• 0 Posts
  • 139 Comments
Joined 2 months ago
cake
Cake day: January 15th, 2026

help-circle

  • We’re suffering from pedomania right now, seeing pedos under every bed but it’s actually a rare thing. If you have an astronomical number of children online it’s going to “feel” like they’re in danger of falling prey to predators. Especially with the modern expanded definition of pedo where every freshman dating a senior is the victim of a grooming predator.

    But if we want zero tolerance, the best thing to do is to promote parental controls. And if we want to get draconian about it, then charge parents with negligence if their kids become victims because the parents weren’t using parental controls.







  • Governments know about parental controls. They know it’s the most effective, most efficient, and least destructive way to deal with this. They don’t care. And they don’t care about the children. If they cared, they’d develop their own parental control software, offer it for free, and encourage it’s use.

    If they really wanted to get draconian about it, as they are doing now with age verification, they would pass laws to prosecute parents who don’t use parental controls for negligence.

    But it’s not about the children. At all. It’s about preventing you and me, and all of us from talking to each other and entertaining ourselves. It’s about turning the Internet into TV, a one way faucet of entertainment and information controlled by the wealthy .001% where us peons can’t talk back.

    These age verification laws are just the first step. They kill small forums and games like Urban Dead, and leave only sites controlled by megacorporations that can afford the age verification infrastructure and the massive corporate fines if a single kid sneaks in. Once you get used to this, it’s easier for you to accept not being able to communicate online at all, or start your own forum, or YouTube channel.




  • It’s generally safe to assume they mean it, unless proven otherwise.

    The sentence you’re replying to completely agrees with this. I think you misread it.

    Even if the hateful remarks are understood to be ‘‘a joke’’, I don’t think that’s any less damning. These are not the type of things to joke about, and most reasonable and/or decent people realize that.

    I was thinking in terms of Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal or someone adopting a Colbert-style character, like the one from his old show.

    Can you give me an example of something like that playing out on a serious real-life topic such as politics/race/genocide etc?

    With politics, it usually comes in the form of verbal abuse.




  • I’m trying to discuss things in pure logic so as to emotionally unload the reasoning. Bad faith means they are being deceitful. Whether someone says “Hello. You look nice to day.” or “we should torture indigenous people” how can one glean that they don’t truly believe that? Though the second one is so outlandish, I would assume it’s satire since I assume innocence.

    Unless you’re reducing bad faith actors to people coming up and saying, ‘‘hey everyone, I’m acting in bad faith!’’ (which the vast majority of bad faith actors do not do) - which is ridiculous.

    It’s been my experience they eventually do. If someone is telling me I look nice and I take it as a genuine compliment, but they’re acting in bad faith, that’s going to drive them up the fucking wall that I’m so dumb that I don’t assume bad faith like they do.