427
top 29 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social 68 points 1 year ago

The problem with these brand of anti-intellectuals is they don't actually care. After this I'm 100% certain they forgot and still hold the same opinion they did before.

[-] UnculturedSwine@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 year ago

Jo Ro is a great example. Dude was led to water before getting distracted by a mountain of bananas.

[-] orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 30 points 1 year ago

I wish there was punctuation.

[-] ICastFist@programming.dev 22 points 1 year ago

They have been banned as being DEI

[-] Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago

Periods? Pfft, those are for women

[-] sxan@midwest.social 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Surprise! Countries with legal prostitution have far better protections and services for prostitutes! And also: illegalizing prostitution doesn't stop prostitution.

Another shock from history: prohibition didn't stop people from making and drinking alcohol, and while ending prohibition didn't stop people from dying from alcohol-related issues, it did almost eliminate people being killed by drinking bad batches of bathtub gin.

Oh, hell, while I'm on a rant: legalizing LSD and mushrooms wouldn't cause a pandemic of drug use, but it would ensure that when people took what they they thought was LSD it didn't turn out to be a poison instead.

[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago

Reminds me of the "only a racist would want to talk about racism" argument they use against Black History Month.

[-] noxypaws@pawb.social 13 points 1 year ago

this dipshit dumbass dumbfuck fucking stupid argument that porn is inherently exploitative

it's so fucking LAZY on top of how wrong and dumb it is.

[-] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Even worse is, porn has a very wide definition, like the aforementioned gay issue. Hell, I even seen fundies arguing that queer kids in "drawn" media are "virtual CSAM".

[-] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You can just about frame anything is exploitative if you try. I mean, that's life. The act of living is in itself exploitive, unless you're an algae or something. We should, of course, strive to minimize suffering, and implementing a theocracy ain't that.

[-] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Despite what social media would have you believe, people are much more likely to listen to reason if you explain your point rather than accuse them of being a Nazi...

[-] MrPoopbutt@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Some people, sure.

Others are lost causes. I've found you cant logic someone out of a position they didn't logic themselves into.

[-] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

You can only know that if you try.

The kneejerk reaction on social media is that if you see a person disagreeing with you that you should immediately attack them. I think that's probably not the healthiest way to interact with the world.

Sure, there are some irredeemable knuckleheads in the world but most people are average. They're more likely to be accidentally ignorant due to low media literacy than obstinately ignorant. People are more open to having their minds changed that you'd believe from social media where you only see the squeaky wheels being obnoxious in the comments and not the regular person who just reads and goes about their day.

[-] Chef_Boyardee@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

Don't panic, I got you. I have a 10TB drive bursting at the seams ready for deployment. I'm not a fan of butt stuff, tho, so you gotta get that somewhere else.

[-] v4ld1z@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago

Hook a fella up, willya

[-] maplebar@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Why the fuck does anyone in the world care what another person (consenting adults) gets off to?

I'll never understand.

[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Lots of people are super insecure (and often ashamed due to things like religion) about who they are and who they're sexually attracted to, and they project that onto others. It's sad shit.

[-] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Either they believe they're doing the right thing (be honest: the porn industry sucks), or just control freaks that get off to imagining forcing people to do stuff they don't like. There's a lot of mixture of the two.

[-] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago

My book says you can't do that

[-] ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social 0 points 1 year ago

They believe in theocracy.

[-] nihilomaster@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

I can't make sense of the part about gay participation. can anyone help?

[-] shneancy@lemmy.world 54 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

step 1. make minorities out to look like morally repulsive sexual deviants and perverts just by virtue of existing

step 2. make deviant acts illegal and punishable by law

step 3. broaden the definition of pedophilia

step 4. increase the punishment for pedophilia

step 5. either imprison or put on death row any individual who dared to perform a "deviant act" "near" a child (gay or trans teacher? jail)

mix and match those steps and gradually increase the moral panic

have you noticed how conservatives' "strongest" "arguments" against trans people are often sexual or "think of the children" in nature? "we don't want drag queens reading to our children" "someone taught our child pronouns!!!" "we don't want the transes in bathrooms, it's to keep women safe"

well, the same exact arguments were used by conservatives against gay rights, and though it may not be as apparent to younger generations living in first world countries where gay rights have been around for most of their lives - for older gays and those living in second? world countries (think not first world, but not third world), we still get to hear this exact song and dance in reference to gay people (trans people were/are an afterthought most of the time, but often also just labelled as gay "she used to be a man and i had sex with her que the character vomiting")

it's all so that the mere act of existence of a minority shifts to being seen as inherently deviant and morally repulsive. side note, this is why it honestly baffles me that gay people against trans rights exist, like guys, haven't you heard this story before somewhere? but then trans people against trans rights exist, so i guess cognitive dissonance shouldn't surprise me anymore

and though i'm less knowledgeable about POC rights, from what i know, and a quick google, it seems that was the same dance too, to a slightly different song but same dance nonetheless, an attempt to label them as inherently deviant and violent, so that any person who wants to appear as an upstanding citizen has to oppose their rights on moral grounds

[-] grue@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

second? world countries (think not first world, but not third world)

"Second world" means Warsaw Pact/Soviet.

[-] shneancy@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

amazing blind shot from me then, i'm Polish lol

[-] v4ld1z@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago

thanks for this very clear and concise writeup. enjoyed reading it (if you can even enjoy the subject of discrimination?)

[-] Sgt_choke_n_stroke@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

Basically it would make being gay and any form of gay porn illegal

[-] nihilomaster@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

oh, it says "content" not "consent". sorry, lost my ability to read for a second

[-] Pregnenolone@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Mate I read it three times and still read “consent”. Only on the fourth time did I read “content”

[-] echodot@feddit.uk 5 points 1 year ago

It's more of an issue just not thinking about things.

You have to be especially naive to believe that banning something would mean it doesn't happen anymore. All sorts of crimes are committed every day, and by definition it is not legal to commit those crimes, but people still do it.

this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2025
427 points (98.0% liked)

Microblog Memes

11546 readers
1717 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

RULES:

  1. Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
  2. Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
  3. You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
  4. Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
  5. Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
  6. Absolutely no NSFL content.
  7. Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
  8. No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.

RELATED COMMUNITIES:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS