Spyke
lemmy.ml

They don't intend to ban anything. They're just creating reasons to lock people up.

They are, to a man, insane authoritarian shitbags. All they care about is control.

347
lemmy.world

The plan according to project 2025 is to classify trans people existing as pornographic. Wish I was joking. Been warning people about this for a year now.

239

Basically everything they have to say on the subject is thinley veiled homophobia and should be treated as such

53
lemmy.dbzer0.com

Yup, it’s the typical conservative playbook: If you don’t like something, redefine it as something unpopular. Then target the unpopular thing, so democrats can’t oppose it without inciting “this democrat voted against a bill to protect/stop {sympathetic demographic} from {unpopular thing}” smear campaigns.

Step 1 was equating trans people with sexual predators. You keep that messaging consistent and constant. Find stories of trans people doing normal things, but spin it as if they’re dangerous. Invent stories if you need to, because debunking them takes a lot more time than inventing them…

They weren’t jogging in a neighborhood; they were casing the neighborhood. They weren’t using a public restroom; they were looking for people to sexually assault. They weren’t trying on clothes to see if they fit; they were looking to assault women and children in the changing rooms. They weren’t volunteering for the local women’s shelter; They were looking for defenseless victims. They weren’t writing a book for other trans people; They were indoctrinating kids and trying to turn them trans. Et cetera, et cetera…

Once conservative voters have started to accept that messaging, you move onto step 2:
“This bill will protect children from sexual predators” means it bans trans people from being able to pee.
“This bill will protect children from being exposed to dangerous sexual material” means it bans any kind of trans iconography by labeling it as porn.
“This bill will stop sexual predators from hiding in your neighborhood” means it requires trans people to register in a public database/wear a {pink triangle} badge.
“This bill will ensure sexual predators are kept away from the rest of the population” means it rounds trans people up into camps.

And if anybody ever tries to point out what the bill is really doing, put them on blast with the “radical left is trying to let sexual predators steal your kids and assault your women” messaging.

53

Sure would be nice if the not-as-conservatives could use their own tactics to flip the script on them.

7
oo1reply
lemmings.world

I disagree that it's conservative. It's nazi/ authoritarian/radical. For 50 odd years afer ww2 the cons knew this was a daft tactic. Prior to that (well prior to 1790 ish ) con/feudal/landowners managed their serfs and peasants, they didn't want infighting. (outfighting, thats a different , maybe lucrative albeit lottery).

Cons are just common or garden cunts. populists are serious, they can mobilise labour .

The traditional cons wil ride the wave because they have no choice and no friends. until they realise they'll be expropriated eventually, which the nazis won't do until after they have critical mass. Fucking con Niemollers

0

In the 50 odd years after WW2, we saw them frame civil rights as communism and use the war on drugs to bomb and destroy black neighborhoods.

This is conservatism.

8
lemmy.world

The original documents for project 2025 were released in 2017 well leaked in 2017. And it was talked about for about the day and disappeared and here we are.

31
Carmakazireply
lemmy.world

It really made the rounds again in 2020, even to the point of breaking into the mainstream. Probably a lot more people are aware of it than you might think, it's just the doing something about it that we're all sticking on.

32
AA5Breply
lemmy.world

In 2020 we didn’t have to do anything about it. It was just another set of online nutcases, no one who could get elected would actually try that.

2025: hold my beer

12

I meant to say 2024, during the election. The past few years have been a blur to me.

13

It's unfortunately not. Go ask your (general) parents or grandparents what it is and what it means. Ask them if they think it's happening right now and to what extent.

I bet their answers will be surprising to a lot of people.

10
andros_rexreply
lemmy.world

Project 2025 has been happening in Oklahoma since 2017. No one gave a shit when it was the asshole of the country, but shit spreads.

Y’all get to enjoy the suffering I’ve been enjoying for the past ten years.

21
lemm.ee

Oh boy, I can't wait to find out if Oklahoma is a shining utopia, a guiding beacon of the future for the rest of the country.

15

That is the pragmatic and short term outcome, but I would not discount the level of power hard-line Christian nationalists have over the far right. Many of them believe "moral degeneracy" like porn is the most grave problem of western society and would be glad to "correct" it given the chance.

16

Please don't drag the insane down to this level. This is planned and intentional (even if there is factional opposition)

6
lemmy.ml

It is.

We need more media to take advantage of the SCP Foundation. Movies, games, etc. Give the authors credit. Pay them. Because there's a whole lot of great stuff there.

