7 ms·
There are significant factions who would prefer porn be eradicated in it's entirety and laws like this just use 'protecting children' as the more agreable face
by rtkwe 1y ago
There are significant factions who would prefer porn be eradicated in it's entirety and laws like this just use 'protecting children' as the more agreable face to their crusade. Ironically the same people who often crow about parental autonomy and how they should be in complete control of their children's education and lives.
- ForOldHack 1y agoThe hypocrisy is very clearly evident. And there is nothing on Blue sky that is not appropriate for children over 13-with parental guidance. They do need to keep the morons, and knuckle dragging lawyers off the platform simply because of their felonious actions and prison records.
- frumplestlatz 1y ago> And there is nothing on Blue sky that is not appropriate for children over 13-with parental guidance. I've heard that it's full of furry porn and worse. Is that not the case?
- TheCleric 1y agoI wouldn’t say “full of”, but like other mostly uncensored social media sites like Twitter, it’s definitely there if you’re looking for it (and sometimes even when you’re not).
- gjsman-1000 1y agoIt is. OP has cleverly redefined everything as being age appropriate with guidance, for convenience.
- kemayo 1y agoIt's certainly not "full of", though I'm sure it's there. I never see it, but then I don't follow people who post it. I certainly see less random pornographically-tinged content showing up in my day-to-day usage than I did when I was on twitter. The default view being literally only stuff I've explicitly followed does rather change that experience.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- anigbrowl 1y agoThere's absolutely porn on there if that's what you're after
- spauldo 1y agoWhich is where the parental guidance comes in. My dad gave me my first porn magazine. It was a good thing, too, since by the time I could legally buy a picture of naked ladies I'd already spent a good deal of time in their company.
- ForOldHack 1y agoI forgot the beaten path. I wondered where the porn was, like where is all the baseball( both insipidly boring), and then my boss did a web search for gramophone and there were only a few results, but banging rocks together? Millions. He looked for something related to goats and then I had to reload his machine from scratch. ( Dropper+payload) Like he blew a transmission.
- hobo_in_library 1y agoTo be fair, their concern tends to be a more consistent "Don't push these corrupting agents towards me or my society" If the school curriculum aligned with their belief system, they won't be talking about a need for control
- Loughla 1y agoIf they had control of the school they wouldn't be talking about needing control of the school?
- elteto 1y agoJust yield and do as they say, and they’ll maybe spare you.
- susiecambria 1y agoWell, they would be talking about maintaining control. Control requires constant vigilance to reinforce compliance coupled with making sure there is no disobedience. The latter speaks to "needing control." Does this make any sense or am I full of hot air?
- Aurornis 1y ago> If the school curriculum aligned with their belief system, they won't be talking about a need for control No they wouldn’t. They don’t want anyone accessing materials they disagree with. Having such materials available on the internet feels like a threat to themselves and their children. They don’t care about collateral damage, they just want more control.
- solid_fuel 1y agoExcept “corrupting” in this case often just means “LGBTQ”. In exactly the same way “corrupting influence” used to mean “music made by black people” or “anything pro-worker”. Corrupting ideas don’t exist. There is truly no such thing as an infohazard. We, as humans, are capable of making up our own minds about things and we don’t need to give this power of censorship over to people who are not acting in good faith.
- nilespotter 1y ago> crow about parental autonomy and how they should be in complete control of their children's education and lives. Ah yes, those monsters
- Braxton1980 1y agoThey are monsters because of what they will do to obtain their goals.
- hyperadvanced 1y agoEvil little fuckers. Who even thinks that the US Federal Government isn’t totally qualified to be in complete control of their children’s education and lives, anyway? Probably some racist Ruby Ridge types (/s)
- john01dav 1y agoChildren are human beings who need growing autonomy as they mature, not property of parents. I have several (adult, to be clear) friends who have suffered serious damage due to overly authoritarian parenting.
- gjsman-1000 1y agoReally? Now do the math on all the kids harmed by overly lax parenting. Many of them are literally dead.
- tomrod 1y ago[flagged]
- gjsman-1000 1y agoMy point remains unchanged: Strict parenting has killed far less people than lax. Strict parenting can generally be recovered from; lax parenting, you’ll be dead before you even recognize it.
- UncleMeat 1y agoThis isn't even really it. If you read the section of Project2025 about porn and these sorts of age laws, then barely talk about porn at all. They lead with "transgender ideology" and such. The goal isn't to keep porn away from kids. The goal is to keep anything that offends their desired hierarchy away from kids.
- gjsman-1000 1y agoEverybody has a desired hierarchy; and you have one too. Own it; fight for it if you can; and recognize someone has to lose.
- some_furry 1y agoHierarchies are in and of themselves stupid. If you think they exist naturally, you're only looking at one of thousands of independent variables. If you average them out, we all tend towards mediocrity. When someone appeals to hierarchies (e.g., "there's always a bigger fish"), they're just admitting to using a painfully one-dimensional worldview.
- librasteve 1y agostrictly speaking a tree requires at least two dimensions
- tomrod 1y agoAn infinite tree has a fractional dimension. Ref: p-adics and fractals
- dwattttt 1y agoWith no recognition of what harm the desires result in? This is a fast way to all out war. Have you considered finding middle ground and compromises? Or is war the only option?
- 1y ago
- yibg 1y agoFor all the talk about free speech and freedoms, a significant portion of the US doesn’t actually want free speech. They want free speech only for things they agree with.
- Yeul 1y agoI noticed that none of our human rights are actually in the Bible.
- LadyCailin 1y agoIn fact the Bible normalizes many anti-human rights. Subjugation of women, slavery, child abuse, etc.
- sarchertech 1y ago2,000 years ago the accepted belief of nearly every culture we have records for was that rich people were morally superior to poor people because they were favored by whatever gods you believed in, and that slavery was justified because you must have done something to deserve it. But then the books of the New Testament were written with themes like this: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
- Refreeze5224 1y agoTrying to use the New Testament as a paragon of enlightened thinking, especially regarding slavery, is going to be a tough sell.
- sarchertech 1y agoCompare it to the rest of the world in the first century, and it’s extremely enlightened. Compared to most of the world today, even many self-professed “Christians”, the teachings on rich vs poor, pacifism, and forgiveness are downright radical. In addition the New Testament doesn’t endorse slavery as something that people should do or something that is morally correct. It instructs people who happen to be slaves to obey their masters in the same way it instructs non slaves to obey their authorities. The principle is the same as when Jesus refuses to fight back against the Roman soldiers arresting him. Jesus isn’t endorsing the Roman soldiers’ behavior. He’s saying that the Christian response is not supposed to be rebellion (in most cases at least).