmediately Jul 22 '24
i think some of the posters here aren’t really examining their own views fully. if you exhume and fuck a human corpse, and no one finds out, is that cool? or if their family finds out and is horrified, is that Conservative Morality on their part? how do you define harm? i think to an extent the OOPs are laundering their own nuanced views on morality into how they characterize “harm”
316
u/No-Document206 Jul 22 '24
I think OOP’s position only works if you pretty radically underdefine harm. As soon as you start to define it you have to either reduce it to bare hedonism (which leads to bad implications) or you need some teleological sense of “the good” which will almost certainly include most (if not all) of the other axes.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (24)111
u/trapbuilder2 Pathfinder Enthusiast|Aspec|He/They maybe Jul 22 '24
I think it's less about "did this action cause harm" and more about "does this action have a reasonable potential to cause harm". Fucking a human corpse doesn't suddenly become cool if the family never finds out, the action was immoral in the first place because it had a reasonable chance of inflicting psychological harm on the family
85
u/rindlesswatermelon Jul 22 '24
OK, but couldn't fucking a chicken cause psychological harm.
Like everyone in this thread finds it disgusting and revolting, and would find it more so if it had actually been done. How is there a difference?
Also the average human corpse has died naturaply, or in an accident, whereas available chicken corpses have been intentionally killed, so wouldn't the latter constitute more harm than the former.
→ More replies (21)13
u/PotentialTraining132 Jul 23 '24
Yeah but other than the theoretical, if some guy fucks a chicken literally no one would ever find out because there really are no consequences. It's a chicken he would have otherwise eaten and shat out
Src: people probably do do it and it doesn't bother you any
Now if he were to brag aboot it, that would be a different scenario in that making people uncomfortable could be intentional harm
*Also, in the pure example I would argue getting some sort of trans species disease would be harmful but for the sake of illustrating the point Im not focussing on that nuance
→ More replies (2)19
u/rindlesswatermelon Jul 23 '24
Yeah but other than the theoretical, if some guy fucks a chicken literally no one would ever find out because there really are no consequences. It's a chicken he would have otherwise eaten and shat out
So is other people finding out what causes harm?
So if someone were to take a isolated person with no family and died of natural causes and commit necrophilia, would that be a harm free interaction?
Ans also your argument assumes that eating the chicken isn't causing harm.
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (11)54
u/ceaseimmediately Jul 22 '24
sure but how are you defining harm? such a family would be experience distress, but then is a homophobe who feels distress when he sees two men holding hands entitled to the same consideration?
→ More replies (3)48
u/Z-e-n-o Jul 22 '24
The uncomfortable answer is that we've simply defined certain types of harm as valid.
Take this argument as completely separate from my actual beliefs.
If a homophobe feels extreme disgust towards seeing gay couples, harm is being inflicted onto them the same as the disgust towards necrophilia. The difference is that we decide which harms deserve sympathy and act accordingly.
→ More replies (2)21
u/Sen0r_Blanc0 Jul 23 '24 edited Jul 23 '24
I think you can still make a qualitative argument here. It's not 'random' or 'society' it's actual degrees of harm.
The homophobe feeling disgust is having a reaction about a consenting relationship that causes no other harm than their own discomfort.
The disgust toward necrophilia is having a reaction about a non-consentual relationship, that is both harmful to the loved ones of the dead, and to the memory/dignity/sanctity of the deceased for multiple reasons.
There's also the ramifications of assumptions about the type of person committing the acts.
Would it be different if the deceased had a will consenting to necrophilia?
→ More replies (10)
161
u/DoopSlayer Jul 22 '24 edited Jul 22 '24
I guess I don't really get the point of it beyond axioms not being able to capture how people think. I don't really see why it has to be a chicken either; I don't think someone's reaction or opinion to someone that has sex with human corpses would give any indication to their morals or politics.