SCP-001 "When Day Breaks" would make an incredible horror movie.

5
fedia.io

Remember that the far right has been desperately trying to label any LGBTQ-related content as 'porn'. Educational resources? 'Porn'. Biographies about gay people? 'Porn'. Drag queens? 'Porn'. A book about a boy with two mommies? 'Porn'. Anything that acknowledges the existence of trans people? 'Porn'.

The purpose of this bill isn't to ban porn, it's to ban 'porn'. Anything they don't like will be deemed 'porn', and then this gives them the legal justification to ban whatever they want.

239
crusa187reply
lemmy.ml

Cancel culture at its finest. Where my free speech absolutists gone?!

66
lemmy.world

Friendly reminder that only one party takes rights away.

And that's the party that got all the stupid fucks in our society to think they were the party of freedom.

186
someguy3reply
lemmy.world

And all the "Dems aren't fixing it fast enough!" voters thinking it'll be good for some reason.

23

That's because they're children who want exactly what they want, immediately, or fuck it all and let it burn.

5
9tr6gyp3reply
lemmy.world

Regulations are put in place to make sure some people aren't allowed to hurt other people. Some would argue that this takes away their rights.

19

Regulations are put in place to make sure some people aren’t allowed to hurt other people

I'd also extend that definition to "other life" too. Some MAGA may say: "The libruls want to take a way my rights to do what I want with my land!" When in fact it may be an endangered species has its last nesting ground on that land.

16
plz1reply
lemmy.world

No one has the rights to harm another. Your argument is ridiculous.

1
plz1reply
lemmy.world

That's just "people are saying". It's either a straw man, or a belief. If not both.

-3
plz1reply
lemmy.world

The opposite. I heartily disagree that regulations protecting some people from harm are at the detriment of others.

4

Do you believe that if regulations are put in place, some people will be upset that they aren't allowed to continue their bad behavior and claim that their rights has been violated?

3
DarkFuturereply
lemmy.world

What kind of regulations?

You're baiting people without providing examples. Which I'm sure you're aware of.

3

Any singular regulation will do. If any come to mind, then you can list any you think should be out in place.

0

Do you mean idealistically (a belief), or reality in practice? Because many groups have been given the legal right to harm others, e.g. military, police, certain sports players and businesses, so in practice, many people have the right to harm another and it's terrible.

If you mean idealistically, well, that's a nice idea but it means nothing until we collectively build the power to enforce it. The bourgeoisie crying about regulation taking away their freedom to put lead in our food tend to be the people with the money and power to perform regulatory capture.

0

To clearly state the obvious: it does take away their liberty and that's a good thing. Economic liberalism is a tragedy.

0

Yeah, the freedom to oppress others, just like the founding fathers did!

2
sh.itjust.works

Look, reflexively saying "both sides aren't the same" is ignorant and actively doing harm when you use it to broadly. Are both parties the same? No. But on many issues, both parties are the same. And this is one of those issues. What you are saying is demonstrably, patently false.

The South Carolina bill passed with near-universal bipartisan support.

Same thing with the Texas bill.

On this issue, both sides are just as bad. Democrats are just as bad as Republicans.

The problem Democrats have is that they don't actually believe in anything. They follow polls and consultants, and they lack any backbone. They have no fight in them.

Look at trans rights. Democrats have completely ceded the issue to Republicans. Trans people make the walking corpses that are the Democratic leadership feel icky, so they offer only symbolic support to the trans community. Kamala, in the face of tens of millions of dollars of right wing demonization of trans people, couldn't even offer the most basic defense of trans rights and the worth of trans lives. All she could say was, "I'll follow the law."

It's really, really easy to make Democrats completely cave on the rights of any group. All you have to do is make the case to the public that it's for the good of children. Want to ban porn? Bill it as for the kids, and the Dems will be too chicken shit to say a word against it. Want to send trans people to gas chambers? Say it's for the kids, and Dems will vote for it. Demonize immigrants? The Democrats will try to outflank you on the right, competing with Republicans to see who can be crueler to immigrants and asylum seekers. Name the bill after a white woman that happened to be killed by an illegal immigrant, make defending it require effort, and Democrats will be falling over themselves to vote to send migrants to death camps.

Are the two parties the same? No. But on many issues, they are virtually identical. As long as you can make a flimsy case that some stripping of rights is for the good of the children, Democrats will ALWAYS be too cowardly to stand up against the propaganda. It's been this way since at least Tipper Gore in the 90s.

