Fun fact, related to this: learned and learnt are also both correct. I always assumed learnt was a redneck thing (I’m from the south), but it turns out the Brits use it too. Who knew?
I’ve heard it used in a sentence like “When I was a boy, my daddy done learnt me a thing or two about fishin’”. Which is why it’s associated with southern slang, I think. That’s my hypothesis anyway.
Folks in west verginnie use words and phrases carried over from the old days when talkin like brits and Frenchmen was considered fancy, and it’s devolved into hill folk lingo. Yes, it’s technically a dialect but it’s not proper grammar in American English just because some hillfolk and southern drawl says it.
Right, I get that it’s not grammatically correct in that context, but the word itself is valid. I had always thought “learnt” was akin to “ain’t”, but that’s not the case. Both “learned” and “learnt” are correct, but the latter is less commonly used in the US.
Most modern linguists consider “should have” to be a completely valid variation of should’ve / should have.
Yes, it does contradict what your english teachers in school taught you, and according to that world view “if we don’t have those rules then we wouldn’t be able to understand each other”. But the hundreds to thousands of languages where those rules don’t even exist and people understand missing/“incorrect” meaning from context, as well as the fact that you can proudly stand on your “i know what’s right” soapbox and say that “should of” is wrong, only serve to prove that these rules aren’t actually rules or part of the english language and are more like the linguistic equivalent of fashion.
Again, you understood exactly the meaning OP meant, enough that you could confidently barge in and tell them they’re “wrong”, and tell them what they should have used instead to fit your fashion rules.
Basically, absolutely nobody saw this meme, saw “should have” instead of “should have”, and thought “hmm, i don’t know what’s supposed to be being said in this case.” You dislike “should have” because you were told you were supposed to, and that if you didn’t stick to these rules nobody would respect you or understand what you’re saying. Now, you do the same thing and lose respect for people who didn’t (while also understanding what they are saying exactly). That has nothing to do with the language, and is, again, more akin to “you wore white after labor day” or “you wore socks with sandals” or whatever other fashion faux pas you committed — none of which are related to actual linguistics or the natural way through which languages evolve (or whether or not your outfit looks good on you on any given day)
Your phone auto correct has a preference as well it seems.
I mean sure, linguistic descriptivism is relevant for the evolution of language. However, why study language at all if that’s the sum-total of your perspective on language? We could all just speak however we want as long as we are understood… except then we end up with an uncountable number of dialects and creoles a la mainland china. This is also how you end up with linguistic rules that are basically impossible to teach I suspect.
Speaking is sort of a different animal. “Should of” is a malapropism that is a homophone for “should’ve”. There is no transformation of language from that, it’s just an error. If you accept an alternate written version though, you’re creating an alternate conjugation for the conditional perfect tense. There’s no reason for this at all: it’s accommodating failings of literacy by adding complexity to language rules for one, and creating a new (and faulty) evolution point for two.
It’s like saying “oh, the speed limit is 55, but everyone drives 60, so let’s make the law so the police can’t ticket you unless you go over 60 since 55 or 60 is correct”. What does it mean when you see a sign that says 25 now? You can accept that people break the rules, but that doesn’t mean we should change the rules to describe the situation in every circumstance.
Speed limits are a not a good analogy to language rules, partly because they are generally intentionally designed rather than a product of an evolutionary pattern, partly because there is a clear and accepted authority that sets and enforces them with actual penalty, and partly because the consequences for not having them are often deadly.
By contrast, there is no clear authority that “owns” a language and can enforce it’s rules. Some government or academic body might in some cases declare that it has that authority, but they don’t really have any ability to set more than guidelines for how people working for them or producing documents on their behalf must write. Unlike speed limits, which simply would stop existing in a meaningful sense if governments stopped existing, languages existed before any such “authorities” did and would continue to exist if those organizations ceased. As such, I’d argue that linguistic rules aren’t really rules at all in the normal sense, there’s no-one with actual accepted authority to create, repeal, impose or enforce them, they’re just guidelines, loose ones at that, that one should follow if one’s intent is to be understood by someone else using the same or sufficiently similar guidelines. If you understand what someone is saying, which in cases like “should of”, people calling it against the rules clearly do, then they have succeeded in that goal, so it cannot really be a failure at being literate.
I reject any notion that this will eventually overcomplicate language to the point of it being too difficult to learn or use, because ultimately, people are not born knowing it, they must all learn, so any language too complex to learn wont be learned and therefore won’t be used, and similarly, any language too complicated and unclear to be used to communicate, can’t be used, and so won’t be. The complexity of language is inherently self-limiting at a level that prevents it from becoming useless.
Or for a TLDR: we don’t have to change the rules to accommodate people breaking them, because there aren’t really any rules at all.
