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.
this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2025
375 points (98.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
6684 readers
3991 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:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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".
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.
Why the fuck does anyone in the world care what another person (consenting adults) gets off to?
I'll never understand.
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.
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.
My book says you can't do that
They believe in theocracy.
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.
Hook a fella up, willya
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...
Some people, sure.
Others are lost causes. I've found you cant logic someone out of a position they didn't logic themselves into.
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.
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.
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.
Jo Ro is a great example. Dude was led to water before getting distracted by a mountain of bananas.
I wish there was punctuation.
They have been banned as being DEI
Periods? Pfft, those are for women
Reminds me of the "only a racist would want to talk about racism" argument they use against Black History Month.
I can't make sense of the part about gay participation. can anyone help?
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
thanks for this very clear and concise writeup. enjoyed reading it (if you can even enjoy the subject of discrimination?)
second? world countries (think not first world, but not third world)
"Second world" means Warsaw Pact/Soviet.
amazing blind shot from me then, i'm Polish lol
Basically it would make being gay and any form of gay porn illegal
oh, it says "content" not "consent". sorry, lost my ability to read for a second
Mate I read it three times and still read “consent”. Only on the fourth time did I read “content”