-6

I got to the part where you tried to equate Democrats not doing enough to help trans people with Republicans actively persecuting them and then I stopped reading because I realized I was reading straight up bullshit.

Democrats have removed ZERO rights. Republicans have and are actively trying to remove more. And one quick glance at both party's voting history, you know, the thing that actually causes legislation to be enacted, very clearly paints the parties in TOTALLY different lights.

12
lemmy.world

“Obscenity isn’t protected by the First Amendment, but hazy and unenforceable legal definitions have allowed extreme pornography to saturate American society and reach countless children,” Lee said in a press release. “Our bill updates the legal definition of obscenity for the internet age so this content can be taken down and its peddlers prosecuted.”

My memory is a bit hazy, but I think this phrasing is taken almost verbatim from Project 2025.

156
dunidanereply
lemmy.sdf.org

They are jumping the gun a little here. Project 2025 has declaring basically anything a transperson does as pornographic first then this. Guess some incompetence in execution shouldn't be surprising from their crowd.

70

I think the order of operations is almost unimportant if their opposition can only secure minor, temporary victories and nobody is truly stopping them. If anything the broad stroke of this bill could be used as cover while states quietly criminalize homosexuality and transgenderism by fiat.

33
Rhaedasreply
fedia.io

Obscenity isn’t protected by the First Amendment

Is this the same Constitution that they're pissing on with everything else? It most certainly does protect it. Do NOT use the "think of the children" shit when your actions towards children safety has been the complete opposite. Hell, I saw news today of further cuts being pursued for Medicare, as well as past things on cutting school lunches and of course the destruction of the DoE. You do NOT care about children, do not bring them into this.

46

Actually they've been trying to invoke the Comstock Act constantly to force ISPs to block porn sites. This particular rallying cry is something I remember since the late Bush II years.

2
Mist101reply
lemmy.world

Will no one think of the children? Whenever these people say something, the best strategy is look in the opposite direction they are pointing you. In this instance, they are working to pass child-bride full-legalization. They're definitely thinking of the children.

33

Don't forget Florida trying to weaken child labor laws. MAGA. If the mine was good enough for great grandpa, it's good enough for you.

25

When you use AI to write your bills and tell it to implement Project 2025.

12

Guns fall into children's hands all the time, something that literally kills, and they don't seem to give a shit about that

11
lemmy.world

Check this guy's computer first. Guarantee there's some fucked up shit on there. It's always projection.

131
Lka1988reply
sh.itjust.works

Mike Lee is a full-blown Mormon, which heavily frowns upon porn in any form (including literal prophetic teachings calling women "walking pornography"), so he absolutely does have porn on his devices.

Source: grew up Mormon, was taught this by leadership

36
madjoreply
feddit.nl

And their definition of "porn" is so broad, it's bordering on ridiculous.

7

Dude... Their doctrine is all over the place haha. Like, everyone knew that the garments were all about "modestly", and yet with the recent release of tank-top style women's garment tops, they're all claiming that "it was never about modesty teehee". Fucking gaslighting bullshit. Same with rated R movies. Some leader somewhere stated that members shouldn't watch rated R movies, and somehow everyone took it as literal gospel, despite it not being written anywhere.

I'm so fucking glad I'm out of that goddamn cult.

5
lemm.ee

It's part of the plan in Project 2025, to ban pornography and then classify LGBT literature as pornography

111
hopesdeadreply
startrek.website

I read somewhere that Texas is trying (as in someone in the legislature) to make transgender people legally non-existent. Apparently the same shit I read is being attempted in the UK.

16

Logically, that means they wont have to pay taxes and can't be charged with murder. But we know the law wouldn't be applied logically.

14
hopesdeadreply
startrek.website

That wasn’t what I read. The specific words were “legally non-existent” as in they don’t exist. It could be gender fraud is what was implied but not how it was explained.

3
dandelionreply
lemmy.blahaj.zone

ah, yes - that one basically doesn't allow the state to recognize anything but assigned sex at birth (or some other reality-denying fabricated definition of "biological sex"), thereby eliminating trans identity - this is a form of genocide, called social death. Other states already have passed laws like this:

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/defining-sex-states-are-denying-transgender-people-legal-recognition-rcna140694

Looks like the bill passed the house in TX (waiting to see what the Senate votes):

https://www.texastribune.org/2025/05/10/texas-house-trans-bills-advance/

1

it's still debated whether the anti-trans movement in the US has genocide as a goal, but I think it's a fair characterization since the movement has explicitly stated their goal is "the eradication of [trans people] from public life":

