US US Politics General 2 - Discussion of President Trump and other politicians

​

Should be a wild four years.

Helpful links for those who need them:

Current members of the House of Representatives
https://www.house.gov/representatives

Current members of the Senate
https://www.senate.gov/senators/

Current members of the US Supreme Court
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx

Members of the Trump Administration
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/

 

[X Prime]

also i don't get why anyone here is talking about free speech as if free speech has anything to do with showing porn to minors

Check out the Lolicon/Shotacon Defenders thread sometime in Community Watch. It's an easy defense.

While I do not doubt there are people who use the defense for other topics, thus making their motives consistent, the problem is that if you look in that thread you will see what I am talking about regarding the tendency to use disingenuous defenses on this kind of debate topic.

 

[JustSomeDong]

No, sir. It's that gooners will have to prove they are 18 to porn sites.

This whole "You're either with us or with the gooners" bullshit is just as disingenuous as George W. saying "You're either with us or with the terrorists!"

And you a hypocrite for pushing it. Not trying to be a dick, because I like you.

And Hegel laughs at us all from Hell.

 

[Historical Strelkov]

The miller test describes 90% of porn on the internet, i'm willing to start with that. The only way to say it doesn't is if you're being incredibly dishonest.

How about you just ban prostitution, and classify pornography as evidence of prostitution, instead of wandering into the freedom of speech argument?
No one has a right to sell their body or anyone else's for sexual purposes. Boom, now if you sell the prostitution footage its under that umbrella. It has nothing to do with speech, and everything to do with profit. Make these whores do it for free. They won't, or they will anyway because they're whores and here's the receipt.

"prurient interest" isn't something that is reasonable when people make the "its art tho" argument, because "i know it when i see it" is too subjective.

But if you completely took out the financial aspect of "sex work", then most of it would not be generated. I mean they call it "sex work" they aren't calling it "my fetish hobby". Fuckers want to be paid, and pay for it.

This of course is irrelevant when it comes to drawings, which is its own matter.
How about you ban sexual behavior in public areas where children would be, and make these lolicons argue that drawn pornography HAS A RIGHT to be shown to children, and isn't of a sexual nature?

Most people just ban these things in their private areas, or their businesses because lust is "adult business" or whatever and done behind massage parlor signs and bars, or whatever the fuck.

The free speech angle is a cope, and everyone knows it. We all believe in freedom of speech but if someone says "I'm going to kill your right now, lol" then suddenly its an actionable threat right? So these people just try to exploit the gray area aspect of peoples intellectual whimsy. Fuck that, and make them go through barbed wire to say that they should be able to pay 1000 bucks to see freddy fazbear fuck marge simpson (inflatable).

 

[Rudolf's Friend]

Are you niggers done arguing about porn now?

 

[X Prime]

Are you niggers done arguing about porn now?

The Porno Yuga is no joke, sir. It will return.

 

[>IMPLYING]

I have the one solution to the porn problem.

Accelerationism. Let retarded parents let their retarded children become retards, kill themselves because their moe anime streamer isn't real and ran out of illegal hormones, and thus get taken out of the gene pool.

Less shitposty answer: why are we not putting the onus on parents? It's because of parents that the schools and tranny issues became extra retarded, it's because of parents that they're also becoming less retarded. I liked the argument of shame being a means of control, which is really just society being functional, which begins at parenting children. Make parents actually fucking parent, actually be invested in their children, and we'll see the societal shift we need to make anything work. The "think of the children" narrative only works when the children think for themselves, critically, because their parents educated and guided them that way, as we've began to see with the right-leaning in youth. At that point it becomes a self applying fix, as we're now seeing with trannies and education as a whole.

The same bill in the UK which caused Null to block the site to UK users is the same bill that is making porn sites implement an obligatory proof of age check on the 27th of July (you might have to show valid ID, like a passport or whatnot, which is then stored on the site). I think the people who are defending porn aren't necessarily doing it because they don't want to cease their cooming, but because the government that'd pass such a bill would probably bundle with it other restrictions that are more objectionable. The whole "slippery slope" argument keeping switching from fallacy to legitimate depending on the phases of the moon but I think the UK is a recent-ish precedent of a government doing something to "protect children" that also gets coupled with a bunch of other unsavoury shit.

I think people here on either side of the debate are either failing to understand the ultimate concerns of the other's perspective since the 'culture' of the site doesn't really encourage actual discussion, just shitflinging, or they're ascribing an ulterior motive to their positions.

I think the uptick in trannies is a result in overexposure to porn (autogynephilia), alongside shit like social contagion and whatnot (and misdiagnosed autism). The casualness of its presence online hasn't been a good thing for people. But attempting to ban it will either be ineffective or just lead to more draconian shit. And people will always get around it, they always have. Americans had speakeasies/moonshine for alcohol, the Japs had tentacles for dicks. That said, I understand the passion behind those arguing for a ban/restriction — it's a solution. And I think we all generally feel like there aren't many of those around.

 

[blackface enthusiast]

Sadly most people only care about free speech to the extent that it impacts them as long as they can say what they like and buy the art they like every one can go hang as far as they care. Most people fundamentally have a fuck you got mine attitude about it.

Also most of the issues raised here have little to do with porn or even caring about porn, it's the fundamental reality that governments do not give up power and abuse the power they're given. Every time other governments across the world have instituted similar measures it always devolves into broad, unregulated censorship. Every single time. So all these smug retards will get to enjoy their porn ban for a couple of years before this website (and all the other fun websites they enjoy) get blocked by similar measures.

Like go view the topics in the section of the forum this very thread is in, there's like 3 articles about how someone in the UK got arrested for saying something on the internet the government didn't approve of.

 

[Dr J]

that's a problem with the legislation not the idea

The legislation is the only reason we're even debating the idea. No reasonable person, and certainly no one here, is arguing that minors should have unfettered access to pornography. The question is balancing that concern with the right of responsible adults not to have the government up their arse.

The only way to say it doesn't is if you're being incredibly dishonest.

It's incredibly subjective. The Miller Test hinges on community standards i.e what a reasonable person in the community might find offensive. The trouble with internet porn is that what one person in one community might find offensive, another person in another community might not. What someone in Utah might find offensive is not what someone in California might find offensive

And depiction of sex or genitals is not considered ipso facto 'obscene'

 

[X Prime]

I think people here on either side of the debate are either failing to understand the ultimate concerns of the other's perspective since the 'culture' of the site doesn't really encourage actual discussion, just shitflinging, or they're ascribing an ulterior motive to their positions.

I object to this characterization. I think some do understand the concern, they just do not find it compelling enough.

Further, can you really blame ascribing ulterior motives to the pro-porn-by-unfortunate-coincidence position when it turns out to often actually be true?

 

[Cromwell]

Also most of the issues raised here have little to do with porn or even caring about porn, it's the fundamental reality that governments do not give up power and abuse the power they're given. Every time other governments across the world have instituted similar measures it always devolves into broad, unregulated censorship. Every single time. So all these smug retards will get to enjoy their porn ban for a couple of years before this website (and all the other fun websites they enjoy) get blocked by similar measures.

Like go view the topics in the section of the forum this very thread is in, there's like 3 articles about how someone in the UK got arrested for saying something on the internet the government didn't approve of.

I understand your concern and I see where you’re coming from. If you can’t accept the ID for access do you have a better solution for the problem or are you of the mind that this isn’t something that should be regulated at all?

 

[marvlouslie]

I'm going to laugh the moment we turn into the UK and we start arresting people over speech made online. Oh. Wait. That actually happened under the last administration.

 

[browserbowser]

I'll take your word for it, but I cannot say that I have noticed. I'd say that usually those three categories have a combo of issues they go ham on - usually that exact combination, funny enough.


That's what I'm saying; the problem here is that in this specific kind of topic the tendency is extremely prominent.

Okay, I'll explain why your attempt at paraconsistency was poor in as respectful a tone I can since you're not being belligerent.

Your position here:

that the porn thing draws in people with one-track mindsets who only vociferously talk like that about the porn thing. By contrast, the things you cited were usually multi-topic orators and the attacks were thus disingenuous.

The core difference is that there really does exist a subset of people who only seem to care about free speech to defend their fetish material.

requires me to accept that you know the following things you cannot possibly know (and yes libshits use this in defense of all of the slanderous bullshit they spew too, it's not an original defense of the 'but muh single-issue obsessives' viewpoint):

A: That you definitively understand how many of the people in all topics you're talking of are 'multi-topic orators' as opposed to merely being single-issue obsessives. You cannot possibly have any real metric not merely due to the size of the groups and the timescale over which you're making this assumption, but also due to the fact almost all of the people you're speaking of engage in these conversations pseudonymously/anonymously, so there's not even a reliable metric to track them even if you had some miraculous way of doing so via surface-level scraping of discussions globally for the past ten or twenty years of the Internet's discussions on these topics and parsing that information to have a satisfactory data set for this assessment.

