Funny events in anti-woke world

[tstorm823]

...who do not understand the difference between healthy and unhealthy forms of sexual expression and who are extremely vulnerable to abuse or their own poor decisions...

One of the big distinctions is public versus private. A child is less vulnerable when they understand things like that are supposed to be private, and someone should not be telling them about private sexual thoughts. I don't know what positive you're expecting by normalizing the airing of sexual fantasies.

 

[Terminal Blue]

One of the big distinctions is public versus private. A child is less vulnerable when they understand things like that are supposed to be private, and someone should not be telling them about private sexual thoughts. I don't know what positive you're expecting by normalizing the airing of sexual fantasies.

No. Just no.

Do you think child sex abusers abuse children in public? Statistically, child abusers are often related to or even live with the children they abuse, or are otherwise in a position where they would have private access to them. This means that child abusers will frequently exploit a child's sense of shame or desire for privacy in order to keep that child from disclosing, because disclosure is by far the most common way of exposing child sexual abuse.

I personally know several victims of child sexual abuse, because it's a lot less rare than people think it is. None of the crimes against them were ever uncovered because they took place in secret, inside their own homes at the hands of family members, and because those children were so ashamed that they never told anyone until they were adults. One of my friends didn't disclose that she was being sexually abused when she was being interviewed as a child witness in a rape trial against her abuser, even when she was explicitly asked. A child's sense of shame and fear of punishment is a very, very powerful means of control.

The actual distinctions that are significant are consent and age-appropriateness. Sometimes, these might overlap with privacy. If a child keeps masturbating in public, sure, you might want to tell them they can do that but only in private. In general, though, imposing an idea of privacy onto a child is a terrible way to protect them from abuse that generally occurs in private.

I don't know what positive you're expecting by normalizing the airing of sexual fantasies.

If a child is old enough to have sexual fantasies, then trying to hide the existence of sexual fantasies from them is pointless. They're reached the point of requiring a better explanation before they end up searching for femboy vore porn on the internet.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Because the workers aren't rich and are therefore the enemy.

Not the enemy, just lower, workers. So they should just know their place, shut up and work, and leave the ruling to their betters who dress better.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Then the government should make sure we have long-term policies to deal with automation. What good is a TV being ten dollars if you and 66% of the population are homeless, and there are ten people in a factory making say TVs? It's on them to not make us worse off, the US citizenry is at full employment, and they don't have that much free time anyway to protest it.

While that (and many other things) is a responsibility of the US government, I'd not hold my breath on them taking the job as seriously as they should.

 

[tstorm823]

In general, though, imposing an idea of privacy onto a child is a terrible way to protect them from abuse that generally occurs in private.

If abuse is occurring, there are two people involved. It may be more private than reading a book in school, but it's still an issue of not being private enough. Children should know that if other people are not keeping their sexuality to themselves around children, they are doing something wrong. This does not square with publicizing sexual fantasies as required reading.

 

[tstorm823]

Not the enemy, just lower, workers. So they should just know their place, shut up and work, and leave the ruling to their betters who dress better.

You have this situation backwards. John Fetterman is not a worker and never has been. His father owned a successful insurance company. He went to the same college as his father to get a degree in finance with the intention of taking over that business. Instead, he ended up becoming the mayor of a tiny town in the suburbs, a part time job that paid a few hundred dollars, while his parents supported him and his family financially.

The complaint about the Carhartts isn't that working people are bad. The complaint is that it's cosplay. An insurance salesman who quit and went into politics because his parents were wealthy enough to pay his way then going to work in a suit has lost even the fake connection to the working class, he becomes just the blandest of politicians.

Edit: To be clear, I have no issue with any of that. If you have successful parents and want to follow their footsteps, good. If you don't want to do that, but want to take advantage of your privileges in a less typical way and you're still contributing to something, also great. If you want to wear Carhartt sweatshirts, hey, me too.

Rewriting the Senate dress code so that one guy can have his look back is a bit much.

 

[Silvanus]

The vast majority of people on the planet would read this discussion and side with me. [...] I don't need to say much more than that.

This is a thing you do: you take whatever position you support, and then claim it's the normal thing to do and has been normal for a long time. [...] It just doesn't work, because you never have any basis for what you call normal, other than it's what you like.

Hmm.

 

[Casual Shinji]

You have this situation backwards. John Fetterman is not a worker and never has been. His father owned a successful insurance company. He went to the same college as his father to get a degree in finance with the intention of taking over that business. Instead, he ended up becoming the mayor of a tiny town in the suburbs, a part time job that paid a few hundred dollars, while his parents supported him and his family financially.

The complaint about the Carhartts isn't that working people are bad. The complaint is that it's cosplay. An insurance salesman who quit and went into politics because his parents were wealthy enough to pay his way then going to work in a suit has lost even the fake connection to the working class, he becomes just the blandest of politicians.

Edit: To be clear, I have no issue with any of that. If you have successful parents and want to follow their footsteps, good. If you don't want to do that, but want to take advantage of your privileges in a less typical way and you're still contributing to something, also great. If you want to wear Carhartt sweatshirts, hey, me too.

Rewriting the Senate dress code so that one guy can have his look back is a bit much.

I have what backwards? I didn't even mention Fetterman in my post, and Clay Higgins didn't mention Fetterman being a hypocrite in his tweet. He mentions him being simple-minded due to how he dresses, and if he isn't he must be a communist/marxist. Also, that he looks like Lurch, as conservative representatives do like their schoolyard insults. What complaint am I supposed to gage from this that isn't 100% based on looks?