What you say is true for passed down spoken language because errors like the ones we are talking about are transparent. Once you can write it down, the rules are evident and persistent. Nobody has to own them to say that as we transcribe language X these are the rules for conjugation, pluralization, etc. you can break them if you want, but as you say nobody owns the language: you need not be accommodated in your mistakes. Spoken language can change and the rules can follow, but being shit at writing (even if lots of people have the same problem) isn’t something written language must accommodate.
To understand it, and how and why it evolves over time, just like any other study. There’s no such thing as prescriptivist physics, or math, or biology, or etc etc. We don’t get to tell the world how it works, and pretty much no science is focused on that assumption other than historical linguistics.
we could all just speak however we want as long as we understood
We do speak however we want, and we do understand, because we pick up new trends in language on an unconscious level and this is the way languages have always worked and evolved.
then we end up with an uncountable number of dialects and creoles
We’ve already ended up there, and that’s nothing new. Sure, new languages/dialects/creoles creep into the world, but that’s how all languages evolve — instead, the lines between “what’s a language”, “what’s a dialect”, and “what’s a creole” get grayed and more blurry and fuzzy.
The thing is, humans developed language a very very long time ago, and those languages evolve and split off due to large-scale trends in the lives of humans speaking those languages, for a multitude of reasons that interact and make the process essentially random.
Here’s one way to look at it: it’s the opposite of the “jurassic park” problem, instead of “your scientists were preoccupied with whether or not they could, they never stopped to ask whether they should”, linguists spent so much time arguing over prescriptivist/descriptivist arguments, and never asked whether prescriptivism actually can control the evolution of a language.
Anybody, even some random teen in some random neighborhood in any english speaking country, can come up with a new word, and it can catch on and eventually become a new accepted and widely-used word. That’s because it’s a “you can use this if you want” situation, whereas the prescriptivist version is “if you use ___ you are wrong, if you want to be right use ___ only”.
It should be obvious why telling someone they can do something is an easier argument than that they can’t, and this is why prescriptivism has failed. especially because, again, nobody saw “should of” in this post and thought “oh god i don’t know what this is supposed to mean”; instead people either understood and said nothing, or they understood but jumped in to tell people they’re wrong for making them understand in a way that contradicts what their own english teachers in school said they SHOULD be able to understand.
I mean, sort of, I guess. I also read “Frindle” in school.
There is nothing wrong with a descriptive approach to spoken language, but what I see you arguing is that written language should be treated the same way. This increases complexity in written language for no reason other than to protect mistakes in literacy.
There’s real value in preserving spelling (it often contains etymologically relevant information to the current or past meaning of the word) and also grammatical structure. If the sound of two samples is indistinguishable, why make it harder to teach or to infer meaning from by accepting spurious representations as correct?
When you write it down, you gotta follow the rules, yo.
Most modern linguists wouldn’t take a position on this at all, and would tell you that you’re conflating Language and spelling. Most linguists don’t study writing systems, because they are a different thing from Language. Language is an evolving system that is always changing, and people develop the ability just by being around other people as they grow up, whether someone is teaching it to them or not. It just happens naturally. Reading/writing is more formalized, has to be taught, and many people in the world never master it. Many languages don’t even have an official written form. It’s not the same sort of thing.
And like, even if it was dinosaurs, Dirt is also (partially) made from decayed animals. And, oversimplifying, that dirt becomes plants.
And that’s all fine for vegans, because it doesn’t involve exploitation of animals. Like, if you needed to raise and kill animals to use their corpses to grow plants, that’d be animal exploitation.
you are most definitely exploiting animals in the scenario you described. do you think i need to build a water table in order to exploit it for a well?
You think any animal would choose this “safety” for beeing killed after a max of 1/10 of their lifespan? I wont even start about the living conditions most animals are in. For sea animals also nothing of your arguments holds true and we kill a fuckton of those.
You know its one thing to contribute to suffering because change is hard. Pretending this is something symbiotic is ridicoulus though.
Well maybe it is because a symbiotic relationship would need tonsomewhat benefit both parties. In this relationship we are more of a cruel and sadistic parasite, just waiting for the best moment to kill (when profit and taste is at its best). But no, i guess being forcefully impregnated, seperated from offspring and milked until your are unprofitable is a symbiotic relationship in your mind. As a thanks for service these cows get killed after half of their live span. But hey atleast they get much more than our beloved meat live stock. You should also look how naturally these cows and their udders have ‘’''evolved"" in the last hundred years. Much more cruel than what has been done to pugs (not that this is fine). The same goes for hens (for eggs) and the absurd amount of breast muscle chickenbreeds have.
So i guess you tried really hard to google? A good example might be cows. Beef cattle is slaughtered on average between 1.5 to 2 years after birth and would be able to live for over 20 years. Pigs also live 15 to 20 years but are slaughtered after 6 months. So great thanks for that symbiotic relationship they can witness up to two whole seasons (provided they are one of the “lucky” ones that are raised outside). It is kinda telling how much the average consumer knows about the “products” they consume.
You think any animal would choose this “safety” for beeing killed after a max of 1/10 of their lifespan?
i have yet to find proof that nonhuman animals understand personal mortality, so they wouldn’t even be able to understand the choice you are presenting.
There is tons of evidence if you would not refuse to look. Especially social animals (for example pigs and cows) would outcast individuals out of their herd. They are also quite intelligent. But hey it is comfortable to pretend we got some high ground while we all know that animals have feelings and that what we do is cruel beyond imagination. And all that to just satisfy some urge for a special taste and convenience. I wish people would at least not pretend its ok.
Nah, i know some irl who admit its shit but are to weak to change anything about their behaviour. I agree though that those pll probably will come around eventually.
My dad died the same day David Bowie died. It really sucks to have all of your friends post things like, “David Bowie was an inspiration to me and made me the person I am today. His star has fallen and I will be devastated forever. Also, sorry about your dad, dude.”
After the following years, I’ve quietly taken the whole “this is when we diverged into the darkest timeline” schtick an iota more seriously. It’s been a strange 8 years.
Bring back standardised headlight, and a maximum height allowance on vehicle’s headlights so that they’re not right in a sedan’s driver’s rearview mirror when a pickup is tailgating.
Yeah but that won’t solve the problem, just reduce it. It’s annoying in cities and everything but in my experience the problem is worst in country roads with that one asshole in a pickup. Both a place and vehicle not easily lending itself to public transit options.
maximum height allowance on vehicle’s headlights so that they’re not right in a sedan’s driver’s rearview mirror when a pickup is tailgating
That's actually already legally mandated at least in states that require state inspections. Headlight angle is supposed to be one of the things you have to check in order to pass inspection.
In practice, mostly nobody checks it and it doesn't matter. But it should.
Not just the angle tho, the height of the headlights themselves! Even if aligned properly if the headlights are 5’ off the ground and my back window is 3.5’ when they tailgate it illuminate the inside of my car !
I saw a graphic of how big the “blind spot” is in front of modern trucks and it was bigger than most giant construction equipment.
And that’s for an average height driver.
Most of the huge truck guys also happen to be well under the average height, so entire reasonable size cars disappear in front of them when they tailgate. They might see the roof, but they won’t see brake lights or taillights.
It’s flat out not safe for other people. Which is why we have people driving giant SUVs instead of minivans now. Which just makes it worse for everyone else.
I choose to misrepresent your argument, attack it, and then declare myself the winner. I also refer to you as “slick” throughout and finish every sentence with :-)
Exactly, lemmy needs to grow but if it just continues to grow and grow eventually it will just turn into what reddit is now. I’m happy to have something small to be a part of for now… i don’t think you needed me to tell you this but they say commenting is good for lemmy, so here i am
You look like you like rigatoni. Perhaps you’d be interested in trying SmellFresh Fabric softener. It helps keep your knees bent while you use the tobacco masher.
The werewolf I understand entirely. They’re both awkward, horny kids trying to find their place. The century old vampire creeping on a teenager is where it gets weird.
I always assumed vampires are sort of stuck their age mentally as well, for the most part. They can get more wisdom and knowledge but emotionally and sexually they’re whatever age they got turned in. So a 200 year old vampire that got turned at 17 is basically a 17 year old in that way.
it's not his FAULT your honor he couldn't HELP but form a love bond with an unborn vampire baby your honor you'd understand if you were a werewolf your honor
The werewolf "imprints" on Bella's unborn vampire baby later in the series, so fortunately the scales of creepiness end up balanced between Team Edward and Team Jacob.
I read them alongside a friend and met up for coffee to discuss after; we devoured them as they came out and about ¾ of the way through the final book we both just said “What the fuck are we reading?”
Not particularly. If you’ve ever discussed anything of substance with an amateur colleague in your field, you might find novelty in the fresh perspective or even some minor nostalgia. When they meet, Bella is less than a colleague of life. She is a strangely shaped Labrador, which is fitting in that he grooms the shit out of her.
The original “What we do in the shadows” addressed that pretty well, when protagonist started dating his old crush when she’s a 70+ year-old woman and has to apologize for being a bit too old for her.
Imagine actually being scared for your safety because your mom saw you watching porn. As long as I wasn’t like 10 years old, my parents would’ve probably just laughed at me and told me to keep it to myself.