B: That you with complete and inerrant accuracy know the sincerity of each and every interlocutor to an extent that would give you an accurate assessment of the political landscape. Meaning, since most of the people you're talking about engage in these discussions pseudonymously/anonymously there's no way to know how many are actually the people you're speaking of as opposed to bad-faith actors amplifying a small minority through imitation and socking.

It also runs into the realistic problem that:

The closer the topic gets to what is perceived to be a violation of fundamental rights or an existential threat - which giving the government what would effectively be a greenlight for egress into powers they've salivated over since the passing of the Patriot Act will definitely be perceived as both - the more likely all interlocutors regardless of characteristics otherwise are going to be heated to a degree that will give them the appearance of being 'single-issue obsessives' rather than 'multi-topic orators' because even if they feel similarly on multiple topics, in the moment it's easiest to accuse your opponent of being a 'single-issue obsessive' as they're clearly going to be acting the same way one might due to the severity of the issue at hand.

TL;DR: Your logic is still whack, retarded, and is no different in composition than the same stupid shit libshits say to defend the exact same logic you're saying somehow is 'different when we do it'. It's not.

 

[blackface enthusiast]

I understand your concern and I see where you’re coming from. If you can’t accept the ID for access do you have a better solution for the problem or are you of the mind that this isn’t something that should be regulated at all?

Why are parents not doing their job my problem and something that requires government intervention? Does alcohol need to be banned because some people use it irresponsibly? Do cars need to be banned because some people crash them? Do guns need to be banned because some people use them for murder? It's the exact same kind of logic.

 

[Dr J]

Like go view the topics in the section of the forum this very thread is in, there's like 3 articles about how someone in the UK got arrested for saying something on the internet the government didn't approve of.

And 99% of the time those people got arrested because they were dumb enough to say that shit on a normalfag website like Twatter or Kikebook (naively believing they actually had freedom of speech in this country), under their real name, using their real personally identifiable information.

What happens when everything you post on the internet is tied to your real name and your real personally identifiable information?

 

[Storytime]

Why are parents not doing their job my problem and something that requires government intervention? Does alcohol need to be banned because some people use it irresponsibly? Do cars need to be banned because some people crash them? Do guns need to be banned because some people use them for murder? It's the exact same kind of logic.

alcohol, cars, and guns all require ID you dumbass

 

[Cromwell]

Does alcohol need to be banned because some people use it irresponsibly?

If you are under 21, alcohol is banned.

Do cars need to be banned because some people crash them?

If you are too young for a drivers licence or you haven’t earned it, you can’t drive

Do guns need to be banned because some people use them for murder?

Definitely not. But for the other 2 things there are guard rails on their use, specifically tied to age.
Is the porn ID requirement any different from these things? If so why? And why do you figure that this law is the back door to tyranny compared to say needing ID for booze.

 

[TarragonRespecter]

Why are parents not doing their job my problem and something that requires government intervention? Does alcohol need to be banned because some people use it irresponsibly? Do cars need to be banned because some people crash them? Do guns need to be banned because some people use them for murder? It's the exact same kind of logic.

Just wanted to point out that while bad things can happen with those examples there's also more good that comes from them. Cars for example provide transportation for people, goods, and services. What good does porn provide for society that would be akin to that?

 

[blackface enthusiast]

The closer the topic gets to what is perceived to be a violation of fundamental rights or an existential threat - which giving the government what would effectively be a greenlight for egress into powers they've salivated over since the passing of the Patriot Act will definitely be perceived as both - the more likely all interlocutors regardless of characteristics otherwise are going to be heated to a degree that will give them the appearance of being 'single-issue obsessives' rather than 'multi-topic orators' because even if they feel similarly on multiple topics, in the moment it's easiest to accuse your opponent of being a 'single-issue obsessive' as they're clearly going to be acting the same way one might due to the severity of the issue at hand.

This is what is so tilting about this discussion because it's not even like the Patriot Act is some obscure piece of legislation from the 1830s only history geeks would know about. And it's the same story as back then, everyone who was against mass government surveillance was just a terrorist sympathizer who hates America, same lack of ability to actually argue in favor of what they wanted without resorting to ad-homs and trying to change the subject every 5 seconds.

 

[Lian Xing]

Israel is a consistent US ally and has been one historically.

USS Liberty
Missing US nuclear material
9/11

With allies like that, who needs enemies?

 

[Storytime]

Just wanted to point out that while bad things can happen with those examples there's also more good that comes from them. Cars for example provide transportation for people, goods, and services. What good does porn provide for society that would be akin to that?

this is the true issue, in a just world it'd be outlawed outright and the ID law wouldn't need to exist