-->
@WyIted
I think 4 is the right number it’s well above average and pretty much locks in grandchildren unless you’re absurdly unlucky but is still manageable
The War On Children - 2hr documentary is AMAZINGLY produced/executed
Posts
Total:
116
-->
@thett3
Yes by the definition of “book bans” these people are using like 99.99% of books ever published are “banned” because they aren’t in some random school library. Meanwhile these same people support the actual censorship of “disinformation” and “dangerous ideas”
This is why I stopped being a libertarian. The libertarians will see this hypocrisy and help the left meet their objectives meanwhile there is no leftwing equivalent that helps conservatives. Liberal bills in congress are almost always passed unanimously by democrats, while when you watch Cspan, conservative bills usually have a good 10 l% or more conservatives defect. Then they cry that liberals always win.
-->
@WyIted
In every contentious SCOTUS case it’s never considered by a single person, even for a split second, that a liberal justice might defect lol. Never ever ever. Buts it’s always a question how the court will rule even though the conservatives outnumber the liberals 2-1.
I stopped being a libertarian when I realized that freedom comes just as much from order as it does from a lack of constraints. There’s a constantly shifting happy medium between too much and too little government based on the circumstances of the day. A socially conservative/traditional life really does seem to work for the masses. It shouldn’t be forced but should be encouraged and incentivized
-->
@thett3
-->@<<<Amber>>>By extension of the law governing the parents' legal fiduciary duties to a child until they turn 18. They are legally required to care for them, nurture them, cloth them, and provide for their health and education. They can even be legally held liable for crimes committed by said children. Children are the legal property of their parents.Don’t even dignify that bad faith argument with a response. The English language doesn’t have a great word for the parent child relationship. “Property”, “ownership” etc all miss the mark. The closest thing is custody. We have custody of our children, he does not. The onus is on him to prove why his opinions on what’s good for my child should overrule mine
You clearly are not familiar with the two prevailing theories of the legal relationship between parents' and their children. - Children as Property? JSTOR
I was replying to you directly on this: "--> @thett3: Simple only if you believe that children are parent's property." Just that simple statement alone, not its implications with what B.K. said in relationship to same and your discussion with him.
Here is a paper out of Syracuse Law on rethinking children as property.
My argument wasn't in bad faith, it was grounded in legal theory and legal facts.
Your reply to me was in bad faith because you pivoted to excusing mine for same just to redirect back to your tit with BK.
-->
@Amber
I’m saying he was acting in bad faith by trying to tie the parent-child relationship to “slavery”, I wasn’t accusing you of anything
I don’t think “property” is the right word. I think something like “ward” is. But I think we would agree more or less 100% on what parental rights should be
Emails Reveal How Anti-Trans Doc Duped LGBTQ Allies Into Participating
Robby Starbuck’s film The War on Children accuses LGBTQ+ activists of running from conversations — but they actually caught him trying to trick them into giving interviews
FEBRUARY 10, 2024
IN JUNE OF last year, Nashville drag queen Veronika Electronika arrived at a studio space for what she was told was an interview on her views regarding the struggles faced by children in the trans community, and how the lives and mental health of LGBTQ+ people were being affected by the recent slew of bans and restrictions on gender-affirming medical and drag performances.
Elektronika did not recognize her first interviewer, a woman she chatted with for several minutes before a man she did know entered the room.
“I have a question for you guys,” Electronika asks her hosts once they are seated together. “What do you guys do when you’re not in front of the camera?”
The woman replies that they spend time with their family.
“What are your last names?” Electronika presses.
“Starbuck,” the couple replies.
It’s at that moment that Electronika attempts to end the conversation, realizing that the interview wasn’t what she’d been led to believe.
The interviewers, Robby and Landon Starbuck, are both prominent right-wing activists who, like many conservative commentators, have made vitriolic criticism of the LGBTQ+ community — particularly the transgender and drag communities — a staple of their content. Earlier this month, Electronika’s experience with the couple became public as part of a film titled The War On Children. Robby Starbuck, who headed the project, released the film to great fanfare among the right, with the trailer garnering more than 30 million impressions on X (formerly Twitter) after being promoted by Elon Musk.
In June, Rolling Stone reported on accusations from LGBTQ+ individuals, activists, and allies approached for the movie that Robby Starbuck and his production team used deceptive tactics in order to entice them into participating in the then-upcoming film project. The practice is a staple within a growing right-wing media ecosystem which, as Rolling Stone has reported, is increasingly using the “documentary” format as a way to bypass social media and platform guidelines prohibiting hate speech against minority communities. The film is now available to the public, and new emails and recordings obtained by Rolling Stone show that Starbuck’s misleading tactics extended well beyond what has been previously reported.
When the production team first approached Electronika, they offered her the opportunity to participate in an upcoming documentary “tentatively titled ‘It Takes A Village’ from an award winning director.” The production assistant wrote that the film aimed “to delve deeper [into] exposing how these recent drag bans and gender-affirming care bans have been made, look at how it has affected the mental health of trans people and look forward into what future progress will look and sound like.”
“When I saw Mr. Starbuck walk through the hallway, I was like, ‘Wait a minute. I know this fucker,” Electronika tells Rolling Stone, adding that when she attempted to end the conversation “they tried to convince me to stay and I said, ‘You need to stop recording right now.’ The little red light kept going … and then they wouldn’t stop. So I started recording myself.”
The film depicts the couple pressing her to “denounce behavior that is sexually explicit around children,” showing her a zoomed-in photograph of another drag queen whose underwear became exposed while doing the spits, with a child in the audience as an example.
Electronika’s personal recording of the encounter, which she provided to Rolling Stone, makes clear that her conversation with the Starbucks was heavily edited to make it seem like she was completely unwilling to condemn the exposure of children to sexual material. In reality, Electronika affirmed she cared about the safety of children; that performers should respect their audiences and laws governing explicit material; told the Starbucks she felt “misled” about the nature of the interview; requested she not be used in the film; and emphasized she was refusing to answer questions “because of the setting that we’re in” — which turned out to be
something very different from what she had been led to believe. Some of her answers were omitted entirely, others were used piecemeal. In at least one instance, a comment Landon Starbuck made before Electronika began recording was inserted into an exchange Electronika did record.
In June, Starbucks told Rolling Stone that the film was “not the type of thing where you can expect unethical editing of any kind.”
Electronika was one of only two LGBTQ+ individuals or allies the Starbucks interviewed face-to-face who were explicitly identified for the audience as representing opposing views to themselves. Others who were approached were made aware of the nature of the documentary — many through the work of activist Eli Erlick who discovered the ruse — and either pulled out or refused requests to participate.
In emails, Starbuck’s staff used pronoun preferences in their signatures, and provided working titles for the film such as Identity Rising and It Takes a Village. They described the project in similar terms as they did to Electronika, and suggested a desire to discuss the “importance of inclusion among young folks” and exploring “the experiences of trans people and drag queens, with a special focus on trans youth.”
In several instances, potential interview subjects were told the documentary would be directed — and even “self-produced” — by “award-winning” cinematographer Matt Rodgers, with staff omitting Starbuck’s name from communications and making no mention of another co-director or producer. They also told participants that the documentary would be distributed by a “household name” streaming service, and were given blank release forms. In a June 2023 tweet, Starbuck himself hinted that he was working on a “top secret documentary.”
When individuals asked for more details about who was behind the film, production staff pointed to non-disclosure agreements as the reason for the lack of transparency. When one individual — having been tipped off that Starbuck was behind the film — attempted to secure answers about his role in the project, a staffer reassured them that they would be treated fairly because an unnamed woman participating in the documentary would be “representing a different view from Robby’s.”
Almost all of this turned out to be misleading or outright false. The War on Children is a stark departure from the project titles offered to LGBTQ+ individuals and activists. The film was both directed and produced by Robby Starbuck and his media company, with Rodgers credited as cinematographer. The film was not released by a “major streaming service,” but rather made available through pay-per-view on X, the right-wing video hosting website Rumble, and My Movies Plus. The unnamed woman providing a “different view” from Starbuck — whose identity he declined to confirm to Rolling Stone in June — was actually his wife and fellow activist, Landon Starbuck.
Most importantly, as Electronika’s experience demonstrates, the treatment given to members of the LGBTQ+ community and their allies deviated drastically from the “fair and honorable approach to each individual” that Starbuck promised in his past comments to Rolling Stone.
“I don’t think a lack of transparency contributed to any hesitation” among potential interview subjects, Starbuck told Rolling Stone in an email. “It’s par for the course that left-wing media like Rolling Stone are more interested in writing a negative story about some subjects we asked to interview being upset than to examine the War On Children that we exposed in our film. The focus of this story should not be Robby Starbuck, Landon Starbuck, or any of the people who claim to be upset,” he added.
When asked to explain the discrepancy regarding what potential interview subjects were told about Rodgers’ role in the film, Starbuck wrote that Rodgers “wore many hats during production including him directing and producing many parts of the film. There are many roles both of us took on that are uncredited as often occurs on small crews.”
Starbuck did not directly address a question about why the production staff failed to disclose Landon Starbuck’s identity when claiming to potential interview subjects that a co-host would express a different view from his own. Instead, he wrote that “it’s very regressive to think she shares all of her husband’s opinions.” (In the context of the film, one would struggle to pinpoint a moment where the two hosts were not in agreement with one another, or operating as a team. “We’re the Starbucks,” Landon narrates in the film’s opening segment, explaining that the pair left the entertainment industry “because we knew that a silent war was being fought for the minds of America’s children.”)
Robby Starbuck adds that that’s why the couple is “here now, to expose the war on children.” The introduction sets the tone of their dynamic throughout the film: Both co-hosts use inflammatory rhetoric to describe their subjects, tag-team interviews, and provide the framework for the film’s narrative.
Electronika was not the only drag queen the film attempted to rope into the production. Starbuck notes in the film that California-based drag queen Lil Miss Hot Mess had pulled out of The War on Children after initially agreeing to participate. In the film, the Starbucks describe an academic paper written by Lil Miss Hot Mess on childhood interactions with drag queen story hours as an admission that “pride and drag for kids was meant to be political.” Landon Starbuck adds in a voiceover that exposing children and young people to drag performances is intended to “sexualize” them and aimed at “creating lifelong left-wing voters.”
The “team absolutely misled me about the premise and tone of the documentary,” Lil Miss Hot Mess tells Rolling Stone in an email. “In fact, they went to great lengths to hide their identities and true intentions, it only became clear later that the Starbucks were behind it.”
Lil Miss Hot Mess adds that she disagreed with the treatment they gave her work, clarifying that her writing “thinks about what children can learn from drag performers, and vice versa.”
“The Starbucks are absolutely wrong,” she says. “Programs like Drag Story Hour don’t just teach about LGBTQ+ people or subjects — and there’s certainly nothing wrong with that — but about a broader way of thinking that is creative, playful, and imaginative.”
When she realized who she was dealing with, and stopped responding to their production assistant, Lil Miss Hot Mess says the couple “became incredibly disrespectful.”
The pair left her a voicemail, which was provided to Rolling Stone, in which they questioned why she chose not to be in the documentary and said they wanted to have “civil discourse” with her. Robby Starbuck then asked “Mr. Hot Mess” why “you believe it’s a good thing for grown men to dress up as women and do sexual dances for them” and what “you thought about the people who’ve exposed their genitalia to children, and why that would be OK?”
“I wanted to ask you about why you thought that drag in front of children … was explicitly about politics — not even about inclusion or sexualizing them — but really about politics and making sure that they turned into the little left-wing red guards that you guys would like them to be,” Robby Starbuck adds.
The tone of the message was a far cry from a series of sample interview questions provided to her in earlier communications.
“They claim that they wanted to have balanced ‘civil discourse,’ but that’s ridiculous,” Lil Miss Hot Mess told Rolling Stone. “They not only misrepresented who they were and what their goals were, but then turned and began using incredibly offensive language about me personally and LGBTQ+ communities more broadly.”
Lil Miss Hot Mess’ experience with the Starbucks lays bare the general tone of The War on Children — which couldn’t have been further from the positive-sounding, inclusive forum described in the production’s communications. The pair refer to LGBTQ+ individuals and allies — particularly those advocating transgender acceptance and inclusion — as “pro-mutilation activists,” and describe movements supporting diversity and inclusion as a “far left cultural revolution that is meant to destroy our country.” The film is a synthesis of the right’s fear-mongering over LGBTQ+ issues and attacks against the LGBTQ+ community — one with a forgone conclusion, little room for nuance, and a $12 access price.
The film focuses heavily on staple issues of the right’s now-ubiquitous attacks against gender-diverse individuals and their push for civil rights and access to resources. As the title suggests, The War on Children is centered primarily on how these issues relate to children, highlighting the stories of “detransitioners,” parents of young children who’d questioned their identity, child trafficking victims, and family members who’d lost loved ones to suicide. It asserts that those issues are the result of widespread efforts — primarily led by the left and LGBTQ+ activists — to medically and surgically “mutilate” young people through gender-affirming care, sexualize them through social media, drag, or the introduction of pornography to schools, and normalize sexual relationships between adults and children. This “war on children” will ultimately usher in the destruction of society if not won by warrior parents, the film argues.
“Obviously, parents can dictate what materials their children are exposed to,” Electronika says. “There are no drag shows, or drag story hours, or LGBT events that are happening where children are showing up unaccompanied by a guardian or an adult. … When we do have a drag event that is happening, where minors may be present, it would be a rare occurrence for anything sexually explicit to be occurring on stage.”
The War on Children dismisses the established and ever-growing body of research and medical knowledge around gender and sexual identity as propaganda by the pharmaceutical industry and activists. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health standards advises against gender-affirming surgery for children and adolescents, which is already extremely rare. Instead, medical standards recommend supportive care alongside work with a mental health professional for young children, and continued supportive care with the option to explore the use of puberty blockers for adolescents under the guidance of medical professionals. Medical experts agree that detransitioning is also a rare phenomenon, with one study review of 8,000 trans patients finding that only one percent of those who had gender-affirmation surgeries regretted it.
In one email obtained by Rolling Stone, Starbuck’s production team tells a potential participant that the documentary has secured interviews with “experts in the fields of parenting, drag, gender-affirming care, inclusion and lawmaking” to paint a full and complete picture of the landscape surrounding issues of gender and identity. While it sounds comprehensive, in reality the documentary is a who’s who of right-wing commentators and activists. The film prominently features Chaya Raichik, the influencer behind Libs of TikTok, as well as anti-trans activist Riley Gaines, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and representatives from The Heritage Foundation and the anti-abortion group White Rose Resistance.
In an interview with Buck Sexton and Clay Travis given shortly after the film’s release, Starbuck described his conversations with LGBTQ+ allies and activists not as discussions, but as “confrontations.” As individuals withdrew from the production, or outright refused to participate after becoming aware of who was involved, they switched strategies, and had their film crew record their attempts to directly contact activists over the phone. Tennessee, where the majority of the documentary was filmed, only requires one party’s consent to record conversations, and many of those who spoke to Rolling Stone were not aware that their names and recordings of their calls had been included in the film.
Starbuck includes a portion of a phone call with Colorado state Rep. Brianna Titone (D), one of the only transgender lawmakers serving in elected office. While introducing the call, he accused Titone of supporting a “trans youth trafficking bill” allowing minors to circumvent state-level bans on gender affirming care, and misgendered her. The portion of the call put in the film is brief, with Titone reiterating her refusal to participate in the project and hanging up the phone shortly after, to which Starbuck tells the camera that “everyone on this pro-child mutilation advocacy side, they avoid conversations at all costs.”
Titone tells Rolling Stone that “this is exactly the kind of thing that I expected from this charlatan,” claiming that Starbuck had edited out the moment on the exchange where she’d called him out on the likelihood that he was recording their conversation without disclosing it to her. When asked if he had informed those he called that they were being recorded, Starbuck told Rolling Stone that “yes, they were told that we were making a documentary at the beginning of the calls or were told before we called in some cases,” adding that recording disclosure was not necessary given Tennessee’s one-party consent law.
Regarding the accusation that she supports “trans youth trafficking” through her support for Colorado’s shield law, Titone clarified that “the bill shields the providers of gender-affirming care and abortion care from outside government trying to get information, or sue, or subpoena, and try to find out who’s coming here to get that kind of health care.” The law was created to protect patients and health care providers amid the rise in state laws restricting access to gender-affirming care, and efforts from prosecutors in conservative states to target medical providers in other states.
“The law is for gender-affirming care, and that’s for anybody — it’s not even for children [specifically],” Titone added. “It’s for anybody who’s transgender who wants to get care. They’re banning adults from getting gender-affirming care in some states.”
Titone had a similar experience to other individuals who were approached to participate in the documentary, and while initially receptive to the request, she pulled out of the interview after being tipped off by fellow activists. Ultimately, she feels she made the right call, accusing Starbuck of “sensationalizing” her work in the Colorado legislature “just to make money.”
The Starbucks also recorded their attempts to contact Dr. Marci Bowers, a transgender, board-certified gynecologist specializing in gender-affirming surgery and an expert in clitoral/genital reconstruction for survivors of female genital mutilation and cutting. “Why does this ideology not allow questions?” Landon Starbuck asked Bower’s office manager after the employee reiterated that Bowers would not be participating in the film. “Isn’t that a sign of grooming?”
Bower’s employee, who Rolling Stone has agreed not to name to protect their privacy, was not aware that the recording of the call had been used in the film. “I think [Bowers] is very brave in saying yes to a lot of interactions with folks that we already know don’t agree with her,” the employee says, adding that the clinic regularly gets calls from individuals who are intent on pressing their own views, but that Bowers takes all media requests seriously.
Bowers tells Rolling Stone that her office had already been aware that a pseudo-documentary connected to Starbuck was approaching activists for interviews without disclosing his involvement in the project. In 2021, Bowers was one of several individuals duped by The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh into participating in his anti-trans film What Is a Woman? Walsh’s production team used a tactic that has become a template for projects like The War on Children, implementing pseudonyms and creating a shield organization titled “The Gender Unity Project” to mask the films’ association with The Daily Wire.
“We were on the lookout and skeptical of anything being proposed,” Bowers says. “They have this sweet little title and, you know, sounding like they’re just doing a nice little nice documentary piece and it’s all deceptive.”
“They use disinformation and scare tactics to rally the general public against us. So someone who is in the vast ideological middle, if they aren’t really familiar with transgender health care, they have no idea,” she adds. Bowers characterizes the rare instances of gender-affirming surgery being performed on young teens and even children as outliers generally antithetical to medically-accepted best practices, a view consistent with that of accredited medical organizations.
Across the board, the individuals who spoke to Rolling Stone — including Bowers — affirmed that they’re perfectly willing to speak to individuals expressing a genuine interest in their work and perspective. What they’re not willing to do is play along with right-wing influencers who attempt to use their names, work, and public image to malign their communities.
The methods used by the Starbucks and others on the right have created a chilling effect among many LGBTQ+ influencers and activists, who now feel that they need to constantly be on guard and take extra precautions to avoid inadvertently becoming entrapped in a similar scheme.
“I get requests to be interviewed all the time from a lot of different people,” Titone says. “Whether it’s the college student who’s doing a report, or someone who’s doing a podcast or whatever. It wasn’t until this whole thing happened that now I have to be super careful about all this stuff.”
“People who reached out to me had legitimate reasons to interview me — because they were interested in me as a person and what I stand for, not to try to bait me into some film that he’s going to try to make money on and destroy people’s lives,” she adds, describing Starbuck as a “shoe bomber” who’s helped “ruin for everybody” the standard good-faith expectation between activists, advocates, and those looking to hear their perspective.
Multiple individuals who spoke to Rolling Stone added that their relief over not participating in the documentary was compounded given the slew of anti-trans, anti-drag laws that have been passed in Tennessee, where much of the filming took place. “At best, I figured that they wanted to misrepresent me in this sham documentary; but at worst, by inviting me to Nashville, I did not know if they wanted to directly harm me in some way or perhaps try to set me up to be arrested, as this was during the time when Tennessee’s anti-drag bill had passed and before it was stayed by the court,” Lil Miss Hot Mess says.
“While I’m happy to speak with people who I disagree with, I also don’t waste my time on unserious people who are just trying to stir up trouble or misrepresent what I have to say. And if someone can’t show the basic respect of approaching me with the dignity or truth I deserve, then why should I even bother to respond?” she adds.
Electronika feels similarly. “If you’re gonna go into a conversation with a deceptive stance, I mean, that eliminates all potential honesty going forward,” she tells Rolling Stone. “If you can’t go into an interaction with your true colors waving then how can you be trusted in any moment that happens afterwards?”
-->
@Double_R
He's no true scotsman either.Then that principal is an idiot. What does that have to do with liberals vs conservatives?
-->
@Amber
Hmmmmm.
Let's watch this space buttercup.
SO, is this thread purely about the quality of the documentary?
Or are you proposing a discussion, based upon the current state of child development?...Compared to when?
Better, is always sometime in the past, isn't it?
As I implied, the 1960's worked best for me.
Three simple questions...Go on, have a go at answering.
-->
@WyIted
The point to sexualize them is about spreading Marxist ideology. Marxists are against the traditional family unit because it gets in the way of making the government the authority. The same reason for the anti religious impulse.Why do I know this? I was a Marxist.
So in other words... It's all projection.
Is it really that crazy to think that many of these people are well intentioned but believe something different than you?
I watch bread tube and I never see these people criticize showing children porn.
Probably because this is to many (myself included) a silly issue to be elevating in our politics. I've never in my life met anyone who thought it would be anything but outrageous for an adult to show someone else's child porn, so I have a very hard time believing this is anything but a collection of isolated incidents right wingers are using to craft a picture that isn't real, much like all the videos of unarmed black people being killed by police that go viral on social media.
I've also seen what many conservatives are calling porn. In some cases it's just a guy dressed up in drag.
I think this is all just a distraction. Right wingers have nothing else to talk about.
-->
@Double_R
Probably because this is to many (myself included) a silly issue to be elevating in our politics. I've never in my life met anyone who thought it would be anything but outrageous for an adult to show someone else's child porn,
And yet there are thousands of school administrators doing it everyday and then when conservatives make laws to prevent it, the left throws hissy fits.
If it is rare, what is with the backlash against schools that choose not to have porn available for children?
I've also seen what many conservatives are calling porn. In some cases it's just a guy dressed up in drag.
There it is. You literally defending showing children porn by downplaying it as books about drag queens and not what it actually is in most cases. Visual depictions of sex meant to arouse children. It's the reason why many of these parents are censored in these meetings when they start showing images from these books.
a collection of isolated incidents right wingers are using to craft a picture that isn't real
How many isolayedincidents do you need to make it a pattern and why attack laws that prevent teachers from showing kids porn if it isn't common or the intent of the left to do so?
Beyond that Don't talk to me until you watch ops documentary. It's ridiculous that I can listen to 10 hours of the lefts best arguments on a weekly basis but you refuse to watch a single 2 hour documentary
-->
@WyIted
when conservatives make laws to prevent it, the left throws hissy fits.
There you have it. Actions speak louder than words. If a person thought it was socially immoral they wouldn't mind it being banned.
Same with election integrity BTW.
-->
@WyIted
how would you go about teaching preteens about sex at all? By that age their body is already changing if female for sure, guys maybe if they're hitting earlier.
how would you go about teaching them about different sexualities and races and how to treat them?
I would teach sex Ed the way it is I would oppose showing 8 year olds porn or transing them behind their parents back like California schools do
-->
@WyIted
I would teach sex Ed the way
Tell us what your sex Ed teaches.
Does it teach the typical Christian nonsense story of bucket and flowers?
-->
@Best.Korea
Did you know that Christians when they have sex also put their penises into women.
I guess the real difference between Christian and non Christian sex is that it spreads less diseases such as Aids and monkey pox.
I guess the real difference between Christian and non Christian sex is that it spreads less diseases such as Aids and monkey pox.
-->
@WyIted
Did you know that Christians when they have sex also put their penises into women
Its possible, but if your sex Ed is limited to that, you might not successfully prevent monkey pox.
-->
@WyIted
I guess the real difference between Christian and non Christian sex is that it spreads less diseases such as Aids and monkey pox.
You are right. Non Christian sex does spread less diseases.
10 Countries with Highest STD Rates
- South Africa. 37,272.5 per 100k. Next: 6 Facts About International Mother Language Day.
South Africa is 80% Christian.
It must be 20% of atheists who spread all those diseases.
Those evil atheists!
-->
@WyIted
And yet there are thousands of school administrators doing it everyday and then when conservatives make laws to prevent it, the left throws hissy fits.
Citation please.
If it is rare, what is with the backlash against schools that choose not to have porn available for children?
Like I said, what the right often calls porn is nothing close to it. Words have actual meaning if we're both speaking English.
But please do provide an example of left wing backlash over not allowing actual porn to be available for children.
I've also seen what many conservatives are calling porn. In some cases it's just a guy dressed up in drag.There it is. You literally defending showing children porn by downplaying it as books about drag queens and not what it actually is in most cases.
No, I literally just pointed out that a lot of what's being called porn isn't porn. Read what I wrote.
And since you really need me to explain my comment further, I was merely expressing why I (and I assume most liberals) tune you guys out when you talk about this - because we've seen this nonsense before. But go on and provide that example. I look forward to being enlightened.
And after you can provide an actual legitimate example of porn being shown in schools, being banned, and a "left wing" backlash, next will be to show that this is not some anecdote but an actual thing happening throughout the country making it worthy of a national conversation. Looking forward to seeing it.
How many isolayedincidents do you need to make it a pattern
You tell me, how many unarmed black people have to be killed by police on video before that becomes a pattern?
why attack laws that prevent teachers from showing kids porn if it isn't common or the intent of the left to do so?
