AnimalNoodles
Well-known member
theres no guarantee that the american caesar will be on our side.
Leftist Child Grooming
- Thread starter Captain X
- Start date
theres no guarantee that the american caesar will be on our side.
maybe i don't live in the "right" area for this bullshit. but where i am living, i have never encountered a parent that isn't very protective of their children when it comes to sexual degeneracy. most parents are intensely strict and protective towards this, even if they can't stop what is going on in the schools or on the phones (although they can take the phones from the kids).
while i havn't had any experience with any "transitional" bullshit, i can say there is a significant trend of more and more kids and young adults being bi-sexual; particularly, females. most parents are even against this.
and it's not like i live in west end cobb town alabama; i live in New England and i still don't see this shit (although i probably would in parts of Boston or Providence). it's in the schools; but parents still hold the authority over their children and i know we all vilify single mothers here but i've met some single mothers that are like mother bears when it comes to protecting their children.
but fuck the schools, fuck tiktok and fuck vaping. i feel like a lot of these kids will see the light of day
DarthOne
☦️
Only if we stand up and show them the way. And if necessary, force it upon them. The consequences are too dire to risk defeat.
only parents can guide their kids. maybe if said kids are lucky their will be some honest examples in their community.
but nobody is going to "stand up and show them the way". kids have to find their own way through combination of their own ability to see through bullshit; and their mother bear protecting them and laying down the law of the household when need be. strong father figures would help as well but they are vilified from every possible angle
kids are being introduced to degeneracy and addictions - at the touch of a screen wherever they go no less - at such young ages nowadays that by the time they are even in middle school, they start to realize they are addicts but often don't know how to combat it at that age. but eventually with a few more years times, they feel what addictions do to them and see what is does to their family around them and, if they havn't fucked up their lives too much by this point which is what the enemy wants, then they take steps to combat their addictions and go forward with their lives
i've seen it happen in real time and i respect these kids for being able to do this at such young ages
Actually this makes sense. It sounds like you live in a region of upper middle class / upper class people. The thing is, people in those classes have long been about "yes, you can have all that stuff and choice and sexual deviancy, but we're going to CHOOSE the old fashioned method" because here's the thing: the traditional two parent family with kids focused on getting a good education: that's what works to create intergenerational success and everyone knows it. The elites and many of the elite-adjacent classes live what would be considered in a very socially conservative way, and frequently don't even send their kids to the public schools, rather, they pay for private schools that provide an elite, usually quite traditional, education.
This is a result of the success of capitalism. It used to be the elites would set themselves apart from the population by displaying wealth and goods... but nowadays the standard of living is so ridiculously high that even the poor in the US have goods and living standards that are BETTER than the most wealthy elite of the early 20th century*, to say nothing of the earlier times. So instead of setting themselves apart by showing off wealth they do it by lifestyle, but they don't want to change THEIR lifestyle to something that damages their intergenerational standing, so instead they basically encourage the lower classes to have lifestyles that lead to continual failure and dependence.
It's really, REALLY fucked up when you realize it.
--------------
* Yes, those elites may have had more living space... but there's a good chance even someone poor in the US owns a car, at least ONE television, lives in a climate controlled building, has access to the internet, and can purchase foods from around the world to eat to the point of GETTING FAT. We're so freaking wealthy that our poor have more issues with health issues from BEING OBESCE than HUNGER. Can you really understand how utterly insane that would seem to people from before the 20th century? DIABETES is a greater health risk to the poor than MALNUTRITION. If you said that to any human before the late 20th century they would look at you like you're insane.
mrttao
Well-known member
Oklahoma school defends hiring drag queen principal previously arrested for possessing child porn
A school in Oklahoma, OKLA-FREAKING-HOMA, is defending its decision to hire a drag queen who was previously arrested for possessing kiddie porn, saying they followed their "usual hiring practices."
notthebee.com
mrttao
Well-known member
Texas judge rules in favor of porn group, declares the state’s age-verification law violates the 1st Amendment 🤡
I consider myself pretty much a free-speech absolutist and even this seems completely idiotic to me:
notthebee.com
I actually agree with this one. It's stupid nanny-state bullshit. It should be on parents to police what their kids are up to online anyway.Texas judge rules in favor of porn group, declares the state’s age-verification law violates the 1st Amendment 🤡
I consider myself pretty much a free-speech absolutist and even this seems completely idiotic to me:
mrttao
Well-known member
facepalm.
not giving porn to other people's children is not "nanny state". The parents are never asked for permission by the pornographer, this is done behind their back.
and with wage slavery being at full swing, parents do not have the time to fully police their children at all times.
