The Great Porn Debate - The Coomites vs Anti-Faparians

[Niggaplease]

Your missing the point. Why would anyone do that? What would be the incentive? People will just go to sites that don't lock them out to get their porn fix, of which there would be many based overseas and outside the reach of U.S. law and nothing the government could do to stop them.

By requiring porn sites to operate like Netflix and geo lock the porn based by a users country it will ensure any porn made here by us citizens is compliant legal an ethical. Basically I want the government to make it mandatory for websites to do this as at the very least due to the restrictions and audits that it can ensure compliance.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

By requiring porn sites to operate like Netflix and geo lock the porn based by a users country it will ensure any porn made here by us citizens is compliant legal an ethical. Basically I want the government to make it mandatory for websites to do this as at the very least due to the restrictions and audits that it can ensure compliance.

Even if you lock it to porn only made in the U.S., it still wouldn't guarantee that all porn put on these sites is "legal and ethical" since a good chunk of it is posted by users, not by professional porn studios. Also, as I said, this would only matter to porn companies based in the U.S. or that had servers in the U.S. Any company not based in America would not be subject to U.S. laws.

 

[VIVIIXI]

Far left feminists and far right moralfags both hate porn, horseshoe theory proven right yet again. Personally, I don't care. This is a free country and I'm sick of daddy government jumping in for everything, and both sides invoke this for shit they don't like.

It's a fucking moebius, and the only reason it doesn't look like a circle is because most people can't perceive the twist.

The thing about feminism vs traditionalism is that they're just two colors of lipstick on the same pig.

 

[awoo]

when has "we need more gov bans on internet" ever been a good idea

 

[VIVIIXI]

when has "we need more gov bans on internet" ever been a good idea

That's arguable.

When you have people posing as fake actors in the public forums, there is room for negotiation.

Example: How many people have posed as social justice warriors who were actually /pol-tards playing head games? How many people have posed as misogynists/homophobes/whatever who were actually soc-jus warriors trying to create a narrative?

Kind of hard to determine with blanket anonymity.

At the same time, people will say things they wouldn't otherwise say without that anonymity.

Sometimes that is needed for actual change to happen.

It's a double edged sword.

 

[Niggaplease]

Even if you lock it to porn only made in the U.S., it still wouldn't guarantee that all porn put on these sites is "legal and ethical" since a good chunk of it is posted by users, not by professional porn studios. Also, as I said, this would only matter to porn companies based in the U.S. or that had servers in the U.S. Any company not based in America would not be subject to U.S. laws.

That's why I want to regulate so only certain companies can produce and audit it. If a person wants to upload their user made porn through porn hub they need to be contracted through porn hub then be subject to the same regulation through audits to ensure compliance if failure to pass auditing then content is removed and account nuked failure to do so on pornhubs end equates to a massive fine. The problem is because in the current time anyone can upload stuff and it has resulted in cp being placed on the platform, while realistically if one wants to get around barriers they will but by not holding both the platform as well as users accountable it's obvious that the current set up isnt working it's easier to get a video on YouTube nuked than it is to remove cp off pornhub.

 

[janedoe]

i say what i always say: everyone digests media differently.
just because there are spergs take porn too seriously doesn't make it everyone else's responsibility to tard wrangle them. i can acknowledge the harm of porn addiction, but i will never be on the side of enforcing rules on grown ass adults. that was the job of their parents before they became legal adults, and if they failed in instilling values in them before they reached adulthood, then that's on them. not muh society and daddy government.

but that's not to undermine that porn addiction is a serious issue and does have consequences. i think hedonism plays a big part in the degeneracy going on nowadays. everything is so easy to access. pleasure comes at the tap of the phone screen. there's no reward from work, anymore. you can literally lay in your cumcrusted bed and have some onlyfans whore validate your pathetic existence, for the same cost of happymeals every month.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

That's why I want to regulate so only certain companies can produce and audit it. If a person wants to upload their user made porn through porn hub they need to be contracted through porn hub then be subject to the same regulation through audits to ensure compliance if failure to pass auditing then content is removed and account nuked failure to do so on pornhubs end equates to a massive fine. The problem is because in the current time anyone can upload stuff and it has resulted in cp being placed on the platform, while realistically if one wants to get around barriers they will but by not holding both the platform as well as users accountable it's obvious that the current set up isnt working it's easier to get a video on YouTube nuked than it is to remove cp off pornhub.

Once again, that would be impossible to enforce. There would be a million ways to get around it, from only posting content to non-American websites, to people opening their own websites. And the U.S. government would never bother expending the resources to constantly police who's posting porn to websites nor should they. Anything that is obviously child porn gets taken down when its reported to the website and then gets reported to the authorities under current laws. The government has absolutely no interest in trying to police people's private lives to the extent of telling grown ass adults what they can or cannot put on the internet.

 

[Lemmingwise]

It's a fucking moebius, and the only reason it doesn't look like a circle is because most people can't perceive the twist.

The thing about feminism vs traditionalism is that they're just two colors of lipstick on the same pig.

This will always be a dumb idea.

You can treat ideologies as superficial things if you only observe them at the superficial level.

Yes, there you may find some overlap, especially within the fringe members that have little understanding of the group they chose to belong to.

And yes, you may find overlap in the fact that they seek to influence or control other people's lives.

But what influence or control they seek, and to what end, only looks the same if you're on the defensive. If you have no regard for things larger than yourself (I.e. groups).

 

[Fishious Rend]

when has "we need more gov bans on internet" ever been a good idea

you give the government an inch and they go miles while ramming you and your friends with a train.

 

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

It's a fucking moebius, and the only reason it doesn't look like a circle is because most people can't perceive the twist.

The thing about feminism vs traditionalism is that they're just two colors of lipstick on the same pig.

I don't think that's a good analogy for the discussion right now because the numerous flaws in the current system necessitates the current comedic backlash against the racial left. When the situation is properly assessed by high tier intellectual esperts and thoroughly examined we realise that we need to appreciate people's work in countering the current sanitary government.

 

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

you give the government an inch and they go miles while ramming you and your friends with a train.

That isn't necessarily the case and it doesn't even need to be the case. Do you think when the government bans porn it's also going to ban the radical new racialization of media? I know people enjoy their watching their new television shows made by pedophile netflix, and I'll say some shows they make are the funniest most entertaining shit, but these people must not be allowed to get online to spread their twisted worldview propaganda that is currently destroying greg bowls.

My man dreamy keemy Peterson (a funny name, I know. It's a nick name) says that we need to fight back against the radical puritanical left who would ban things we like but we as the right must not sink to their level of banning such degenerate things. I take one hand and you can take two, but the end of the situation leads the right to the the new path which is made clear by God. Our forefathers did not fight for our kids to be bklack transexuals, but it's their choice so we can't say anything about it. Porn is just another ideological flare to the NWO, and people just have to realize that at some point it isn't worth it to fight against it. That's how they would've wanted it.

And this is a very controversial topic so don't worry about people doing something wrong against something super soon which we call nothing new. Just prepare for it a little. Talk about it and have a discussion for the prepared defence they are erecting against us. Keep that in mind.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Let me clarify a few things.
I worry about me first.
Then comes my family and neighbors (who belong to many groups)
Then come strangers I have no personal investment in (who belong to even more groups)
And so I make choices based on what I feel will allow the greatest amount of freedom and security for myself and them, in that order (me first).

This is a pretty traditional way of seeing things. It has a bit if american flavour, which is fine.

Your drunk rant is pretty sensible and I generally agree with it. It mirrors my views to an extend.

How does it explain that there is not much difference between feminism and traditionalism?

But tell me more about how I am incapable of looking beyond myself, you stupid piece of shit tool. Based on... well, what you've put before me, I'm guessing you want to put the burden of these injustices on the shoulders of the "niggos".

You asked me to correct if wrong, so I will. I use a similar degrees of proportion system as you use for who you care about.

If there is a cycle of violence between two groups, between black people and cops as you put it, then it makes sense to assign blame in proportion to who's responsible for them.

I agree with the perspective that cops will develop bias and I think asimilar system is at play in reverse. There is no shortage of black people that teach their kids that cops are dangerous. There is no shortage of black people that were killed by cops. Whether it was justified defense means little to family and community as we've seen repeated, so at least in the minds of the black people that can't see beyond this, the ACAB bias is a sensible response.