I don't know which specific laws you're referring to, but just because you brand a law as something doesn't mean that's what it actually does. Remember the "Inflation Reduction Act"? Do I get to charge every republican who voted against it as being pro-inflation? The reality is normally more complicated.
Beyond that Don't talk to me until you watch ops documentary. It's ridiculous that I can listen to 10 hours of the lefts best arguments on a weekly basis but you refuse to watch a single 2 hour documentary
If that's how you want to spend your free time have at it. That has nothing to do with me.
I did watch some of it, take the swimmer story for example. It's a grotesque story, it's also the same story I hear every single time the issue of trans women in woman's sports comes up, so again to my point - just how prevalent is this? Why with all of the things going on is this country is this what you guys are laser focused on? That's what I just can't wrap my head around.
-->
@Double_R
Beyond that Don't talk to me until you watch ops documentary. It's ridiculous that I can listen to 10 hours of the lefts best arguments on a weekly basis but you refuse to watch a single 2 hour documentaryIf that's how you want to spend your free time have at it. That has nothing to do with me.I did watch some of it, take the swimmer story for example. It's a grotesque story, it's also the same story I hear every single time the issue of trans women in woman's sports comes up, so again to my point - just how prevalent is this? Why with all of the things going on is this country is this what you guys are laser focused on? That's what I just can't wrap my head around.
OMG!!!!!
You're not getting it!!!! The ENTIRE point of the documentary, the whole point of the "mere-exposure effect" as it was clearly shown in the documentary.
It's not about the here and now, but the long-term exposure effect it will have on society as a whole. This is one massive evil psyop to weaking the American citizenry, the American will of The People, and humanity on the whole via apathy turned complacency. As a result, the left has carte blanche to continue their intolerance violent tirade to force their unnatural and illegal agenda against humanity. And if you have to ask what is illegal about it, you're a lost cause. Definitely not as smart as you think.
-->
@oromagi
Is there are argument somewhere in those three superfluous posts of ours????????
Or was it just the cliff notes of the documentary?
Seems like it was the cliff notes for the lazy ass member of this site.
-->
@Amber
- I've been merely exposed to straight people my entire life without any apparent effect.
- Insisting that there will soon be a massive conspiracy to make America gay is classic, kooky, conspiracy theory bullshit.
- I strongly recommend you make yourself a tin-foil hat- you're going to be wanting one soon
- Calling LGBTQ people 'evil' "weak" 'intolerant" "violent" "unnatural" and "illegal" in two sentences without assembling any argument is merely hate speech.
- And a desperate ploy by the immoral to convince the stupid to vote for the party of racists, rapists, and Russians.
- Fear makes bad public policy.
-->
@oromagi
Well except for 1/3 of an entire generation claiming to be "a bit" "LGBT". That part is hard data.Insisting that there will soon be a massive conspiracy to make America gay is classic, kooky, conspiracy theory bullshit.
I'll just say this one more time for anyone of either political wing to understand that I think both sides are pretty hilarious/stupid.
You can legally hit second if not third base with people 2 years if not 3 (even 4), prior to when you legally can orgasm to pornography in most progressive countries, albeit with caveats in quite a few that the partner of the underage person is also underage or within a certain range and lacks authority.
The reasoning behind this is most parents are too scared shit (and rightfully so as they can then be said to advocate for 'crime') to dare introduce anything that may be a healthy outlet for the teens to get 'out of their system' urges that will burst in them in school constantly, no matter what. Since the parents can't guide which genres or what kind of porn or erotica to use to stimulate it, instead it's somehow considered healthier to actually get into emotional entanglement that now is so severe people just casually fuck and hookup from as young as 15, for real, yet are told that's okay if it's with peers as long as they aren't watching porn.
That's the state the law and ethics of progressive nations works. Meanwhile instead of slutshaming, now virginshaming amongst teens is a severe and real thing, it maybe always was for guys but I'm pretty sure the scale is worse than ever. I'm not a teen anymore to know or care.
I don't get why people rush into that shit, I don't care why. I care that it's seen as horrific and 'pedo' to even suggest that them orgasming to some porn or erotic stuff is a healthier outlet than actually going around acting things out on each other. How is the latter healthier? Maybe I missed something as even professional therapists are agreeing porn is bad but underage relationships and foreplay etc is super healthy.
I'm done talking on this now in this thread, I just can't fucking understand it. Idk how it is for females but for male teens there's literally no 'way out' you get that urge building up to bursting point without a release. We all know it unless we're asexual. That release can help you focus 3x better in school as it's not there itching to burst and even helps you get deeper, healthier sleep.
Yea I don't think anybody needs help masturbating, at 15 or any other age. That's not what sex ed is for, and sex ed is not the same as what people are calling grooming.
The 'grooming' is the intentional creation of an culture where being abnormal is cool and socially rewarded.
It's always going to be an unstable equilibrium, but victimless sexual deviancy should always be tolerated without bullying and without being encouraged or praised. That's true at any age but as with everything else children are more vulnerable to errors in either direction.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I told I won't talk more on it. I will rewrite what I wrote before, differently making my point clearer.
(sarcasm) Believe what you want, say noone needs help or guidance. You are top tier correct, that's totally the fact. (/sarcasm)
This is the reality; you can legally encourage your own child to have underage relations as long as they have the right protection on, with another underage peer before you can encourage them to masturbate to porn. That is the 100% legal fact in almost all progressive nations and makes no fucking sense at all. End of discussion.
Broken hearts -> drama -> distraction from schoolwork during the most psychologically fragile time of their life (adolescence are actually more or equally fragile to rejection and heartbreak as/than children psychologically, the fact you start university at 18 is hilariously stupid), it's not a joke. STIs? Being with a shit partner who disgusts them for life? Feeling stupid as they have never seen how to do it right? Seeing the wrong porn to inspire them to do it very wrong?
It's all a bunch of bullshit that could be dealt with if it wasn't illegal to advocate for them to see the right stuff and to stay well away from rushing into acting on it before they truly got a grasp of what their sexuality and kinks are. Idk who the hell suggested just to fuck everyone before you know what you want but that's not at all the best approach, it's obvious in all things other than sex.
You can't be bullied for what you privately browsed and got off to if you were taught and allowed the right ways to do that. You can and will be bullied if you do sexual shit and are bad at it esp if it's with a popular peer. It can completely wreck your ego.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That's not what sex ed is for
that's my point, they're teaching you how to actually fuck each other safely rather than teaching you the actual safest outlet ever, because of irrational hierarchy of what's worse to teach.
-->
@Double_R
And since you really need me to explain my comment further, I was merely expressing why I (and I assume most liberals) tune you guys out when you talk about this - because we've seen this nonsense before. But go on and provide that example. I look forward to being enlightened.
II don't want to be disrespectful but I stopped reading here because I provided an example and you just said "outlier" I could provide 10 more and you would say the same thing. I find it hard that this thing that has been all over the media you haven't seen because right-wing sites will actually show pictures from the books. All I can think of is that you are a partisan hack that only follows left wing sources.
I also want to be fair because you are here an exposing yourself to the other side, but I just see this stuff and it's in my memory bank. I don't feel like spending 30 minutes on Google finding examples that I think will get called outliers. It's not something I am particularly passionate about. I think exposing kids to porn is unethical but I also think you know that parents are not going to be getting upset over a book that has gay characters. You know it goes beyond that.
This stuff has been everywhere. I think you re aware of he indoctrination taking place and being disingenuous when you claim to not notice that California is passing laws that allow teachers to socially transition children or noticed that youtube is getting millions of views from a song about how "Yes we are coming for your kids". https://youtu.be/ArOQF4kadHA?si=FwcFYnbNJfOG3Zwt
I am sure you have seen children shows that are now shifting to promote trans ideology.
I mean sure we know some of the outrage is manufactured but when you have even lifelong libtards like Bill Mahar noticing. Well then maybe you should think for yourself that maybe there is something to it.
We can debate whether a comic book depicting oral sex between 2 men is porn. Maybe you will say no, I think it is. However I know. Didn't see the shit when I was in school. I checked out books on religion and occultism and of various political philosophies. Nobody cared vecause it wasn't degenerate.
Nobody is trying to prevent freedom of expression or reading books that have various points of views. Parents are just asking that their children are not exposed to smut. Different people have different values. You don't want your kid hearing that Jesus died on the cross for his sins in school and I don't want mine picking up a book in the school library where I have to explain an image he is swwing of 2 guys sucking each others cocks, or even descriptions of that.
We live in a multicultural society and one culture is asking not to be violated and we respected it when we banned creationism and prayer times in school and we should also respect it when it comes to these books. You want to focus on the word porn and play semantics. It doesn't matter if it is technically porn. What matters is having some level of respect for other members of the community.