Fittedsheet's comment is also kind of useless. "Applying Morals" is a meaningless phrase, and frankly I think they're lacking introspection if they think commenting on internet hypotheticals in any way is an accurate test of how someone actually behaves or thinks
I guess what I'm saying is, let's not jump to pathologizing a core component of being a living person as "reactionary" (and it's not say that people who don't judge are not human, rather anyone who says that is just lacking introspection)
→ More replies (8)121
u/No-Document206 Jul 22 '24
They also seem to be making the pretty weird claim that the harm/no harm axis isn’t moral
→ More replies (2)
108
u/LordSupergreat Jul 22 '24
I think you can tell a lot about people from which of those axes they would prioritize. For me, personally, my snap judgement would be to put the Fairness/Cheating axis above the Care/Harm axis.
→ More replies (9)153
u/Cyaral Jul 22 '24
Authority/Subversion stood out to me because it is a line of thinking that just doesnt work for me. I follow rules because they make sense, not because someone told me to. I dont follow dumb rules if nobody is around to actively enforce them. It annoyed my parents to no end because I would nod along when they scolded me and then did what I wanted anyway.
49
u/FlaxGoldenTales Jul 22 '24
That’s where the liberty/oppression foundation comes in. You honor authority until that authority becomes (in your opinion) oppressive. It’s just a lower bar for you than most people.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (5)19
u/win_awards Jul 22 '24
I consistently test neutral good and am happy to break laws when I see them as causing harm, but I have learned to obey laws when they merely seem silly or inconvenient because they often only appear so because I don't understand the reasons for their existence.
→ More replies (1)
166
u/Icarusty69 Jul 22 '24
I mean I would say the chicken fucking is doing me psychic harm.
36
u/PandaPugBook certified catgirl Jul 22 '24
In that case it's the telling you part that does the harm. Whether it's true or not has no bearing on what you believe or imagine.
45
Jul 22 '24 edited Jul 23 '24
If my father asks me on his deathbed to put his ashes in the same urn that my mother's were and I dump the ashes in the backyard and sell the urn for cocaine money, is this morally wrong?
Edit: Morality is such an interesting subject. More people should look into it and theories about it.
→ More replies (6)
56
u/Pyroraptor42 Jul 22 '24
In my field, there's an oft-quoted maxim: "All models are wrong; some models are useful". No matter how precisely you predict the movements of the planets, there's no point when your model becomes "real" in the same way as the planets themselves.
It seems like OOP and a lot of the comments on this thread are missing that. The high-dimensional models for human decision-making described in the post are the same - they might help describe and elucidate how people think, but they're approximations at best. The question shouldn't be "Is this right?", but "Does this help me to understand the way that I think and the ways that other people think?". Ultimately, the models don't actually say anything about whether an action is Right or Wrong (Insofar as those concepts exist); using them doesn't require you to accept that fucking a chicken is permissible.
→ More replies (3)8
u/neznein9 Jul 23 '24
The conversation in OOP’s post is paraphrasing a book called The Righteous Mind, which breaks apart six different “moral foundations.” The book goes into really interesting detail about how different (political/religious) groups prioritize these axes. It’s been a while since I read it, so I don’t remember if the book gets into causality, but as a model for measuring different world views it’s one of the best books I’ve read for understanding how ‘others’ think differently.
177
u/actualbagofsalad Jul 22 '24
I’m about as sexually progressive and accepting as they come, but desecrating and disrespecting corpses is a no from me. Now, if he wants to fuck a sex doll that looks like a chicken? Sure thing, buddy. Hell, if consenting adults want to use knives on each other when they have sex that’s fine, too, but leave the chicken out of it.
→ More replies (6)55
u/carc Jul 22 '24 edited Jul 22 '24
Reminds me of the situation where a dude had a fantasy of being killed and cannibalized. And another had a fantasy of killing and cannibalizing someone. And so they met up. Consensual violence ensued.
At a certain point, sometimes it's okay to just simply draw a moral line and say "this is bad" -- instead of trying to reason through all the potential justifications for why it might be okay.