It’s pretty sad that some people actually live like that, though.
My mom found porn on my computer in high school so my parents decided it would be a good idea to sit the whole family down and talk about what she found and what new restrictions the Internet would have for us all.
Turns out that restrictions on porn for high schoolers don’t work and just make them more… creative. That was my first taste of learning about IT haha so maybe I should actually thank them.
My mother told me it is okay and totally normal to be interested in these things but it is important that I understand the difference between fiction like this and reality.
Now I sit at work googling character ideas for dnd so it is safe to say, this did not work out
So something that always bothered me: do we legally have to put restrictions on their access? Like I clearly can’t claim ignorance to knowing how its possible, and since my son is a minor, it’s illegal to provide access to the content.
I would rather put up layers that he figures out how to work around since that’s how I learned so much too.
That’s actually an interesting question. As far as I can tell, while it is illegal to show minors porn, I don’t think parents are on the hook of their children access it. Common sense would argue that a parent can install all the filters they can, but kids are crafty and nothing will stop a teenage boy from taking care of business, though I’m sure some religious state reps/senators would say otherwise. But, to your point, I don’t believe parents incur liability from their kids looking up boobs online, especially without their knowledge. Now if a sicko parent is actively showing kids naughty videos, that definitely is a crime.
Not every parent knows how to enforce that kind of control, and no matter what you do, there will be loopholes.
Bajillion porn sites blocked? Oh look, he’s now getting his porn off a Telegram or Discord channel! Blocked those, too? “Hey, school friend, can you email me some stuff? Yeah, my parents blocked nearly everything, only email opens”
As the other poster said, the only thing parents should not do is facilitate access, encourage or show porn to their kids, for obvious reasons. Ideally, parents should educate their kids, “Yeah, that stuff is for show, actual sex is very different. Work your cardio and don’t skip leg day if you wanna impress your partner when you start having sex. Use a fucking condom, too.”
Painfully awkward as it might be I can maybe respect the idea of discussion with the child, but why the fuck did she make everyone else party to it? She could have kept it between you and her or maybe the another significant parental figure. Like, was this discussion had in with and in front of your siblings? Fucking mortifying.
The thing I’d be more concerned with is establishing unreal expectations around sex based on overproduced porn. Like, it’s not a normal expectation to fold someone into a pretzel and jackhammer their ass for 30 minutes.
10 year olds should be allowed to watch porn. If you’re seeking it out, it’s fine (as opposed to people showing you). That’s how you learn about your body.
Only America has a weird obsession over sex = bad. In Europe, they have shows dedicated to dating based on if you like their genitals.
The US absolutely has an obsession with sex = bad but it also has an obsession with sex = money and power. I don’t have kids, but if I did I wouldn’t let them watch pornhub porn. It doesn’t show healthy relationships, it’s mostly just step-daughter porn. So while I agree that children shouldn’t be sheltered from sex, they should be sheltered from Pop-Porn.
10 years should not have to watch porn. The problem is that it is often the only “sex education” they’ll have. But it’s a terrible example of sexual life.
Sex Ed should be about pleasure, sane sex life, type of relation, etc. As well as the usual risks and disease presented, so teenagers can understand the difference between performance and reality
I never said they should HAVE to watch porn. I said they should be ALLOWED.
Your comment just goes to show further how Americans view sex as bad lmao.
Nothing wrong with porn. Not my fault Americans think that porn is real. Bet you also think horror movies are real, too, eh? All those innocent people killed!
You do realize that amateur porn exists, right? Where people film themselves with their iPhone. None of the production shit.
You clearly haven’t talked to Asians about how strict their parents can be. I’ve heard of guys getting their asses whopped for slacking off in studies. The same applies to some black parents too.
Set up all the groundwork for funding the Mujahideen terrorists in Afghanistan, the funding of the dictatorship and death squads in El Salvadore, setting up the groundwork for the fuckery Reagan did with Iran-Contra.
Supplied arms to support genocide in Indonesia, among other crimes. Him building homes now is just some light penance before he’s shipped off to hell. fair.org/…/jimmy-carter-and-human-rights-behind-t…
They (the trolling kind) definitely had a system going on Reddit, they haven’t figured it out yet here though. Don’t count on them not figuring out here, they’re a wily bunch and have still stirred up quite a bit of trouble too much of the time.
Conservatives seem to do that everywhere, no matter where they are. Just look at the website formerly known as Twitter… All it has is right wing shitheels and they’ve turned on each other for not worshipping each others opinions. Hell Musk just blocked Catturd2.
That’s the problem with this website. It’s full of morons that call anyone that’s to the right of Marx either a conservative or a fascist, never mind the fact that a lot of them defend the fascist invasion of Ukraine.
Fact is, the only system that actually improved the lives of the majority of people when put into practice was the free market social democracy that used to exist in the west before the rise of neoliberalism. But that’s too complex for these simpletons, who can’t comprehend the fact that public ownership can exist alongside private enterprise competing in a market kept free by government regulation. So they just keep shouting about the means of production and hope something will happen.
Studies have shown that in places where porn is blocked, rape occurs at higher frequencies than in places where that is not the case, possibly due to higher levels of feelings of frustration and repression. This may be only one website now, but if others likewise follow the trend out of fear of litigation… then Texas may become a much more dangerous state to live in in the very near future, even compared to what it already is now.
Would you be okay with letting children freely watch people having sex? The issue is not with freedom its with what we allow minors to see. I dont know how it is possible to stop this, but I agree its a problem that needs to be addressed if possible.
I mean, unintentionally, but I’ve been walked in on by my little one before. You can’t always control what your kids are gonna see.
It isn’t rocket science; it’s education. Being sexually repressed is a choice - a bad one. Sit down with your kids, teach them the birds and the bees, and maybe they won’t end up with a completely unrealistic view of sex.
Sexual repression is the American way. Americans wonder why Europeans are buckwild in this regard, and it’s because they have healthy conversations about sex and regard it as natural. They still have laws involving minors and all that, but their view is much more humanistic.
Unless the internet is dismantled and containerized, there’s no realistic way to prevent minors from viewing porn. The problem is that American parents have puritanical views on sex and rely on prohibition rather than being uncomfortable and having a chat with their kids about one of the most natural things humans engage in because they themselves are prudes. It’s the same reason people get all wound up when they see a pair of boobs, because they view them as sexual objects and not yet another part of the human anatomy. Mind boggling, but that’s religious influence for you.
Important to always remember America started because a bunch of hyper religious folks thought the Church of England was too permissive, named themselves “Puritans”, and sailed off to a new land. And many still hold to those warped values today
Seeing sex accidentally of your parents is different than porn. Porn is unhealthy and is ruining minors and adults lives. If we have the capability to stop minors form seeing porn, then everyone should be on board with that.
First sentence, I agree. Second, factually incorrect. 3rd, i agree, parents should be monitoring their children and teaching them about birds and bees for their age, giving them knowledge so they dont go looking cause they are curious.
Nothing said restricts websites in a whack a mole fashion as this will never work. Kids will always find a way around restrictions.
Crime is ruining people’s lives, if we can just make everyone demonstrate that they aren’t committing crime at any given time, crime will go down. So everyone should be on board with that.
Let me be direct. You are not able to understand the difference between something happening at a specific physical location, and access rights to that, vs something accessed via property not owned by that place. You, for whatever reason, either cannot, or refuse, to acknowledge that accessing data, on a device you own, puts the onus on you to stay within the law. If your kids are accessing some strip club’s stream, on devices you bought them, or on your property, then it is you that needs to make sure they don’t. Not the strip club, not the streaming platform, not the ISP. These “think of the children”, reactionary laws, that place parenting responsibilities on outside entities, are simply wedges to reduce protections of liberties from the government. This is moral panic 101.
You are sealioning. It’s literally all you do. You pretend to put forth a reasonable argument, but you ignore absolutely everything anyone else says, and then try to trap them with what you think are clever questions. But you’re just a pigeon shitting on a chess board claiming victory.
And you keep proving you are incapable of realizing that what you are saying is not the same as what is happening in REALITY. Your premise is foundationaly flawed. Accessing a porn site, and walking into a strip club, are completely different things. You, however, only seem to be able to understand that both have naked people in them, so they are the same.
It’s illegal for a kid to walk in a strip club, it’s also illegal for a kid to access porn. The difference is that the strip club has a physical door you can stop the kid from passing through. You can see, and physically interact with, the kid at the strip club. On the internet you do not have that. A kid can not change themselves to be someone else, and have reasonable proof that they are an adult, and in a location where this is legal, at a strip club, like they easily can online. With less than an hour with google, and some basic computer software, a child can easily make themselves look anyway they want to a porn site, ISP, platform, etc. The best one can do with the strip club is provide a fake ID if you look like you could be old enough. Guess what? If they do this it is THEIR fault, not the strip club’s. The strip club can say “hey they had an ID and look like they are old enough” because they can physically interact with them. False identification is what is happening when a child accesses porn. This time they have no physical person there to examine though. They are saying “yes I am legally able to get on here” and, since there is no reasonable way to make sure this is true, they get let in the door. If the legal penalty changes to the site provider, who exists in a REALITY where there is no reasonable way to ensure someone is who they say they are, then there is no reasonable way they can adhere to a law, thus effectively creating a blanket ban of online porn without having to say “we made something ruled to have first amendment protections illegal”.
If parents, who know, and have more control over, their child than anyone else, can’t stop them, what in hell makes you think some outside entity, who can only interact with them via layers of abstraction, could possibly do so? All this shit does is make kids learn how to mask their locations, and fake their credentials online, which is not hard to do. The only reasonable person to hold responsible for this is the child’s parents/care givers. The onus of liability has to fall on them. Even places like China can’t keep people from faking their identities online, yet you want to saddle porn sites with a legal burden if they can’t. But you don’t really want to stop children from accessing porn. You want porn to be illegal for everyone.
Feel free to do you own research, I am not going to do it for you. “BUT THAT MEANS IT DOENST EXIST!!!” Sure, whatever you want to believe, feel free, there is no convincing people that want to believe something.
What’s your point? Are you advocating for increased rape here? What problem needs to be addressed? Kids watching porn? My kids don’t. I don’t know what this post has to do with that, but the Texas government isn’t protecting my kids here.
If you do not want something - an abortion, a vaccine, porn, to own a gun, etc. - then the solution is simply: do not take it. Beyond that, why heap heavy burdens upon other people, rather than offering to help?
I am saying that “children watching people having sex” is not the issue here. Some few sickos aside, I think MOST people are agreement on that point. The issues are all the other issues surrounding that topic - e.g. who should be the ones held responsible for stopping that.
Like, why not the parents? It is exceedingly easy to block websites from a home router, and from devices such as ipads, so why should the website be the one upon whom all of the blame and burden should go to? Will Amazon be next, b/c it is possible to find sex toys on it? What about Wal-Mart, b/c you can purchase dangerous ammunition there? For that matter, any child can go into a gun show and see rifles and ammunition on display - why are those not banned? Children have even been known to be able to purchase those weapons, which are literally lethal - which is far worse than merely seeing some skin!!!
Fwiw I think you mean well, but are missing the nuances of this discussion. Children will end up seeing porn - someway, somehow, I guarantee you that it is possible, b/c that is simply how the internet works. It is like playing whack-a-mole and you can’t stop them all, especially like 90% of all domain names are already registered to porn and pirate websites. This law will not have the effect that it is intended to stop - and there is a goodly chance that it will make things worse actually, bc when people go off the well-trodden pathways, they will find themselves in the… darker corners of the internet.
Then again, I am not a lawmaker, so what do I know. I was just sharing my thoughts, in case they would be of interest to you.
Sex as a whole should be demystified as a culture. I’m sure most people got into porn in general out of curiosity and the taboo nature of it certainly only makes it more enticing.
What we need is sex education that is so comprehensive/ in depth that it’s mind numbingly boring.
Make them memorize the PH value of the uterus and how they affect the alkili levels of the spermatosa.
Just bog them down with the details and then they will give so much less of a shit about sex/porn in general.
It’s the parents job to parent, not the government or third parties.
There are numerous less problematic tools parents can use from parental controls to automated local monitoring to good ol fashion monitoring to good (read: not “abstinence only”) sexual education.
I wonder how many adults here saw porn as a kid? If we’re being honest, probably the majority. Kids don’t find youporn unless they’re looking for it.
There is a highly effective way of preventing kids accessing porn, by being a parent and watching them (ie, put the computer in a public area) and also installing porn blockers in parallel. That’s the solution.
The problem with laws like this, is that they’re easy to abuse and they’re created by people who don’t understand technology either (so they’re happy to make tech less useful, or they’d even ban some of it entirely if they could be to level the playing field).
It’s more important to keep kids away from unsolicited porn specifically and creeps, and that can be some simply by requiring a site warning and monitoring them online
It’s more important to keep kids away from unsolicited porn
That’s how I’ve seen porn for the first time, when I was around 7. From advertisements. Physical ones.
One Slovakian pawn shop chain called “Breva” used this as an advertising strategy. Their advertisement leaflets (put into mailboxes) had nudes. I remember I secretly collected those.
Of course, they were reported for this a couple times, but all that happened was that they got into the news a few times. (Read that as “Free advertising”) Based on news, it seems last occurrence of this was 2017.
I mean, I remember its name because of that, so I guess it worked…
It’s always bonkers (and rather telling) how conservatives always frame anything sex as pushing it directly for children, like not banning porn is the same as launching pornhub Jr.
I guess yall gotta project super hard to cover all the Republicans on the state level in multiple states that have actively been fighting minimum marriage age laws and incest laws.