The porn didn't just jump out of the computer screen and grab the kids. They deliberately looked it up, or somebody told them to look it up.
Every household has chemicals/medicine capable of killing a dozen kids, yet somehow despite most of these being easily obtained by said kids, none of them die.
If you can't be bothered to IP-block a few websites at the router, you're technologically illiterate.
This is just some bullshit that moral crusaders have always used to ban things they don't like. Even the Leftists will do it - look at how they try to use children to ban guns. There are such a thing as parental controls on both the PC and the browser. You've already said more than once that you want to ban porn, so don't pretend this is about kids getting groomed by anyone. This is just you being a petty little tyrant by seeing something you don't like and wanting to ban it. Just like Leftists. Hell, a bunch of them are anti-porn, too, because "muh objectification." Fuck all of you petty little tyrants.
DarthOne
☦️
Wanting to ban porn and viewing porn as a means of grooming kids is not mutually exclusive.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
Or you could you know be an actual parent. Oh dear me what did the people in the days before big government, #society and #culture do? How could they have possibly functioned without someone to protect their kids and blame for all of their ills?
Honestly it's worth it to study the pron industry because their the most censored and debanked industrys on the planet and if they can survive all that they might have some tactics to teach the rest of us.
Don't forget the porn industry are tech innovators/trend setters too.
One of the reasons VHS won-out over betamax was because porn producers/actors preferred to use VHS set ups/tapes.
Now with all the VR stuff and different sorts of feedback sensors...well, I'd say look at Ghost in the Shell connectivity and Ready Player One's haptics are not that far off.
As well, Prohibition showed how badly this sort of thing usually goes, and how it usually only empowers organized crime and people who are anti-porn crusaders, while turning even more people into needless victims and/or criminals in the same act(s) that are legal currently and have been for a long time.
Porn needs some cleaning up for health and safety reasons, and more ways to ensure the safety of performers/actors. Also more safeguards against trafficking and scam/abuse schemes.
Modern sex ed classes in high schools need to handle things in basically a 'ask your parents' methodology when it comes to porn; parents really are the one's who should handle education about this sort of stuff, not schools or bureaucrats.
Banning porn makes some people feel righteous, but most of them will admit they cannot do it without violating the 1st Amendment and likely enabling a Prohibition 2.0 that is even less successful and more damaging.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
All of this but especially the highlighted part.
For the girls, it'd likely turn a good few off... but there will always be a few teenagers who are determined to be mothers because that's what they truly want in life. They're just stupid enough to be preggo as teens instead of waiting further on in their lives when they're stable (e.g. job, a partner, et cetera), or they become single mothers which is its own can of worms.
For the boys? Just explain how much child support costs, and how much the System screws over men as a rule. That'll kill their sex drives quicker than a naked Hillary Clinton doing a pole dance.
King Arts
Well-known member
I get what you are saying and you can hate on “moral crusaders” but do you honestly think the court ruled correctly? Remember the judge said that the requirements to put age verification violate the 1st amendment. Again Americans don’t support judge’s deciding based solely on their beliefs. If a judge said “Fuck this law is stupid and it should not be a thing, I don’t give a shit about the constitution though and I wipe my ass with it.” People would be outraged and yell for impeachment.
So I have to ask can you explain how requiring age verification violates the constitution?
mrttao
Well-known member
This has nothing to do with objectification. What porn does to children is the number 1 reason I actually want it banned. Because it is far far far too hard to actually restrict children's access to it.
And unlike guns porn actually harms children, en masse.
That 40% LGBTQP highschooler figure did not come out of nowhere, and porn is a massive contributor to it.
Parental controls have proven to be completely ineffective.
As someone who has once been a teen I can tell you that parental controls are trash at blocking porn. But if you do not believe my anecdotal claim. Here is some research on the subject which shows... that parental controls are completely and wholly ineffective in restricting a child's access to porn
Parental controls do not stop teens from seeing pornography
New research has found that Internet filtering tools are ineffective and in most cases, were an insignificant factor in whether young people had seen explicit sexual content.
www.sciencedaily.com
You are here explicitly arguing against... age verification on porn sites. Under the basis that... what, children need porn? No, you don't even defend your position, you just attack me. calling me a tyrant, would be leftist, muh objectificaiton, and someone who wants to ban porn so therefore my position should be discarded...
So... are you just going to argue in bad faith here?
Or are you able to produce some reasons as to why online porn sites should not include age verification?
Last edited: