Much bloge, such wow!

Thank you, TADC

This homeless person is making me uncomfortable. Should I call [a man with a gun]?

My neighbor is having a loud party. Should I get [a man with a gun] involved?

There are some teenagers skateboarding. Do you think [a man with a gun] would get rid of them for me?

Source

At the 1985 Labour party meet, the motion to support LGBT rights as a party was passed due to a block vote from mining unions.

Yeah nah that's TOTALLY all just right wing propaganda and not provable with all the data we've seen over the years. Hell their Idol Billie Eilish has openly talked about it herself. Having discovered porn at 14 and by the time she was an adult needing to basically see people best the fuck out of in order to climax. Of which translated to get IRL sex life.

Do you think all artistic and media depictions of sexuality, if they were explicitly were created to arouse, are inherently bad? ie, porn is bad ?

Or do you think that in the current state of society where people are disconnected from each other and mega corporations pour all their efforts into capturing your attention and addicting you because its their business model [societal feature associated with technocapitalism]

such depictions can become harmful and addictive?

Do you think people would get incorrect views of sex if they had not had [incorrect sex ed] because elenentary science class prepares people to watch Marvel movies without getting incorrect views of physics.

Finally, the term degenerate comes from eugenics and the emphasis on shame is likewise, not Biblical, but associated with the way Christendom is used to justify [authoritarian/ patriarchal control]

2. Also you are using a very broad definition of eugenics if you are going to try to claim that degenerate in the form that I'm using it in is related to eugenics in any way. When it's a functional term in its original context. And normally the people who are most pissed about eugenics are actually very much for it when you reach down to their root philosophy.

3. Shame is a necessary feature to live in a functional society. Because without shame you just do and say whatever the hell you want to whenever the hell you want to without the understanding that that often comes with unintended consequences. Shame is a societal mechanism in which we use to keep the world functioning. And be grateful it's not people locked in a stockade with tomatoes being thrown at them anymore. Because I'm sure you'd have been on that list.

4. "Incorrect" sex education sounds really dumb. Now before you hop on this is if you have a gotcha, let me explain. The majority of people actually get proper sex education which is to say understanding of protection the understanding of what sex is and what it produces. As well as the necessary understanding of what's your sexual organs do. Sex education does not need to go beyond the safety aspect and the biological aspect. Because if it did you would effectively be arguing that we should teach kids how to have sex. And that's really not the argument you need to be making. Lest you be first in the wood chipper. And I'd shove your ass in feet first.

5. And finally is porn bad. Unfortunately this is a stupidly complicated question because it's extremely difficult to answer. For the majority of the population porn is actually inherently harmful to their psyche. Reason being is that when used for masturbation 95% of individuals who consume it, end up having to consume more and more of it over time. Oftentimes with the degree of which changing in severity. Which is to say if you watch soft core stuff at the beginning you end up watching extreme fetishy hardcore stuff towards the end. It attacks parts of your brain that you are not used to protecting. This effect has actually been seen in a large portion of the population. There are very much outliers in this case. But they are not as common.

Is it fine in moderation? I personally believe yes. The issue is there are few people who actually consume it in moderation. And if you look at the volume of it now compared to even 10 years ago it has infested literally everything. Because of when you are a younger adult and a teenager you've constantly got sex on the mind so you seek a lot of that stuff out. Be it pornography, or otherwise lewd things. In modern day it feels like literally you are less than a click away from seeing every other 20-year-old girls tits. And while for a lot of people that might seem like a blessing. It's not. It has taught women that their value realistically only stems from their bodies and only their bodies and only from a outward physical presentation point of view.

Even reductionists on the right who say a woman is only worth her ability to give birth (which that crowd is not actually as large people believe) don't even believe that. And you might not be old enough to understand this, or maybe you're not mentally old enough, who knows, to realize we had a better functioning society dating-wise when people were still masturbating to National geographic and Sears catalog swimsuit edition. In other words back when there were not a lot of hardcore magazines and medias out there. In others words. Back when Playboy was still on the throne.

However there's still the other issue, IE the more frustrating issue which is the fact that most of our modern society in the West cannot distinguish fiction from reality. Unfortunately that's where pornography fits in. Because a lot of people see it look at it as a real functioning act, and even when they realize that the people there are both technically actors, because it's depicted as real a lot of people tend to disassociate themselves and imagine themselves in that scenario. And it is done so to reach a point of arousal that gets you where you're trying to go.

My biggest issue however is the fact that a lot of the time when people like OP and probably people like you say that you want to teach sex ed which You're talking about is teaching kids how to have sex. And possibly teaching them cake and foreplay. And even if you're doing it from a clinical standpoint that still makes you a disgusting pervert. Because fun fact for the whole of civilization we've managed before porn ever existed. Even before it was stick figures on the wall with two circles to represent boobs. Trial and error is a thing and it does work. People can hardly keep up relationships in modern day as it is. There are a lot of reasons why. The prolific existence of mass quantities of pornography is definitely one of them. Feminism is another. And society's mass hatred of men is another. And top that off with social media consistently telling women to reach for the stars and bring nothing to the table, while teaching men that they need to be a doormat servant.

Second. This is a genuinely fascinating response, rhetorically speaking.

OP makes the point that porn is not inherently bad, and that people talking about the problems with porn are either talking about problems that arise from societal conditions, or their talking points are derived, even indirectly, from Christian belief or far right theology.

And then my interlocutor comes forward and proves OP's point.

And I do some rhetorical analysis to show my interlocutor that was said proves OP's point. I am trying to be clear.

Porn is bad, means, all artistic and media depictions of sexuality, if they were explicitly were created to arouse, are inherently bad. Do you really believe that?

The reasons that you give that porn is bad are essentially drawn directly from social conditions, do you see that? Are you joking, is this proving a point?

AND

My interlocutor responds to once again, agree with me on all the facts we have stated.

IL concedes, Porn is not inherently bad in moderation, especially when people have enough education to understand that it is fiction and read it rhetorically.

The problem is the way it functions in society, IL says extensively. We had a better society when people used the old kind of porn, not the new predatory, technocapitalist, knowledge attention kind where corporations are targeting teenagers for addiction. Even worse, we currently have so little media analysis that people don't know how to understand the media they engage with.

Thank you, for conceding all my and OP's main points.

However, this time, the rhetoric is inflammatory, abusive and violent. It adds a helping of the misunderstood neurochemistry, but really leans into the bizarre Christian talking points and the far right grounding truly comes out. IL has really made up a crazy strawman and tried to turn me into it, and then threaten me with assault.

IL really says the problem with society is porn and feminism, while describing things like the way technocapitalism in the attention economy functions, or problematic beliefs derived from patriarchy, or tragic features of modern education.

Really seeing the tragic features of modern education and how no child left behind failed a whole generation, I guess.

Can you see, why this continues to be astonishing to me? Can you see why I read this and I am concerned for you, if it isn't satire?

I just want to address the thing here that makes me the most concerned for you.

Shame is not good for you. Things like compassion, empathy, reciprocal relationships, and an internal ethical code are much much more effective in creating pro-social behavior. Humans are herd mammals whose survival is entirely dependent on cooperation; our whole big brains developed to connect with other people. We are not inherently evil mosnters who must be beaten to prevent us from doing harm. Even a small child can show care, concern, and empathy for others, not as a matter of training, but as a natural response.

Shame on the other hand puts people into a triggered fight/flight place and prevents deep empathy.

If you, right now, live in a world where you feel you must shame yourself in order to not do evil, that's damaging. You already want to not do evil, even if your language here is violent, lacks empathy, and is cruel. If you want to improve your capacity to relate deeply to others, which you seem to, try putting the shame and aggression away so you can think deeply and consider their perspective.

The question of "what constitutes life worth preserving" is fundamentally a metaphysical discussion, and thus both crucially emotional and absolutely impossible to objectively answer. That's why anti-abortionists want to fix the argument there.

The place where we should be forcing the argument is bodily autonomy. Even when there's a very clear "if you do not donate an organ, this child will die" — we do not force people to become organ donors. We do not force rich people to house poor people in their homes, even though it is clear that to do so would save lives. We did not walk into Elon Musk's house and force him to solve world hunger by gunpoint. In many states, we agree that someone has the right to shoot someone if they get surprised by them in their home!

My stepmother did NOT like the way her Libertarian Viking Neighbor framed pregnancy as the fetus "attacking the woman". She incredulously told him this was extremely disrespectful to expectant mothers to portray pregnancy as so violent and negative.

Libertarian Viking Neighbor's response was that people consensually hurt each other all the time, and "there's like a whole community about that, with the acronym the one that starts with a B" And his reasoning was that if the mother was consenting to bring attacked by the baby, it in fact wasn't violent and negative because there was consent.

If someone is inside my body, even a little bit, and I don't want them there, I can kill them to make them leave. This is a thing that happens to people of all genders in the case of penetrative rape.

Likewise, if someone hooked even a whole adult human to another man's kidneys, and the man had to physically carry and feed and clean the blood of this orher person for 9 months until a transplant arrived, I have no doubt that it would be legal for the nan to say, that's not my responsibility, I can disconnect even if it kills you.

fetus is baby has Soul? doesn't matter. don't care. has soul does not equal has right to invade and use another person's body.

In 2024, advisers to Musk ran a $45 million false-flag campaign so precise in its cynicism that it deserves to be described slowly and disdainfully. Muslim voters in Michigan received pro-Israel ads designed to look like Harris campaign materials. Jewish voters in Pennsylvania received the opposite message from the same shop. Young liberals got videos about how Harris had betrayed the progressive movement. Working-class white men in the Midwest got warnings that Harris would institute racial quotas and take away their Zyn pouches. Four brand names, zero common origin, one coordinating strategy. They called it “false positives” internally. The goal was not persuasion. It was subtraction — push enough Democratic-leaning voters into confusion, disgust, or exhausted abstention. Harris dropped eight million votes from Biden’s 2020 total. Trump gained fewer than two million. The election was decided, as the architects intended, by subtraction.

Go fucking vote please.