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cpac-speaker-transgender-people-eradicated-1234690924/

since the goal is total elimination, it makes it a candidate for genocide more than other kinds of oppression, e.g. the enslavement and oppression of Africans in the US (another case some have argued as being a genocide).

the Lemkin Institute is one of the organizations arguing the anti-trans movement is genocidal:

https://www.lemkininstitute.com/red-flag-alerts/red-flag-alert-for-the-anti-trans-agenda-of-the-trump-administration-in-the-united-states

either way, methods like legally removing a concept of a group is a method of genocide used in the past, which is why I bring it up.

in particular it's an example of social death:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_death

1

If you think the porn industry is exploitative and abusive now, just wait until they push it all underground.

97
lemmy.ca

Gotta love it how one party steals rights away from Americans and it's always the one party that screams the loudest about "muh rights!" and they're constantly supported by smooth brains who just can't stop talking about "muh rights or you get muh bullets!!".

I'm still waiting for those bullets to fly but smooth brains are occupied now by trump jingeling some keys calls "no trans bathrooms" in front of them so they're a bit busy

95
lemm.ee

Your observation is eternal. During the American Revolution one person noted (I forgot who) that the people who clamoured the loudest for liberty also happened to be the hardest slave drivers.

38

In Stiff Little Fingers sobg "Fly the Flag" they sang "free to screw you before you screw me".

8
lemmy.world

Gotta love it how one party steals rights away from Americans and it’s always the one party that screams the loudest about “muh rights!”

It's funny, because back in the 80s, Democrats were the moral scalds and Republicans were the libertarian hedonists.

Then they swapped territory and reversed their attitudes towards sex work.

-9
Wolfehreply
lemmy.world

Being an old person, I seem to remember that the "Moral Majority" and "Satanic Panic" folks were mainly (though not entirely) Replublican.

24

Yeah, that's the result of the flip the other person was talking about. They got their timeline a bit mixed up, the flip gained steam with Nixon's use of the Southern Strategy to capture the Dixiecrat vote in the late 60s and was largely complete by the 80s.

5
lemmy.world

Even the most oppressive tyrants in history understood the concept of bread and circuses. Most people will stay complacent when their fundamental rights are being taken away as long as they have their distractions. Taking away the distractions is something you only do after you've fully consolidated your power. They're so obsessed with projecting an aura of oppressiveness that they've forgotten how to hold power.

72

That's because they WANT riots in the streets. Perfect reason to suspend the constitution and impose martial law. An orange turn needs his crown ya know.

19
Jankatarchreply
lemmy.world

Modern consumerism is singlehandedly a good enough distraction...

8

So what happens when the shelves at WalMart are empty?

4
lemmy.world

I've been saying this for awhile; I think Trump wasn't supposed to win this term. He looked legit surprised when he won, and I think the Republicans were planning for four more years to really solidify their plans, and get more right wing gov'ts in power first (like Canada). Trump winning pushed everything up four years early, and made them basically have to speed-run to the goal. They went mask off so fast, and they're driving everything through before it would have been ideal. It's now or never.

4
lemm.ee

IDK man, they were prepped that's what Project 2025 was, a plan.

Its just that they're also extremely fucking stupid.

He looked legit surprised when he won

He was surprised the first time as well.

2

I agree, this was always the plan. I think they had to kick it off sooner than they wanted. Ducks were almost in a row, one more term would have had it all mapped proper, and now they have to rush which makes them look stupid.

2
lemmy.world

freedom to invade your home without a warrant on suspicion for harboring an undesirable.

freedom to live in crushing debt and be forced to work like a dog your whole life.

freedom to buy, freedom to sell.

edit - guess that's what you get when you elect Biff... twice

42

Yeah, that's the sadness we'll live with the rest of our lives.

No one invaded us and did this to us. We did it to ourselves. Because we're an exceptionally stupid society.

11

The American porn industry is as big as Hollywood. This is a big billions of dollars market. And the US porn industry provides 90% of international porn. So Trump and his GOP wants to kill the one last American industry where the US is world market leader by far.

And I can easily see this industry moving to countries where actors are cheaper and less protected from abuse, diseases, and whatever else happening in this industry.

While this will make some religious fundamentalists in the US feel superior and give them a sense of a perceived moral high ground, it will actually hurt the most vulnerable people in the chain the most. It will not reduce the amount of porn made, it will just make it much, much worse for those involved.