“NOBODY IS ALLOWED TO TEACH CHILDREN ABOUT SEX, THEIR BODIES, OR CONSENT - until they marry uncle jimbob when they turn 10 and get pregnant”
Pornhub Jr is a great idea. You could have unskippable ads that teach sex ed topics like how to deal with puberty and preventing STIs. It would keep the kids off elsagate and you could satisfy their curiosity about adult topics in an age appropriate way.
I saw printed and video porn right around the time I hit puberty, decades ago, before there was internet in every home. And my parents didn’t have a scrap of it in the house. You think you can stuff that cat back in the bag? You wanna know what actually messed me up though? All the adults in my life absolutely losing their minds at the thought that I might be having sexual thoughts as a young teen. The guilt, shame, and denial of information is what messes up kids, because if they never told us anything, and made us feel horrible about it, surely we’d never have sex before marriage! Be careful, that can backfire on you.
Your kids are gonna see naked people doing it. You need to come to terms with that inevitability, and become the kinds of parents they can feel comfortable asking questions. Of course, growth is hard, and way too many parents delude themselves into believing that bringing some poor kid into this world bestows them divine wisdom and ultimate authority over what’s best for that kid, and never learning another damned thing again. It doesn’t. Parenting is a responsibility and a journey, not a coronation. Growing up doesn’t stop when you have kids. You cannot shield them from reality. It’s your job to guide them through it; to raise them into adults, not to keep them children forever.
You certainly have no right, or even ability, to legislate the nature of reality for others until you feel safe. That deluded fantasy is far more poisonous to society than people having sex on camera. It simply does not matter if you’re uncomfortable with an aspect of parenting. The world does not give a fuck. Nobody ever said parenting was comfortable. Accept what you cannot change, and help your kids become functional adults. You cannot imagine how much I wish my parents had.
Looks like you didn’t read or understand anything I said.
It doesn’t matter whether any of us are okay with them seeing porn or not. They are going to see it. Do you think you can put that cat back in the bag? Do you think it matters whether your kids can come to you with questions WHEN, not if, they have questions about sex? The actions I think need to be taken are people like you growing up and learning how to actually parent.
You might as well ask whether we should be ok with them finding out about extinctions.
Why do you think it needs to be prevented? Do you seriously still think it’s possible to prevent? Do you think it matters whether your children can come to you about questions when they inevitably look at porn and have questions?
I have answered your question several times. I don’t care in the slightest whether you’re unhappy with my answer. I don’t think it matters whether we’re okay with it or not. It’s going to happen. There is no such thing as putting that cat back in the bag. I saw it when I was young, and it did me no harm. What did me harm was people like you.
You didn’t like my answer, but that does not mean I didn’t answer it. You only think I can answer your question with yes or no. If I say no, you’ll ask me why we’re arguing. If I say yes, you’ll accuse me of being a sexual deviant. Either way, you’ll refuse to answer mine, because you don’t have the courage to even consider my questions inside your own head. But I don’t care what your answer is. I just want to see you do the impossible, and think.
Children seeing porn is the lesser evil in a choice of that or authoritarianism. The police are not allowed to just come onto property and demand everyone there prove they have the right to be. Does that mean that lots, and lots, and lots, of people enter property when they aren’t allowed? Yes, does this mean that sometimes people get away with serious crimes? Again, yes. However the downsides of the 4th amendment are lesser than having cops forcing everyone they don’t know to prove their identity and that they aren’t doing anything wrong.
The 1st amendment means that people will be exposed to things, considered speech for legal purposes, that are not good for them. This is less bad than the government getting ever more control over speech. In order to to have freedom you will have to accept that bad things will arise from it.
Uh, not thats not a slippery slope argument… Its an argument about how if there are things happening then we should stop them, even if you think its authortarian. So if we were able stop children looking at naked people, then we should do that too.
I didn’t avoid the question. You made a a bad comparison.
If the strip club was streaming, and children could access it via their home computers, then no the strip club should not be held responsible. That is the parent’s job, and if the parents suck, the parents need to suffer the consequences, no one else.
However, you have made statements that make me doubt there are very many authoritarian measures you wouldn’t agree with, in regards to restricting access to porn, because you are one of those people who blames a disproportionate amount of society’s ills on porn.
You zero clue how much I blame anything on porn. I blame most of societies problems on weak useless men and ignorant people that how no clue what reality is.
And you totally are missing what I am saying, let me be very direct; children accessing porn is not supposed to be happening, but it is. We stop it in real life, but dont do anything about it on the internet.
Did you know that a child accessing porn is illegal? Did you know that, when it is done in their on, or with, their property, the people responsible for that are the parents of those children, and no one else? The only thing these bills do are shift the regulation of personal life onto the government.
Yes we need a STRONG MAN to lead us all to REALITY! We just need leader who is a STRONG MAN that doesn’t get distracted by pussy, weakling things, like freedoms, context, and viability. Just push government force onto everything I don’t like! That will bring people to REALITY!
My kids dont get open access to the internet alone.
If you hadnt noticed, most parents suck, they give their kids cell phones and social media. If kids are not “policed” by their parents and do things that are directly harmful and illegal like drinking alcohol, should the police intervene?
People like you make me want that feature where you can’t see replies with more than 10 downvotes over upvotes. God, I lost so many braincells reading about your idiotic opinions and your inability to accept reality…
Here’s a couple. Not a regional porn ban = more rape like previous poster said, but this is the most relevant data I could find. …and this data isn’t great. My main takeaway from this search is that we need to direct some actual research into what access to porn does vs doesn’t do. Also specific categories of porn - I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that sexual violence increases with consumption of porn that glorifies rape; but then if porn made a point to model good practices around things like obtaining consent, I’d wager sexual violence probably decrease.
TLDR, it’s a complicated question, so take these with a grain of salt, but among the most credible sources I found, they trended toward porn and rape NOT being positively correlated.
“Victimization rates for rape in the United States demonstrate an inverse relationship between pornography consumption and rape rates.”
“The results showed that in none of the countries did rape increase more than nonsexual violent crimes [during a period of increased access to porn]. This finding in itself would seem sufficient to discard the hypothesis that pornography causes rape.”
Sounds like it works right into their plans for controlling the population by forcing people to give birth then. What a hellscape. I’m so sorry for the good humans that live there.
While I disagree wholeheartedly with the relevant law, this is an incredibly dangerous argument to make against it. It insinuates an innate propensity towards sexual aggression and ignores many other factors that might occur alongside such laws.
There might be a misunderstanding. I was talking about a correlation between areas where where porn is blocked i.e. repressive regimes and rape. Not necessarily a casual effect from one directly to the other, although that might not be able to be ruled out either.
Either way it is a question of fact, so not up to either of our mere opinions. Though I find that it is darn near impossible to find such things these days using Google - it refuses to show “relevant” results and instead tries to show only “recent” ones that it wants to promote, and DuckDuckGo is far too narrow to make that easy. So finding the full unvarnished truth is a research project that I do not want to undertake, though in case it helps to share my remembrance of having read such a thing once I thought I would offer. This is nowhere near my area of expertise so was only a comment not an authoritative statement of definitive fact.
Also there could be other factors involved - e.g. higher incidents of rape in neighborhoods that tend towards being poorer and more heavily religious in nature, e.g. within the United States that would be Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Texas, etc. I don’t recall if the study checked for similar levels of poverty but with different religious leanings - if suitably comparable places could even be found.
So my statement was saying how sad it is that Texas is choosing to become more like e.g. Florida rather than more like e.g. California, or to remain more of its own separate thing as it has done in the past. Becoming “repressive” does not sound conducive to good health (especially women’s health).
If you find it, let us all here on Lemmy know - it looks like people are very interested (I know I would be to see a refresher). The sad part is how this stuff has been known for decades, but people just ignore it - e.g. “just grab 'em by the p$#&y”. There are some, like John Oliver and Innuendo Studios, who are doing fantastic work to spread awareness of matters that need attention (and Jon Stewart is back, sort of:-), but ofc that won’t reach the ears of people who refuse to listen, and instead choose to highly regard those who spread fear and chaos, most likely purely for profit reasons.
That’s… not just a Texas thing, and yeah, bc saturation may have long been passed on that one, so this is newer territory to expand authoritarianism into.
It’s a reference to their video on brown, specifically the part where they change only the background color of a image with an orange square in it and it swings basically from orange to brown
Also your link is broken, the URL should be in the parentheses. And if you want the image as a reply the brackets should be empty with an exclamation point in front and the link needs to end in an image extension.
Potatoes are amazing. They grow easily in a wide variety of soil and produce food which has every nutrient we need except for a complete protein. And, they’re a vegetable, so you can tell someone you’re eating your vegetables and then go to McDonald’s for some frenchy fries
I mean, in fairness, “vegetable” isn’t a scientific term at all, so whether potatoes are vegetables (or tubers, or roots, or something else) is totally up for debate.
But they’re a hell of a lot more of a vegetable than pizza is!
I’ve always used the definition of a vegetable being an integral part of a plant, like a root, rather than a fruiting seed pod evolved to be consumed by animals
Cooking potatoes with skin is still somewhat more nutritious than cooking them without (unless you’re keeping the water for something else, some use it for stuff like pasta)
There are several essential amino acids we need to survive but don’t produce in our bodies. No plant has all of those amino acids, but every animal product does. You can get complete plant protein by consuming multiple different plants, so if a vegan has a varied diet they’re usually fine.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.