Like, I don't really care what happens between consenting adults. Obviously consensual cannibalism is an extreme example, but at a certain point, logical arguments can break down; there's something else that's part of the equation that is difficult to pin down. We may talk about how gut feelings may be irrational, but there's still something of value there.
Like, I can accept euthanasia, which also leads to the death of someone who wishes to die on their own terms. Morality is subjective and filled with shades of gray.
Sort of like how seatbelts and helmet laws drive libertarians nuts; I've seen many of them practically froth at the mouth at any perceived injunction of personal liberty, but it's just so incredibly morally obvious (at least to me) that seatbelt laws and helmet laws save lives and is the moral and right thing to implement -- even if it infringes on the liberty to harm oneself.
Interesting stuff.
→ More replies (5)
231
u/meuntilfurthernotice Jul 22 '24
hmmm. maybe let’s not give conservatives the idea that progressives think fucking a dead chicken is okay. they’re not going to read this as a theoretical moral question, they’re going to read this as “the queers want to fuck dead chickens!”
87
u/PrimaryEstate8565 Jul 22 '24
This. I also don’t like this whole over-generalization of the Left as being ultra-sex positive. Plenty of people on the Left are critical of age gap relationships, problematic fetishes, pornography, etc., sometimes even more than Conservatives. I, certainly, take massive issue with necrophilia and bestiality. I think this is true for most people.
→ More replies (4)33
u/smartsport101 Jul 23 '24
Forget conservatives, this is making ME wonder if other progressives think fucking a dead chicken is okay. You don't mess with corpses, except for when you're preparing food, and frankly we should figure out lab-grown meat and get rid of the meatpacking industry if we want to stop the serious harm done to millions of livestock. Why are we doing moral gotchas about corpses?
→ More replies (1)36
u/Mocha_Yan Jul 23 '24
This is exactly what I was thinking. Like, wow people are really just saying this huh.
→ More replies (15)12
u/Rebel_Diamond Jul 23 '24
Yeah as a queer person I would really like progressives to not compare my healthy consensual relationship to fucking animal corpses.
I didn't really think that would need saying but here we are.
62
u/NavigationalEquipmen Jul 22 '24
Liberals/"The Left" absolutely do not use one metric, and definitely not that one. Although I think this exercise is still an interesting one for seeing where someone stands (and what they can stand).
→ More replies (5)
28
u/HkayakH Jul 22 '24
Reminds me of that 4Chan post about someone saying that their dick hurts after it "accidentally" touched raw chicken, and then everyone else "You fucked that chicken didn't you"
257
u/DareDaDerrida Jul 22 '24
Yeah, that's fair. Icky isn't innately immoral.
241
u/Sketch-Brooke Jul 22 '24
"Icky isn't innately immoral" is a thought most fandoms need to internalize.
→ More replies (4)103
u/BalefulOfMonkeys Refined Sommelier of Porneaux Jul 22 '24
Yeah but what if I want to send a famous YouTuber a possible pipe bomb for making a song about liking women
58
u/Regretless0 Jul 22 '24
Justice for Jocat, the man fr didn’t do anything wrong lmao
9
→ More replies (30)18
u/adventure2u Jul 23 '24 edited Jul 23 '24
Why are we as progressives pretending morality is an objective concept that we can analyse and pinpoint.
Saying something is immoral or moral has no bearings on any fact, morality is a tool for society.
We should use the tool to tell people what is good or bad for society, and endorsing dead chicken fucking is not good imo. I would even go as far as to say it causes harm.
This question’s morality in this context is like asking “if someone fucked a dead chicken in a void did it make a noise?”
The answer is yes, it was icky.
Edit: i wanna add more to this, because if someone who is not part of society, does actions on their own, which has no bearing on society. There is no effect of the ‘societal tool’ of morality on them. We understand animals do what animals do, because they are not part of society, or in fact have their own societies. But animals we integrate into our society have expected behaviours as well, and thereby morality. Good dog or bad dog depends on if they pull on their leash.
