If someone came up to a rackets child and said, "Haha, your Dad talked to a swinger!" That's not really insulting or embarrassing. When someone can come up to that child and say, "I wanked off to those pictures your Mom put on the internet last night. When's she releasing the next set?" then that's going to have a very different impact.
This is such a stupid statement any time it comes up. This is especially stupid for Nick's kids. They are homeschooled. No one is going to walk up to them and say this. Nobody ever does this, because the people looking at some onlyfans thot aren't coincidentally going to the same school as her kid, but they're especially not going to do it to his kids. And it's very likely they would not care even if someone did, because if the family raised them with hippie values, they're just not going to care. You're projecting your values onto children that aren't yours. You'd be freaked out if someone wanked off to your mom's picture. I, personally, would find the person who did that weird, not my mother. In the theoretical scenario (that will not happen in reality) where someone approached Nick's kids to pointlessly try to bully them over their mom posting lingerie photos, his kids probably just will not care.
Homeschooled doesn't mean completely socially isolated. They're in a co-op, they have ballet and all sorts of activities that they get chauffeured to. We know that at least one kid in the co-op has seen Nick's show, because he's told us so. They are part of a church community. Beyond that, they have family, they probably have friends. And homeschooling now doesn't mean homeschooling forever. They could have a sickness or accident in the family that meant they couldn't homeschool for a year. A kid could opt to go to public school. Eventually, they're going to be old enough to go to college and get a job. Maybe Rackets has a community now that is low-key enough to be fine with his degeneracy, but part of the reason why people are commenting the way they are is that six months ago, Rackets himself was mocking only-fans thots and cucks who let their wives have only-fans accounts. I'd say it's more likely that Racket's community is more like six-months-ago Rackets than today's Rackets.
And, no, I cannot predict exactly how every person will react to knowing about Lady Racket's lewds or Nick's bottle pegging, but given a large enough population, there's bound to be a good percentage of people who will disapprove, and a subset of them who'd react negatively enough to have social repercussions for the kids (either limiting/refusing contact or teasing/bullying). A good parent makes judgment calls over what sorts of burdens you want to place on your kids, and most parents don't go the only-fans route.
Stumbling around and interacting with people while drunk enough is generally frowned upon-- but let's assume it's normal, for the sake of argument.
So is obesity and casual sex.
I really have trouble believing that you lack the capacity to recognize that different things are different, but for the sake of argument, I'll accept that you have that limitation...
Stumbling around and interacting with people while drunk enough is generally frowned upon-- but let's assume it's normal, for the sake of argument.
Different levels of drunkenness receive different levels of approval/condemnation. I've never seen Nick at the 'stumbling around' phase of drunkenness, but when he's gotten more drunk, then there have been plenty of people in the thread who have remarked negatively about it, and while I'm not going back through the thread to find out how many of them included 'think of the children' arguments, I'm sure that if his drunkenness was bad enough to make it seem like it was going to have a negative carry-over to his children, people would complain about it. Yelling 'think of the children' over a couple shots of whiskey would be over-reacting, because a couple shots is different than being black-out drunk, or violently drunk, etc. Gauging one's level of disapproval to match the severity of the issue isn't being unreasonable, it's using your brain.
Most anything that he's done in the past can be reasonably scrutinized with "think of your children"-- there's no argument you can pose about this. Sure enough, I have a particular reaction to the fact that they exposed themselves the way they did, and I think it's worse in terms of the "think of your children" consideration.
Everything
can be scrutinized with "think of your children," but it's blatantly
unreasonable to scrutinize everything that way. Drinking a couple shots alone at night isn't reasonably going to damage your children, even when people know you do it, so it's not reasonable to moralize over it. Severe alcohol abuse is different, and when people have perceived Nick's drinking as falling into that category, they've reacted about it.
Having a gunt, picking internet slap-fights, calling fat women whales, all of those things can be perceived negatively - but unless they're taken to unreasonable extremes, it's not likely to negatively impact kids and so it would be unreasonable to scrutinize it with regards to how it impacts his children. People have saved their 'think of the children' moralizing for a situation that might actually have significant negative impact on them. That's reasonable. That's recognizing that different actions have different effects and reacting accordingly.
So is obesity and casual sex.
Being fat is different than being a sexual degenerate. They have different effects on people. Being a sexual degenerate has worse effects on children than being fat. Nick has a pot-belly, he is not obese. No one has gone 'think of the children!' in this thread over Nick's pot-belly because he's not obese. If you want that to be relevant to the discussion, maybe go over to the Death Fats subforum.
Parents engaging in casual sex is very detrimental to children. If Nick were engaging in casual sex, people would be dragging him over that. No one has gone 'think of the children!' in this thread with regards to that because, as far as we know, Nick hasn't engaged in casual sex outside of his marriage. Part of the reason why there's some 'think of the children' going on now is that his current behavior suggests that there might possibly be some casual extra-marital sex going on, and that would hurt the children.
I treat different things differently. If you want me to treat your arguments as intelligent, well-thought out trains of thought, you're going to have to present that sort of argument.
