Leftist Child Grooming

Zyobot

Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Because white men are inherently evil and responsible for all the woes in the world, according to their faith.

Of course, they’ll happily gloss over how gender theory was also produced by a white man. Heck, the entire French Revolution (and all the leftist deconstructionism forthwith) that they’re the intellectual heirs to was a creation of Western politics, though for some reason, I suppose that gets a pass in their book. :rolleyes:

Still, I’m quite certain “Evil whiteys made up the gender dichotomy!” can be disproven by some cursory reading about nonwhite cultures long before their encounters with the West, which even today, remain less into Woke shit than we are. (See Eastern Europe, the Arab World, practically everyone outside the West for evidence of this.) Of course, these kids will probably be trained not to notice or care, thanks to years of forced cognitive dissonance and discouragement from asking the obvious questions here. 👿
 

Ixian

Well-known member
x0ttZv4oNpox.png



Pedophile? Check! Tranny? Check! Illegal Alien? Check! Promoted by New York Times in 2018? Check!


2018 New York Slime article:
‘They Were Abusing Us the Whole Way’: A Tough Path for Gay and Trans …
2022 Breitbart article:
Multiple Trans Activists Arrested for Sex Crimes Involving Children
16 felony charges filed in Utah sextortion investigation

This is why the Left is trying to turn the term "groomer" into a "anti lgbt slur".
 

Yinko

Well-known member
George Bush Jr. passed a law in the early 00's that said that pornographic drawings of children counted as child porn. Considering that this lesson shows drawings of nude children and closeups of their genitalia, would that qualify? Or would the argument be that, in this case, it's for instructional purposes and thus does not qualify, just as classical art with nude children doesn't qualify since it's not trying to be sexual. Though... in this instance it's pretty much exclusively trying to be sexual since it's a fucking sex-ed class.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
George Bush Jr. passed a law in the early 00's that said that pornographic drawings of children counted as child porn. Considering that this lesson shows drawings of nude children and closeups of their genitalia, would that qualify? Or would the argument be that, in this case, it's for instructional purposes and thus does not qualify, just as classical art with nude children doesn't qualify since it's not trying to be sexual. Though... in this instance it's pretty much exclusively trying to be sexual since it's a fucking sex-ed class.
You mind pointing me to what law that was? Because I don't remember that.
 

Yinko

Well-known member
You mind pointing me to what law that was? Because I don't remember that.
PROTECT Act of 2003

I was pretty into hentai at that age, and all the sites I was using at the time went into purges. Then ever since, once a site gets too big either their sponsors force them to kick the loli content or the feds do. Underage literary content has never been illegal in the US but uhhh, I think people would still call someone out on it if they knew what they jerked off to.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
PROTECT Act of 2003

I was pretty into hentai at that age, and all the sites I was using at the time went into purges. Then ever since, once a site gets too big either their sponsors force them to kick the loli content or the feds do. Underage literary content has never been illegal in the US but uhhh, I think people would still call someone out on it if they knew what they jerked off to.
Ah yes, now I remember. They didn't really do much with that after the Dwight Whorley case though (which I still maintain was a travesty of justice).
 

Yinko

Well-known member
Ah yes, now I remember. They didn't really do much with that after the Dwight Whorley case though (which I still maintain was a travesty of justice).
Nah, there have been a few instances that I've heard of. There as a case in the mid 2010's where some guy had porn of the Simpsons and got thrown in prison (which is funny to me since I've seen Simpsons porn as banner ads on sites, and there's worse stuff on Reddit). It seemed like a setup to me so I never kept anything on my computer after that. There have been a few other instances that I've heard of, but usually they seem like either they are pedos who are careful and the cops are looking for a way to take them out, or it's part of a series of smaller charges that the cops are compiling in order to get a felony conviction.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Nah, there have been a few instances that I've heard of. There as a case in the mid 2010's where some guy had porn of the Simpsons and got thrown in prison (which is funny to me since I've seen Simpsons porn as banner ads on sites, and there's worse stuff on Reddit). It seemed like a setup to me so I never kept anything on my computer after that. There have been a few other instances that I've heard of, but usually they seem like either they are pedos who are careful and the cops are looking for a way to take them out, or it's part of a series of smaller charges that the cops are compiling in order to get a felony conviction.
Seriously? Guess I wasn't paying attention. I don't think drawings should be against the law though, no matter what they are.
 

Yinko

Well-known member
Seriously? Guess I wasn't paying attention. I don't think drawings should be against the law though, no matter what they are.
If you are going to make drawings of children illegal, then you should really make things like guro illegal too. The logic would follow. There were some studies that came out of California (so I take them with a grain of salt) that non-exploitative porn (such as drawings and stories) lower the instance of molestation and rape of children. The corroborating evidence that doesn't exist, yet, is if psychos and sadists have a lowed instance of physical satiation due to porn that caters to their interests.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top