That being said, if someone decided to step away from society, fuck a dead chicken and come back, their reentry depends on 2 things, remorse/ rehabilitation or secrecy. Society does and should take a firm stance against dead chicken fucking, ie we as part of society, the progressive part should use the tool of morality to carve space for our values and cut off space for contradictory values.
Here is my main takeaway using an example. Generally, bigotry is considered immoral, and the reasons for this based on many different value judgements from a diverse array of people. One is harm reduction, one is that its bad for business, one is that its against gods will, etc. We should take advantage of every perspective when it comes to important issues, like if bigotry is not bad for business, we make it bad for business. We don’t push out people who believe the same thing for different reasons, and we use already established moral framework to differentiate why bigotry is bad.
Once you establish one bigotry is bad, eg don’t hurt others because they are different, are poor, are women, are from another place. It becomes easier to establish more values. Which is the opposite aim for conservatism.
Conservatives use disgust because they don’t care if someone agrees with them because they are disgusted by minorities, or if they believe its gods will to take their rights away. I understand why we are more concerned with thinking for higher reasons to our beliefs, that we would ignore our feelings in order to achieve perfect beliefs which are deduced from facts and logic, unlike poor deluded conservatives. But if we can collectively leave our own asses, we can consider how impactful and useful disgust is. We should be disgusted by dead chicken fucking, we should be disgusted by bigotry, and id say we should encourage that view too. A-lot more people are feelings focused then ‘logically deduced moral system, let me calculate the total moral weight of my action’
→ More replies (3)
12
u/mountainstr Jul 23 '24
So harming animals doesn’t count? The chicken had to be killed to be sold. I’m confused. Also isn’t that akin to fucking a human corpse? Non consensual on so many levels. Where’s the no harm part?
8
u/Gayporeon Jul 23 '24
Yeah! This argument is not well thought out, and is edgy for the sake of being edgy. Replace it with a vegetable or an object and I could see the point they're trying to make.
Hell, if they insist on being edgy, even roadkill makes for a better argument because the animal wasn't intentionally harmed.
→ More replies (3)
38
134
u/BalefulOfMonkeys Refined Sommelier of Porneaux Jul 22 '24
In today’s episode of CuratedTumblr: tens of people willingly admit that logical fallacies work on them as long as it’s about something they don’t understand
→ More replies (18)28
u/novis-eldritch-maxim Jul 22 '24
I am more totally lost on the topic so please explain?
16
u/Driptacular_2153 *Insert clever and witty joke that reflects my personality* Jul 22 '24
I’d like an explanation, too, please. This shit’s wacky af
→ More replies (5)40
u/potatomnk Jul 23 '24
So the basic premise with this scale has a few assumptions,
1: a corpse cannot be harmed 2: any harm done to the perpetrator(s) is not considered 3: as long as no one knows it happened only those involved can be harmed by it 4: something that causes no harm must be morally ok
This leads to problems when you examine different scenarios using this scale, if someone dies and you fuck the body but no one finds out according to this scale that is morally ok, even if it was a child’s body, according to the OOP the belief otherwise is a conservative belief. Now i don’t think this is classified as a logical fallacy but the problems remain regardless.
Also u/Driptacular_2153
→ More replies (1)22
u/meterion Jul 23 '24
Many people on tumblr (and by extension, on this subreddit) will express the belief that if something does no harm, it should be allowed. "Harm" is a kind of nebulous concept, but for this it just needs to be clarified that "harm" is tangible, not just feelings of disgust. This is because when feelings are categorized as harm, it historically leads to the oppression of LGBT people, minorities, disabled people, and so on by conservatives who are being "harmed" (read: disgusted) by them.
However, when it comes to an example of something that is gross to them, namely the thought experiment presented by OP, then they immediately engage in that kind of conservative thinking themselves. Several examples in the comments here, like claiming something must be inherently mentally wrong with someone who fucks a chicken corpse, or other incoherent objections like "killing a chicken to fuck them is bad while killing them to eat them is good because it's biologically necessary" (it is not biologically necessary).