66

Under the bill, content would be considered obscene if it appeals to prurient interests in nudity

And since they've already taken away due process, they're basically paving the way to send anyone who has a body they don't like to a death camp. I don't think it's hyperbole anymore to say that that US is fucked.

62
lemmy.world

Republicans: “We have learned nothing from prohibition and refuse to try!”

55
lemmy.ml

USA has the biggest porn industry in the world, doesn’t it?

50
hansoloreply
lemm.ee

100%. Porn is what pushed the development of e-commerce and credit card payments online.

What they WILL get is eID laws as a result, and the total lack of privacy online.

58

Let me rephrase, I thought porn got on VHS and that is what helped it win the format war.

3

There's still corners, like Lemmy, where you can reasonably not be tracked. Even if you do the right things, you can degoogle and use reddit or other social media platforms and have it not just ping hot that it's you.

Imagine a world where you have to show a government ID to use nearly any service, like what LinkedIn has been doing. While the eID version could (should) actually make this MORE anonymized by using hashed confirmations of being over 18, the data is too juicy for anyone to not jump straight to that point.

3
Phoenixzreply
lemmy.ca

Soon that will be "had"

Mind you, this will end with a lot of porn disappearing from the Internet because most of it is on US servers

Someone should start downloading all of it and have some federated repository available

18

Interesting point. This would further harm our economy. Not that they'll care about that.

6
lemm.ee

Okay so previously I would’ve thought this is performative with no chance of it passing. However states have already passed laws that require proving ID to sites like pornhub before you can access and I am SHOCKED that they did it.

People in these areas are either using VPN, verifying an account with pornhub, or just not using pornhub. All 3 of which would be absolutely surprises to me but it’s gotta be one of them, right?

47

The group behind the state ID laws want to ban it nationally and have openly said those laws are stepping stones.

11

Can't get the PornHub in South Carolina due to this. It's what I've been told at least.

7

Brought to you by a president who f****d a pornstar and paid her off by falsifying business records.

Clown world for a clown species.

45

”I'm fairly sure if they took porn off the internet, there'd only be one website left, and it'd be called ’Bring back the porn!’ ” - Dr Cox

45
lemmy.world

My question is what defines pornography? Will museums have to cloak statues of naked people? Remove a renaissance era painting because of boobs? How about a movie that has tasteful nudity? Or just ads for Victoria Secret?

42

As is always the case with fascists, the laws will apply to the people they don't like and be ignored for the people they do like. So long as Victoria's Secret's CEO continues paying the bribes, it's not porn.

28

Christians in the late Roman empire went about destroying a lot of old statues and breaking off the genitalia on them. The Roman's weren't shy about giving nude male statues manly bits down there.

It didn't end with them either. During the Victorian era many European archeologists had no issue breaking the junk off artifacts they found.

22

The definition of pornography isn’t the issue here as that has a long standing and pretty clear definition. The issue would be the wording of the bill as from the small bit I can see before the paywall block, it isn’t a ban on pornography but a vague ban on obscene content. Who gets to decide what is “obscene content” and how that is determined is the problem as it would be ripe for abuse by whichever party is in power. The government of the day could say that opposing political opinions are “obscene” and therefore banned.

13

We’d do like the Vatican and chisel off the genitals off all the statues. Next it will be a Christian version of a burka.

6

Ah, I couldn't get to that part because it requires a sign in

2

You know what's crazy? The part about feeling shame. There's been some recent studies about a lot of previously diagnosed sex/porn disorders and addictions being tied to shame due to misinformed religious conservative upbringing. If anything, we need to be talking about and teaching more about sex. Not learning about it correctly leads to hangups and shame about the human body, love, and self love that makes you nearly incapable of showing or expressing yourself correctly. That's why all these conservatives are so fucking weird.

40

The Puritans are still ruling in that stupid country.

34

Donald doesn’t know anything about Project 2025 though. herp derp

31

Sending people to El Salvador is much easier when you make everyone a criminal.

31
discuss.online

Oh look, the Republicans are doing what they always try to do control what we do with our lives. I'm sure this guy has some shady content downloaded onto his computer.

30
AA5Breply
lemmy.world

Well, I just got back from swimming in the pool, and the water was cold.

2

We’re all like a frightened turtle with this shrinkage

2

The hell? These dudes have been telling me that my country is against freedom since they got into power but it's actually the opposite? What a surprise

2
lemmy.world

This is about getting people breed more. Honestly, I see this motive in all of their policies. The real reason republican politicians hate people who fall into the LGBTQ spectrum is because they can't produce new children and even when they can they're probably much less likely to. They want to get rid of porn, contraceptives, women's rights, and alternative lifestyles and at the same time try to entice people to have kids. If you want to fight against their agenda then don't have kids.