And as you rightly point out, the black cops are the unexamined part of this cycle. Things get hairy when you discover the fact that black cops are much more likely to shoot at people (black or otherwise) than white or other races do. Just find the stats and confirm for yourself. Don't take it from me or a journalist.

So yes, I consider a large part of the blame on the people responsible for doing the crimes, whether they are cops, blacks, christians, gays whatever.

It leaves enough blame to be assigned to a group that has been exerbating these problems through sociologists, culture critics and media.

And yes, I have no problem with blaming a group to some degree when they're disproportionally involved in something. Same goes for feminists and traditionalists.

Now, to you these groups are the same, albeit with a twist.

Why don't you explain that? Is "they both want social control" the best that you can do? What do they want to do with that social control? What have their groups done in the past when they had social control?

Or is there some other reason why you are under the delusion that these groups are comparable?

It was a good drunk rant by @VIVIIXI . I see I still had it in my cache and have reposted his rant here:

(I'm drunk and bored, so I'm going to respond to this. Someone hold my beer.)


And it only appears that way to people who have no regard for anything larger than their own group (which always serves themselves).

Let me clarify a few things.
I worry about me first.
Then comes my family and neighbors (who belong to many groups)
Then come strangers I have no personal investment in (who belong to even more groups)
And so I make choices based on what I feel will allow the greatest amount of freedom and security for myself and them, in that order (me first).

I resolve the shame I will feel for turning my back on them in that order.

It is the same as deciding who gets to live and who dies in a life-raft scenario.

But...

I make my personal sacrifices in whichever order I please, which is usually what I feel will have the longest lasting benefits for the bigger picture because I am able to consider the interplay of these various factions. If my family must perish from the Earth to preserve the Earth, then so be it. I'll fight that tooth and nail, but in the end the stark preservation of life takes precedence

Period.

And those cops who don't experience that on a personal level are given actual statistics, so even they develop a soft bias at best based upon empirical truth.

So who do we blame?

The cops who risk their lives, deal with the violence daily and pull the trigger in a moment of fear, or the blacks who are trapped in a cycle of poverty and violence that gets reinforced by activists who burn down their homes and businesses and get shot by scared cops going on instincts formed by personal experience?

How do we end this hideous karmic cycle of pain?

Me?

I voted Trump.

Pense had a bad reputation regarding das homos, which is against my own self-interest.

I love my neighbors.

I love my nieces and nephews

I want a better world for them, even if it means risking putting legal power in the hands of someone reputed to hate me.

I'll make that sacrifice, if it brings us one step closer to a world where people don't have to feel ashamed of their skin color one way or another. And I'm not willing to throw stones mindlessly at two groups of people who are trapped in a cycle that can't end until both come to the table and deal with how they each contribute to a horribly complicated problem.

But tell me more about how I am incapable of looking beyond myself, you stupid piece of shit tool. Based on... well, what you've put before me, I'm guessing you want to put the burden of these injustices on the shoulders of the "niggos".

Call it a hunch.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Fortunately, neither you nor the shitstain activists have managed to make me regret that decision... but you really are trying my patience. Pense, for what it's worth, has not betrayed my leap of faith. Trump, being an equal opportunist, never gave me a reason to think that the place I stick my genitals was an issue to begin with.

And in that regard, I have served myself.

Regret is one of the worst pains one can endure, for it lasts a lifetime.

To date, I have no regrets in how I chose to vote.

Neither of them has given me enough reason to regret my vote.

Betsy Devoes fought for due process on college campuses, which has stopped a witch hunt that had a hideous impact on black men trying to escape that poverty. In the beginning of Trump's presidency, employment improved for everyone, including the black community.

In time, with these small nudges, the American black community may escape the cycle of poverty and violence that causes the aforementioned hideous cycle. Should that happen, cops will be able to do their jobs without cries of racism at the drop of a hat, and my nephews will be free from an environment that encourages them to crucify themselves because of the light color of thier skin. My friend Courtney, who earned my love in ways I can't emphasize enough, won't have to worry about her children being shot by scared cops.

I have chosen a long view that allows me to love my kin (by virtue of being kin) and neighbors (who have earned my love through their own good works).

But please, feel free to tell me about how I am incapable of making decisions beyond myself because I don't put a single group of people before my own selfish avoidance of regret. Tell me about how I am incapable anything simpler than lazy solutions akin to every dipshit despot from Hitler to Pol Pot, because I acknowledge that people like you crave nothing more than social power and are ultimately all the same in your desperate cloying attempts to acquire said power through the singular groups you promote, rather than making subtle brush strokes on a masterpiece slowly moving towards something that will hopefully be better than it was before.

Your move, asshole.

 

[VIVIIXI]

It was a good drunk rant by @VIVIIXI . I see I still had it in my cache and have reposted his rant here:

Eh, guilty.

Well, at least it was a good one.

If you're going to have one, it may as well be good.

 

[MrJokerRager]

Trying to get off porn is tough when life is so boring in lockdowns.

 

[cybertoaster]

You never see cool-looking well adjusted porn addicts, they are always fat losers nobody wanted to fuck in the first place

They watch porn to compensate, tons of men dont have access to sex, like 60% of men historically never had kids and probably sex either

That chunk of men make the majority of coomers, and the few women who are truly unfuckable are the rest but only the ones that still have a sex drive

Take the porn away from them and they anhero, they have nothing

 

[Lensherr]

Do I think that porn can have negative and deleterious effects on certain people? Yes.

Do I think that there is enough evidence to suggest that it is having deleterious effects on society at large to the point where it needs to be banned? No.

And even if it was definitively proven as such, I don't believe that any sort of blanket federal ban/regulation would be a good idea.

For starters none of this stuff is within the purview of the United States federal government ("Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech" and what not), so it would be blatantly unconstitutional.

There's also the fact that U.S. legal tradition is based around negative liberties (i.e., you have no barriers preventing you from doing what you want as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others) rather than positive rights (i.e., you are obligated to do things for others so that they may achieve self-actualization). When people argue for banning porn, they're essentially making a positivist argument in the sense that they believe that the state should step in to, for example, make their job of keeping their children away from porn easier or make it harder for them access porn so that they don't become addicted, among other things. In doing this, however, the government would be violating the negative liberty of others to consume the media that they wish to consume unimpeded by any external force.

Furthermore, because of the U.S. legal system's focus on negative rights over positive rights, there is no constitutional right to have others help prevent people and/or their children from coming into contact with potentially deleterious influences. It's basically the same argument that is used to justify banning hate speech: "This particular form of expression is having a corrosive effect on our society, therefore it's up to the government to step in and prevent people from coming into contact with it, even if it means trampling on the negative rights of others to live free from interference."

Lastly, there's also the possibility that giving the federal government the power to regulate/ban pornography would have disastrous consequences on online free speech/expression and the infrastructure of the internet itself. We saw something like this in the early 2000s with the passage of the PATRIOT Act: the stated purpose of the bill was combatting terrorism, but the way the bill was worded gave the government justification to expand its power and violate citizen's civil liberties in the name of keeping people safe. Likewise, a similar bill aiming to ban/regulate pornography, if not worded precisely enough, could give the government justification to crack down on speech that it doesn't like.

So in conclusion, there is not a strong enough case that porn is uniquely harmful and addictive, and any attempt to crack down on it would violate the civic structure and legal traditions of the United States and create problems that are ultimately worse than porn.

Than you for coming to my TED Talk.

 

[ToroidalBoat]

In the current sticky by Null, he says that "pornography makes you socially retarded and exposes you to strange fetishes, which is why all trannies are pornography addicts".

What if the reverse is true: people who are socially retarded resort to porn because they can't get laid? And those who are attracted to the strange fetishes is because they're mentally messed up to start with?

 

[Solar Eclipse Paradox]

Porn is usually some of the ugliest things I've seen on the world. But somehow somewhere someone experiments on this subject and it goes down the rabbit hole from there.

 

[pedoguyguykrai]

the problem I have with porn is that its not pleasurable to watch and teachs men how to fuck in a wrong way. like only 1 to 2 minutes of foreplay and 10 minutes of dry jack hammering. only 10 percent of the women in the world can coom from penetration, porn is made for a male audience and for the male fantasy, not to teach men to fuck like sex gods, besides the moral debate porn is inherently harmful as it sends the wrong idea of sex that sex should mean getting impaled by 12 inch cocks.