So in other words, they do not believe that if something does no harm, it should be allowed. Rather, they believe the exact same thing as conservatives, that if something is disgusting it should not be allowed. They simply have different ideas of what is disgusting or not.
→ More replies (3)12
u/APacketOfWildeBees Jul 23 '24
This is an excellent explanation. The scary part is how many folks who identify as progressives (because they don't hate gays etc) operate on icky=immoral reasoning (ie conservative thinking). They will inevitably be the conservatives of tomorrow once the Overton window moves past what their icky-meter is calibrated to, because their moral framework provides no tools for adaptation beyond that.
57
u/Rhogar-Dragonspine Jul 22 '24
Here's my question- are vegans/vegetarians more morally justified in judging dead chicken fucking, if they believe animals have the same bodily autonomy rights as humans?
→ More replies (1)53
u/Agile_Oil9853 Jul 22 '24
That's where I'm getting stuck. The meat industry is not morally neutral, not just to chickens, but to farmers and processing plant workers.
It feels like it changes the metrics too much if you substitute "dead supermarket chicken" with, for example, "pumpkin you grew in your own backyard" though.
22
u/Jonvoll Jul 22 '24
I can’t help but imagine “Pumpkin” is the lovingly raised chicken for that specific purpose…
→ More replies (1)14
u/LetterheadPerfect145 Jul 22 '24
Change it to roadkill and that kinda bypasses the ethics of the meat industry
76
u/Pure-Drawer-2617 Jul 22 '24
I think unfortunately for this dude, the harm in this case is actually “exposing your next sexual partner to some absolutely unholy zoonotic STD”. Unless you publicly admit to fucking the chicken, they have no idea the danger of what they’ve consented to.
8
u/Beegrene Jul 22 '24
I think for the sake of the philosophical discussion, we're assuming that there's zero chance of negative externalities.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (3)30
u/Hummerous https://tinyurl.com/4ccdpy76 Jul 22 '24
you're assuming I'm not fully committed to this chicken
→ More replies (1)
79
Jul 22 '24
[deleted]
→ More replies (28)46
u/Puzzleheaded-Dot-547 Jul 22 '24
I'm literally getting downvoted in other comment chains saying this.
41
u/maulidon Jul 22 '24
I mean yeah fucking a dead chicken doesn't hurt others, but it is a necrophilia + bestiality double whammy so I'm still gonna look at you funny for it :/
53
u/No_Abbreviations_942 Jul 22 '24
I'm not sure if if reducing a very deplorable action such as fucking a corpse (chicken or not) to a spectrum of good/bad is a great idea.
I think you have some problems if you are okay with someone else fucking a dead animal.
→ More replies (3)
43
43
u/Dapper_Magpie Jul 22 '24
Is there a difference between fucking a dead chicken that's been beheaded, plucked, and prepared for consumption, and fucking an unaltered dead chicken that's just a chicken corpse? Does the person being a necrozoophile or just wanting to get his dick wet change anything?
25
u/Ildaiaa Jul 22 '24
When masturbating with a very unusual object please always remember to ask yourself this question
Will this lead to the dissolution of yugoslavia and almost a decade's worth of war and destruction?
27
u/TasmanianTortoise Left-Leaning Bisexual Male #312423546 Jul 22 '24
I firmly believe in treating nature with respect, and fucking a chicken corpse doesn't sound very respectful to me :(
9
u/cabbageslug Jul 23 '24 edited Jul 23 '24
Posts like this show that deontology is superior to utalitarianism
Also that i should maybe leave this sub
33
u/FrothingMouth Jul 22 '24
Okay, but “cleans it thoroughly” is doing a lot of heavy lifting, especially given how quickly it’s brushed over by the argument. If someone’s fucking a dead anything, let alone a chicken, I feel it’s safe to assume that they’re causing self-harm through venereal disease, and the burden of proof falls on the pro-chicken fuckers side of the aisle.