30
Voytrekkreply
sopuli.xyz

Unfortunately those that believe in their ideology will keep having kids. As an anecdote, my Trump loving cousins have a total of 18 kids compared to the total of 2 for those that aren't. Most of those kids will go on to follow their parents political and ideological beliefs.

16

This is truly the issue. Uneducated extremists are and will by far outbreed ideologically sane people who tend to doubt society, our existence, and bringing children into the world. Personally I don't believe in the future so I don't see a point in ruining my life with a child's weeping and cleaning poop just for it to grow up and have to be part of this circus of the maniacs.

9

If only there was another way to increase the population like accepting people from other nations. Too bad.

11
sh.itjust.works

DVDs, video compression, high speed Internet, wouldn't be the first time it was a driving force

14
lemmy.world

Extreme porn is to child abuse what cannabis is to heroin.

30

That's what the /s is for. Physical contact is an innate human desire. Repressing that isn't healthy and it's not the gateway to piousness.

1
lemm.ee

You know what, fuck it. Let this one happen. I'm down for chaos when their own party revolts.

29

It’s very obvious that people like that have never truly experienced homophobia or transphobia where they live. Otherwise, they’d realize what they’re actually advocating for by not opposing authoritarianism.

11

At this point, US politics has gone far beyond the point where we can make jokes about morons voting for the face-eating leopard party. Anybody who didn't vote for Kamala Harris because she wasn't critical enough of Israel, didn't do enough for LGBTQ rights, didn't have enough left wing policies, etc. is now reaping what they sow.

28

God I hope they do. It'll be hilarious to watch how quickly all the incels turn on Trump. Not to mention all the married Conservatives who hate their wives.

27

Conservatives keep saying they're for the common people.

Are they? Are they really? Seems to me they're really busy doing stuff that regular folks hate.

25

"If all porn got deleted from the internet there would only be one site left and it would read 'Give us back our porn' " - Dr Cox

25

Of course it's that fucking senator from my fucking state. If this actually somehow passed and was somehow enforceable, Utah would be one of the most affected states. Mormons love their porn. The numbers don't lie.

24
Retrogradereply
lemmy.world

Ah, Utah. One of the most beautiful yet fucked up places in all the lands

6
Spitefirereply
lemmy.world

Not as beautiful anymore, the inversion/air pollution is so bad in SLC you can't see the mountains clearly most of the time.

1
lemmy.world

Project 2025, aka New Gilead in full swing.

21

There's SCOTUS precedent saying that pornography--but not obscenity--is covered by 1A. (Obscenity isn't very well defined, but it's generally understood to mean pedophilia/anything involving minors (including drawings), certain acts of violence combined with sex, bestiality, and possibly necrophilia. Other extreme sexual acts--such as crush fetishes--might also fall under obscenity.) You can't pass laws to unspool constitutional rights; your only legal recourse is either stacking the court with people that want to change precedent, or amend the constitution.

20

Someone should check these idiots' hard drives. I'm willing to bet they have a lot of nasty stuff that's already illegal on there.

20

It always comes out the people writing and advocating for these end up the sickest and most twisted sexual deviants out there

20
sh.itjust.works

Someone start a religion where porn is the sacrament. Handed down by God himself and shit. Maybe on golden plates.

20

I feel like The Satanic Temple would be willing to do this.

They did something similar with abortion rights, but I don't think they have gained any legal traction with that argument. (That could also be because they're waiting for a member who has standing to bring a case.)

6

It could be an official rite of passage, perhaps one that's provided after one receives the great sacrament of Sexual Education. Every student participates in a comprehensive, science-based course that educates them factually about sex, before they're given access to porn. That way, we're not letting porn be sex ed, which is currently a problem for way too many.

2
sh.itjust.works

I've been responding to a lot of Republican news with this same comment:

"What happened to bringing the choice to the states?"

20
Carmakazireply
lemmy.world
  1. Comments on news articles are going to largely be bots, it's a waste of time.
  2. They do not care about being hypocrites. They are laughing with glee that they are winning and that you are losing, frustrated, angry, and scared.
12

Exactly. Same with Meta platforms. You're not fighting with a concept or an idea, this is their entire personality. They don't care how horrid the viewpoint is, they're just happy to be better than something. There's a reason that it's usually the poorest and lowest of our society, it's because they want to feel better than people when they deep down know they're not. It's why it's so hateful. It's why they get joy even when it hurts themselves. They're winning at something.

4

I fully believe all the trans hate is self hate from "accidentally" finishing to a tranny video.

Also, any conservative guy with an eye patch lost it to a glory hole accident. They all claim it was a gun accident. The first thing I was taught as a child about fire arms was don't look down the barrel, followed by treat all firearms as if they are loaded. Followed by either. Don't trust the safety is working and/or don't rest your finger on the trigger.

18

I. Dare. You.

If they want a "civil war" this is the way to get one, lol

17
lemmy.world

Theae republicans secretly love their porn. Mike Waltz was caught following interracial gay porn accounts lmao. It's all projection with them

17

Sorry, let me just rewrite that for you.

The masculine, strong, and very straight MAN Mike Waltz, a well-known defender of masculinity and champion of the deprived, had his Twitter account hacked by evil COMMUNISTS in an attempt to make him appear WEAK. But we, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, will NOT stand for this INSULT towards this sincere, hard-working AMERICAN.

5
lemmy.world

I sure am glad we dodged that bullet by not electing Kamala! Could you imagine the hell we’d be living gin right now?

  • Me in an alternate universe where there aren’t dumbfuck protest voters.
16

Hey Rhoeri,

Just checking how electoral reform is coming along in your state. I'm sure you're working tirelessly to give voters the freedom to transfer their vote if their preference didn’t win. Looking forward to it buddy!

Here are those videos I share ya long ago in case you lost them.

::: spoiler Electoral Reform Videos

First Past The Post voting (What most states use now)

Videos on alternative electoral systems

STAR voting

Alternative vote

Ranked Choice voting

Range Voting

Single Transferable Vote

Mixed Member Proportional representation :::

3
explodiclereply
sh.itjust.works

Kamala couldn't have stopped this bill from being introduced. Do we think she'd veto it?

-21

I don't know, that's why I asked. I honestly wouldn't have put it past her; she was pretty spineless when Biden signed the Willow Oil project.

2

Doesn't fucking matter, since she didn't get elected. It doesn't matter even the tiniest little fucking bit and makes me look at you like something is seriously wrong with you.

2

Someone should make a bunch of AI generated porn of Mike Lee being gang banged by like 40 huge black dudes and post it all over Facebook.

16

Damn, there goes OnlyFans, republicans just killing more american jobs.

13

It was Qatar that gave them that, and while the Saudis and Qataris are quite antiporn, they don't give a fuck about the industry outside their own countries.

6
sh.itjust.works

Yes, “it’s us or the porn”, yes this will go well for the republicans, yes. Then they can start on alcohol and gambling

13

Nah, not alcohol - they'll start with drugs, because that gives them a convenient casus belli to say "Mexico isn't doing enough to suppress the cartels, so the carpet bombing began 20 minutes ago".

2

Oh, so a news report about him getting caught with some sort of embarrassing porn is about to come out. Got it.

13

This is something I think we can finally agree upon across political divides as a terrible fascist go fuck yourself idea.

13

HA! Haha. Ha. Oh man, that’s a good one. All they’ll end up doing is making VPNs even more of a wise investment.

13

doesnt even trigger me anymore. tomorrow the legion of dumbasses will come up with something way stupider. place your bets now!

Moon of America? ...been there fIrSt! Annex earth?

it will be stupider!

13

It will be several orders of magnitude worse than prohibition era policies if it passes, although I suspect part of the impetus is because save for the ideologues they are better at competing and prospering in black markets than they are in open markets.

12

Oh no. If this happens Canada could lose its "shut pornhub down" card. How dare the US take that gun and willingly shoot itself in the foot?

What's next, they'll start taxing themselves on Europe's use of their digital goods and send the money to Europe before they can impose the taxes on their consumers? 47D chess moves here.

12

It's not even moral horseshit. They just want people (primarily of the white variety) fucking and popping out kids instead of jerking it. They need more serfs.

12

I wonder how Kanye feels about his homies trying to take away his favourite internet activity.

10
lengaureply
midwest.social

They're already getting that illegally so that wouldn't change.

17
lemm.ee

What can be described as porn is subjective to individuals. It should not be regulated by a government body outside of criminal activity surrounding it's production and distribution.

8

Not quite. Pornography is pretty well defined, which is how the production and distribution of it can be legislated like it is.

The problem with bills/laws like this is that they intentionally leave what is banned entirely up to the government of the day by using vague language like “obscene content”. It’s not specifically banning pornography, but a government could use it to ban pornography, books, music, clothes, etc.

4

You want citizens? I'll get you new citizens tomorrow! Just ban all pornography!

A few months later.......Sir, the people are still not fucking! The males keep trying to rape the females and the females have evolved teeth on their hoohaas....oh no, waif, wait, that's a blurb about a movie I'm going to watch. The women are being raped in higher numbers though. We need those citizens born so we banned abortions.

8
lemmy.ml

Article is behind a paywall unfortunately. Is there a link to somewhere else?

If the bill is about actually banning pornography, they’ve got more chance of banning guns to be honest. Democrat and Republican voters alike love their porn, many a little (or a lot) too much.

Honestly it is probably the only thing that would cause a civil war haha

8

Cheers!

Yeah this is destined to fail again (third times the charm I guess he thinks haha), and absolutely should.

3
nickiwestreply
lemmy.world

404 Media doesn't require payment for a subscription. Their content is behind a subscriber wall to keep AI bots from accessing their work.

I expect we'll see more of this sort of thing as AI continues gobbling up everything on the internet so that it can write laughably bad term papers for high schoolers.

6

404 Media doesn’t require payment for a subscription. Their content is behind a subscriber wall to keep AI bots from accessing their work.

Same thing. Requiring my information to read their article is a paywall as they're going to be selling my data.

2
lemm.ee

They can have my pornography when they pry it from my cold, dead hands!

8

I knew there was a reason I still download it and store it locally. I just needed to wait until the moment I discovered why.

6
datavoidreply
lemmy.ml

I've been out of the porn game for a few years now - is AI generated porn really a big thing?

1
catloafreply
lemm.ee

No. It's okay for hentai, but it still can't quite do photorealistic.

1

I'm now realizing the title said All Pornography, not AI Pornography. Which is definitely a bit of a stretch

2

I remember when conservatives said they wanted people out of their bedrooms. Well... as a forever alone, what do you think I do in my bedroom every night?

7

Well yeah, they're fuckin' morons. The same thing almost happened to Canada, had Poilievre ended up winning.

7

who is this Bill, and what does he have against porn. does Bill not know that his other name is Willy?

6

Is it because they know that Russian porn is better than American porn?

5

thinking like the fucking CCP.

Even the CCP has some upsides. Kras' trying to burn it all down himself

3
lemmy.world

They're likely to be the biggest consumers out there, so, yeah, go on with that.

5

I think back to the maps that the sites released. The weirdest stuff was always consumed by the reddest areas. Look at the biggest areas where Step anything content is accessed. It's overwhelmingly red.

2

Is it just me or does Mike Lee look like the kind of guy that would have a kiddie porn dungeon

5

I remember this interview with pornstars before Trump’s first term where they were asked who they are going to vote for. Many said they were going to vote for Trump because “he a gud biznidmyan” and only voted for him for the tax cut. I hope they got what they voted for cuz they need that extra cash.

4
ttrpg.network

Trans women are definitely hot, but that’s because women are hot. Sad that Republicans feel shame finding her hot just because of what equipment she was born with.

4

This pairs well with having to provide proof of age to browse to porn sites. Like fava beans with a nice chianti.

3

all the onlyfans workers need to join in from g spot to make G Force and flex some of that wealth if they want to keep that vector of wealth alive.

2
lemm.ee

How's Donald going to get off then? It's not as if he can go to his wife.

2

Then they wouldn’t be able to jerk to Trans women and feel shame after.

Please tell me the last time a thing being illegal affected any politician of any party in any way meaningful enough to put a stop to politicians engaging in said illegal thing.

1

Yeah…. I’m going to miss my dirty novels from the library. I was expecting this one….

1

I thought in the US nothing can be federal unless it's in the Constitution? Are they proposing an amendment?

1

To those weebs, who voted Trump, because "the transes" were mean to you for the loli hentai: this is on you!

1

What world are you living in, cuz it sure ain’t the one the rest of us inhabit. You try fucking a bunch of people you’ve never met on camera and try telling me it isn’t work.

6

Trans women are hot, in case that reads as though the shame is correct. It’s not.

That's the most woke toxic masculinity ever. Good job?

Edit: apparently it's not and I'm completely wrong. I'd like to apologize but I'm not sure which part was offensive. Probably the whole thing. I'm just gonna shut up now.

-10

Are there really not enough house or senate votes, or court decisions, that we resort to writing articles about every bill introduced?

-20