 

[Silvanus]

Cowards! I'm surprised the Canadian Parliament is even doing this. Why? What the hell they have to gain from defending Nazis? Hope it's worth it, you sick fuckers!

I think the problem was that no-one vetted him prior, so they were not aware he was a veteran of the SS.

Pretty much as Agema said: Anthony Ropa, the speaker of the Canadian Parliament (and the one who led the recognition for Hunka), has apologised and said lawmakers and the Ukrainian delegation were given no advance notice or information about the man's history.

Good lord, what a monumentally idiotic thing to do.

 

[Gordon_4]

I have what backwards? I didn't even mention Fetterman in my post, and Clay Higgins didn't mention Fetterman being a hypocrite in his tweet. He mentions him being simple-minded due to how he dresses, and if he isn't he must be a communist/marxist. Also, that he looks like Lurch

Look I'll be honest, first picture I ever saw of the dude made him look like Ming the Merciless.

 

[Cicada 5]

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

If abuse is occurring, there are two people involved. It may be more private than reading a book in school, but it's still an issue of not being private enough. Children should know that if other people are not keeping their sexuality to themselves around children, they are doing something wrong. This does not square with publicizing sexual fantasies as required reading.

They aren't publicizing sexual fantasies as required reading, they're publicizing the Diary of Anne Frank, normal teen girl. Trying to pretend that this completely normal thing 13 year olds do is somehow unacceptably shameful is just pathetic.

What's next, the mannaquins modeling swimwear at Target need to be taken down for lewdness?

 

[BrawlMan]

What's next, the mannaquins modeling swimwear at Target need to be taken down for lewdness?

Wouldn't surprise me, if Ultra Conservatives did that.

 

[thebobmaster]

Hey. Hey, people. You there, who are accusing Greg Weisman of going "woke".


Lexington. Gargoyles. You're too late.

 

[Terminal Blue]

If abuse is occurring, there are two people involved. It may be more private than reading a book in school, but it's still an issue of not being private enough.

Unless you are advocating for removing children from their families and raising them in complete isolation, like an even more horrifying version of the pit of despair experiments, then what you have just said is completely meaningless. There will always be people with access to children. If your argument can't deal with basic reality, it's a bad argument.

Children should know that if other people are not keeping their sexuality to themselves around children, they are doing something wrong.

In order to explain to a child that people should keep sexuality to themselves, that child needs to be aware of what sexuality is. In order to recognize sexual fantasies, a child needs to be aware of sexual fantasies. This is literally a self-defeating argument.

If you will not raise your children, someone else will. In this case, probably the porn industry or deviantart.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

the normalization of Nazism continues apace.

Of course realistically this event should probably be in the woke world thread, but the trainwreck is fun to watch.

 

[tstorm823]

If you will not raise your children, someone else will. In this case, probably the porn industry or deviantart.

You are actively advocating for schools to do this. Parents raise their children, and you are a proponent of undermining them, but then acting like they're being neglectful for not wanting to be undermined.

Trying to pretend that this completely normal thing 13 year olds do is somehow unacceptably shameful is just pathetic.

It isn't unacceptably shameful. It's inappropriate in a school setting and potentially uncomfortable for readers.

Hmm.

If you actually think about it, you'll notice the lack of contradiction, since I genuinely have public support on my side here, and increasingly so over time.

 

[Satinavian]

One of the big distinctions is public versus private. A child is less vulnerable when they understand things like that are supposed to be private, and someone should not be telling them about private sexual thoughts. I don't know what positive you're expecting by normalizing the airing of sexual fantasies.

American culture is weirdly prude. And i really don't think that leads to a particularly healthy relationship to all things sexual.

But maybe that is just cultural bias. Anyway, having grown up somewhere, where nudity is not such a taboo, proper sex education in school is a thing and media is far more concerned with censuring violence than titties, i really don't see much potential benefit from restricting such exposure.

 

[Terminal Blue]

You are actively advocating for schools to do this.

If so, then you are arguing for schools to not exist.

Your children are your responsibility, not your property. When you sign your child's birth certificate, you are effectively signing a contract with the state accepting certain responsibilities. If you renege on that contract, the state can take your child away. One of your responsibilities, one of the things you have to do in order to raise your child, is to send them to school, or at the very least to ensure they are taught in accordance with a standard curriculum.

A parent who wishes to intentionally retard their child's natural sexual development is neglectful. Any belief that doing so will protect those children from abuse or even deter them from risky sexual behaviour is simply wrong. There is no ambiguity in this issue at all, which is why your argument is ultimately just a vacuous appeal to popularity.

At the end of the day, children will grow up. They will have their own lifetimes full of unique experiences and will come to their own understanding of the world they live in. As a parent, you have enormous power to shape the person they will become, but at the end of the day in order to become a fully realized individual your children have to leave you behind. Hiding basic features of the world from them to try and retain control over their lives is sufficiently malicious that I would question whether the word "neglectful" adequately covers it.

 

[Elijin]

American culture is weirdly prude. And i really don't think that leads to a particularly healthy relationship to all things sexual.

But maybe that is just cultural bias. Anyway, having grown up somewhere, where nudity is not such a taboo, proper sex education in school is a thing and media is far more concerned with censuring violence than titties, i really don't see much potential benefit from restricting such exposure.

Where are they going to get the time to do sex ed tho? They're certainly not giving up the daily pledge to the flag, nor the active shooter drills.