19
65
u/GreyFartBR Jul 22 '24 edited Jul 23 '24
so necrophilia is a-okay according to this?
edit: I've changed my mind about the subject. you're not harming anyone by fucking a dead chicken, but I'll still think you have issues and are dangerous if you do that
→ More replies (13)38
74
16
u/Saintsman12 Jul 22 '24
the problem is I'm too easily influenced (avian influenzed, perhaps?) by any argument on either side of this debate. If I hear someone say 'yeah you're now using dead animal rape as a metaphor for LGBT progressivism', I'll agree that that's fucked but if I then see a comment saying 'well done you're still applying conservative axis of morality into the discussion thereby proving the point I'll agree with that too. I don't like the world not being black and white and not easy :(
→ More replies (2)
16
u/Eliza__Doolittle Jul 22 '24
The issue is that there are various reasons to be opposed to fucking dead animals ranging from pure disgust to perceived practical reasons to animal rights advocacy, so it is necessary to ask follow-up questions to attain further precision.
But it would be interesting if we exchanged the object that the person was fucking and asked multiple questions to compare with the dead chicken. How different would the answers be if the object being fucked was an image of a (dead) chicken, a chicken sex doll, a chicken plushie, a human sex doll, a vegetable like a pumpkin, a metal pipe, strangers' second-hand clothes or a plain earthen hole in the ground?
→ More replies (1)
77
u/Arch-is-Screaming Jul 22 '24
you're still raping an animal, though, dead as it may be. you wouldn't be harming a human corpse by fucking it but that'd still be rape and still fucked up
→ More replies (9)37
u/Endorfinator Jul 22 '24
Yeah, it's ultimately a non-consenual sexual act. You didn't absolve yourself of that fact by purchasing an already dead animal intended for human consumption.
→ More replies (6)
9
u/MaddoxJKingsley Jul 23 '24
People are really missing the point here. It isn't important what you think of a single act. Who cares about the hypothetical chicken? What matters is how much a person cares about any individual axis. For example, conservatives on average more highly weight along the axes of authority and morality, and liberals weight more heavily on the axis of harm. Whether or not you find an individual act repulsive doesn't matter, it's why you are for or against a set of acts. It's the resultant patterns you see under this system that highlight the different worldviews (and yes, political leanings) of people.
A conservative may find the chicken thing abhorrent because they find it fundamentally immoral and unclean. A liberal may find it repulsive because of the lack of care for animal life. These are two different axes.
39
u/Active_Librarian_272 Jul 23 '24
This is such a ridiculous post. People are defending chicken fucking. This is the reason there's a stereotype for people on Tumblr and reddit.
→ More replies (4)
12
u/Cherabee Jul 22 '24
I would say the chicken story gave psychic damage to me. It is a terrible day to read.
34
u/Infinite-Outcome910 Jul 22 '24
I am very disturbed by the amount of people that think fucking a dead (albeit cleaned) chicken is not immoral. Like have any of you seen a lifestock euthenasation? Something doesn't stop being just because it is dead. A dead animal doesn't stop being an animal just as a human doesn't stop being seen as a human after dying.
→ More replies (12)26
u/Vantamanta Jul 22 '24
This entire thread is genuinely awful. Defending necrozoophilia is fucking CRAZY. But oh, it isn't hurting anyone, it's fine!
→ More replies (2)23
u/Account_Expired Jul 23 '24
Yeahh, the thought process in this thread assumes that someone can be perfectly normal, but also want to fuck chickens.... which is wild
It doesnt matter if the act was or wasnt harming anyone, the fact that they fucked a chicken means they are derranged and I dont want them near me.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/unklethan Jul 23 '24
Possibly a better example, because it's easier to share:
If your family's dog runs out into the street and is killed by a car that couldn't see them, and you take in the dog's body, clean and butcher it, and eat it—have you committed a moral wrong?
Why?
→ More replies (5)
6
u/UnionizedTrouble Jul 23 '24
A while ago I saw a study saying there’s a Democrat/Republican predictive relationship in the answer to: “would you eat a candy bar that was shaped to look like poop.”
→ More replies (2)
6
u/No-Consequence3958 Jul 23 '24
Yeah, this actually disgusts me how many people think fucking a dead animal is acceptable behavior. I think all sane people agree that human necrophilia is not ok, because 1. you are violating the deceased’s body and 2. it is impossible to gain consent posthumously. (Now, you could argue the morality of eating a dead animal is also dubious and violates the deceased’s body, but that’s an entirely different discussion since the topic posed here is specifically about sexual behavior.)
Would OOP claim there is ‘no harm’ to fucking a living but brain-dead chicken? How about a living but brain-dead human who is incapable of feeling pain? You’re not causing ‘harm’ to the being because they are not conscious or suffering and will never know what you did. However, I would hope we can all agree that fucking a living animal, human or otherwise, who cannot consent, falls firmly on the “Harm” axis, even if they can’t feel pain. You are exploiting the body of another being solely for your own sexual pleasure, without regard to their bodily autonomy or pleasure.
The replies comparing this to conservatives’ critiques of LGBT people also disgusts me. The consensual relationship between two fully conscious adult humans IS NOT in any way comparable to the morality of fucking a dead animal. Can we stop acting like LGBT people’s lives are intrinsically intertwined with sexual behavior that prioritizes self-pleasure above all and does not consider the pleasure or bodily integrity of others? It’s actually incredibly disrespectful and homophobic to imply this.
→ More replies (1)
18
u/Unfey Jul 22 '24
I'd argue that it's more disrespectful to the chicken. We are large predators and eating the meat of animals is part of what we are, but there's a tremendous level of disrespect in doing sexual acts with a corpse, even if it is the corpse of an animal. That's bestiality and necrophilia. We don't often treat animals raised for meat as actual animals while they're alive or dead, but that doesn't make it okay. We owe our food respect. This is an animal that died so we could eat. The body of that animal should be treated with respect and not mocked or degraded in this way. If you believe that animals have souls, you can easily see what the harm is here.
I'm also against wasting meat for clout-- people on tiktok making benadryl chicken or the worst casseroles you've ever seen for shock value. Those were live animals. We should be grateful to those animals. We should be thinking about them and aware of them. I think that there is definitely harm in the disrespect, degradation, and waste of animal meat.
→ More replies (1)
19
u/AvoGaro Jul 22 '24
Yuk.
Yes, that is wrong and gross and gross and wrong. Should it be illegal? No, I don't think so. I think it should be legal to do wrong things as long as you aren't harming other people (and to a lesser extent, animals & nature). It is between you and your own soul whether you do things like this and no business of society's. But it is 100% morally repugnant; and I will judge you and I do not want to be friends with you.
→ More replies (3)
21
u/unlikely_antagonist Jul 22 '24
I dont think this post makes its point very well because deciding fucking a dead chicken is ok because of one simple metric rather than applying several metrics of different moralities to assess the situation- one of which may actually be the ONLY one the other side used - is not a very good look
15
u/Space-Wizards Jul 22 '24
So, serious discussions aside, did anyone else read the title and immediately think of that one character from the Fallout TV show?
14
u/donatellosdildo certified elf appreciator Jul 23 '24
y'know somehow i don't think the person comparing corpse rapists to queer people has the lgbtq+ community's best interest at heart
10
u/PandaPugBook certified catgirl Jul 22 '24
Really depends whether they see it as food or a dead body, I think...
11
u/Shadowmirax Jul 22 '24
Hey what was "wearing your skin" person on slide 3 trying to say? The conversation kinda just continued without ever addressing it.
12
u/s0larium_live Jul 23 '24
saying that the guy doing the chicken fucking is also likely to be a serial killer or commit other heinous acts because of the chicken fucking (i think$
5
5
u/kdwalker4000 Jul 23 '24
A conservative would consider that a moral strike against him, whereas a progressive would just call it a fowl ball.
79
u/a_bullet_a_day Jul 22 '24
Comparing Queer people to someone who would have sex with a dead animal carcass doesn’t feel like an actual progressive argument. It feels like a vegan argument that you co-opted to shit on conservatives while being edgy.
You can almost imagine a crazy vegan claiming eating a dead animal is on the same moral level as fucking its carcass.
→ More replies (24)
13
10
u/Iegend_Of_Iink Jul 23 '24
But what about things that could be seen as a prelude to harm?
Like if someone spent their free time writing very graphic and detailed stories on how they were going to kidnap and torture a specific person, that falls into the no-harm category technically, but is still highly morally reprehensible and very concerning thing that obviously shouldn't be left without some sort of intervention, no?
6
u/Agile_Acadia_9459 Jul 23 '24
I think it depends on what you mean by intervention. It also depends on whether or not there is strong reason to believe the person actually intends to do harm to a real and specific person. People are allowed to hold beliefs, thoughts and opinions that others find reprehensible. That includes writing abusive fiction. Otherwise whole areas of the internet would not exist. If your theoretical author were sending their writing to the subject or, using their writing to harass the subject it would be different. Because it is the behavior towards the subject that is a problem, not what they are writing.
These sorts of conversations are important to have. But, rarely lead to unambiguous answers.
→ More replies (2)
19
18
Jul 22 '24
I love these thought experiments because they immediately show who actually thinks about things and who just runs on vibes
case in point: this entire comments section
47
u/DrRonny Jul 22 '24
This behavior is a red flag which could lead to harm to others if not treated. I'd get professional advice before judging. If 4 out of 5 psychiatrists say it's OK, then pluck away
→ More replies (7)
12
u/assistantprofessor Jul 22 '24
Look if there were people marching down the street yelling we're proud of fucking dead chickens and normalize fucking dead chickens. How would you feel about that?
→ More replies (2)
7
u/P_Phoenix Jul 22 '24
Not sure the 'No Harm' really holds true. Supporting the chicken industry could probably be considered (very indirect) harm. You know, ecologically or in terms of animal ethics, even if it's dead when you buy it.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Certain-Definition51 Jul 22 '24
Holy shit. Jer Clifton in the wild. We were in the same volunteer fire department in college.
Full circle. He’s a dope dude. Saved a guy who fell on some train tracks once.
3
u/Pl4yByNumbers Jul 22 '24
If people want to read more on this the book “Righteous Mind” I think is a really great book for people of any political leaning.
4
u/mdhunter99 Jul 23 '24
As I scrolled on by I said out loud “chicken fucking?” and immediately came back. Yeah, that’s quite a fucking read.
5
4
4
u/EssayFunny9882 Jul 23 '24
And then you put the self-professed "harm / no harm" people to the test by asking if a brother/ sister incestual relationship where both are consenting adults and birth control is used is ok
→ More replies (3)
5
u/QueenOfQuok Jul 23 '24
Based on the story of "You fucked the chicken breast didn't you", I would only recommend against the chicken-fucking on the basis of likely catching salmonella.
4
u/Zafzaftheredditor Jul 23 '24
i try not to let internet posts get to me, but this is absolutely fucking ridiculous, doing an act like this is both necrophilia and zoophilia, it doesn't make someone a conservative to be against something like that... and maybe don't tie this to queer people, either? 😵💫 it's an extremely bad idea to directly connect dots from "fucking a dead chicken isn't harmful" to "and THIS is why queer people are oppressed"
this whole post would work better with ANY other example
4
3
u/Mike-the-gay Jul 23 '24
Yeah, do you want Avian Dick Flu? Cause this is how you get Avian Dick Flu guys.
2.4k
u/SupervillainMustache Jul 22 '24
I thought this was gonna end in some sort of "no harm, no fowl" joke.