cutitout

13 ms·

31.
by cutitout 6y ago
> 99% of the time it’s some dude who didn’t check the date on the thread and posts “omg me too!” on an 8 year old post. Comments could be marked by mods (or voted on) to not bump a thread, making it a minor occasional annoyance rather th
32.
by cutitout 6y ago
> It doesn't matter whether you hate the spies and believe they are corroding democracy, or if you think they are the noble guardians of the state. In both cases the assumption is that the secret agents know more than we do. > Bu
33.
by cutitout 6y ago
> Glass woulda fixed that. But it would have made everything else worse. Kinda like using x-ray machines in shoe shops. But now that I think about it, that could be said even about many uses of social media. Yes, it achieves something, n
34.
by cutitout 6y ago
I simply cannot see the value in happiness for the sake of happiness. As long as there are people being murdered and tortured, I will not ever feel deeply happy -- so? I still won't shift the goal posts just to feel "happy"
35.
by cutitout 6y ago
Yes, and then robots (built by people so conditioned, no less) are still infinitely worse than that .
36.
by cutitout 6y ago
> I think that surreal nature makes folks less suspect of other sort of curious / awfully polished / almost surreal content I agree, and it it reminds me of a very good article: https://charleseisenstein.org/es
37.
by cutitout 6y ago
Also notice one of the follow-up videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WXZU6CTVts > YouTube has now age restricted this video... unbelievable. Three painstaking videos diving into this issue, and in the end I'm t
38.
by cutitout 6y ago
I do disagree with you say. You say there is "something in the brain" of someone who recognizes this for sexual dancing, as something that is supposed to be exciting (which to me in this context is just an euphemism for arousing)
39.
by cutitout 6y ago
> something in the individual's brain has realized that what it's getting from the eyes is supposed to be exciting. If you motion captured someone dancing sexually I would recognize what it's supposed to be even if you app
40.
by cutitout 6y ago
I said the intention is irrelevant. As I said in the bit you quoted, it's about the content.
41.
by cutitout 6y ago
You cannot seriously mention homosexuality between consenting adults and sexualization of children in the same sentence. > because the French movie in question is fundamentally critical of the existing normalization of sexualization of c
42.
by cutitout 6y ago
> The people complaining about it seem to have their own discomfort that they project onto a phantom pedophile > Has anyone noticed that? How can I "notice" something you're just claiming, based on nothing, that doesn&#
43.
by cutitout 6y ago
The show is criticized for being essential erotic material for pedophiles, filled with up close shots of bums and panties of children. The American poster comes closer to that, but is still tame compared to the actual content, which is what
44.
by cutitout 6y ago
It simply means that the comment is not merely "pure speculation", which as a comment is 100% worthless in the first place and should be the focus of anyone claiming intellectual integrity and interest in the discussion; instead o