The Decline of the DNC IV

[crimsonaudio]

People are twisting this into something it isn’t.

The argument isn’t “let kids watch porn.” It’s about unintended consequences. Gay teens in particular often feel like traditional sex ed doesn’t speak to their reality. Many aren’t comfortable asking parents or teachers personal questions, so they look online.

That doesn’t mean porn is good education. It obviously isn’t. But critics of strict age verification worry about privacy issues and legitimate resources getting blocked along with explicit content.

Disagree if you want, but pretending the position is “pro-porn for kids” skips over the actual point. If we tighten restrictions, the obvious answer is better, inclusive, age-appropriate sex education.

I'd rather protect millions of kids via age-restriction than allow a free-for-all for the small percentage of gay kids.

(And why is the speaker referred to as “transgender?”

Because he is?

 

[selmaborntidefan]

(And why is the speaker referred to as “transgender?” Other than the positive implication that’s she’s able to speak from a perspective that most of us lack, there’s really no non-inflammatory reason.)

Not in any way intended to be provocative with you (or anyone).

However......trans folks spend all that time (the last 12 years or so) insisting on their identity and pronouns.....but they suddenly don't want to be "identified" when it's a trans doing a mass shooting or in this case coming up with what I don't even think is a very good point.

Let me be clear: there's not some massive epidemic of trans mass shootings going on right now regardless of the hyperbole of some on the right. HOWEVER...it is the job of the media to tell us who did the shooting and why without fear or favor. That covering up of the trans person's manifesto in the Tennessee church shooting a couple of years ago showed exactly how hypocritical news organizations are going to be when it comes to covering CRIMES committed by certain "protected" groups of people. The only reason we saw it is because Trump won. Period. That shooting happened in March 2023, and it took until May 2025 to have the screed released. I don't recall any time recently the FBI or media sitting on a white supremacist manifesto for over two years unless (perhaps) that person survived and was going to trial.

I'd say in this case since it's inherent to the argument the Speaker is making then the identity does matter. If the speaker was making a libertarian point about government censorship across the board, I'd say this doesn't matter and shouldn't be mentioned. The speaker made it about porn for certain groups, nobody else did.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Susan Rice offers a taste of what’s coming should the left retake power — promises Democrats will punish corporations and other institutions who have “taken a knee to Trump.”

“It’s not going to end well for them."

“If these corporations think that the Democrats, when they come back in power, are going to play by the old rules…they’ve got another thing coming."

“There will be an accountability agenda."

“This is not going to be an instance of forgive and forget."

https://twitter.com/x/status/2024661247296172486

Winning message or nah? The narrative of retribution worked pretty well for Trump, but his situation was very, very different. His people believed that 2020 was absolutely stolen and they watched as Trump was being relentlessly attacked via lawfare that could only have ended exactly the way it did. The left never runs out of outrage, but is it enough to carry an election like Trump 2.0 did? I'm a bit skeptical, but anything is possible.

Yes, we can trust Susan Rice because no Democrat has ever been bought and paid for by corporations.

The whole political world makes sense when people accept that Republicans love liberal freaky sex just like the Democrats do (and apparently enjoy it more) while Democrats love money just much as Republicans do.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Yes, we can trust Susan Rice because no Democrat has ever been bought and paid for by corporations.

The whole political world makes sense when people accept that Republicans love liberal freaky sex just like the Democrats do (and apparently enjoy it more) while Democrats love money just much as Republicans do.

Yes indeed, which is why I regard both parties as controlled opposition for the other. It's kayfabe from start to finish and it's up to the voters to suspend disbelief long enough to enjoy the show (just like wrestling fans do.) To be honest, I respect wrestling fans more than I do voters; at least after the show, they can go back to living their normal lives. They also seem to have a deeper understanding of what they just witnessed.

 

[Huckleberry]

I'd rather protect millions of kids via age-restriction than allow a free-for-all for the small percentage of gay kids.


Because he is?

Me too, but we should strive to do what’s best for all. Porn can be made difficult for kids to access without the laws being so stringent or vague that legitimate resources are also blocked.

If it matters, then it should be mentioned. If it’s unrelated, then it’s probably an intent to smear.

 

[92tide]

Me too, but we should strive to do what’s best for all. Porn can be made difficult for kids to access without the laws being so stringent or vague that legitimate resources are also blocked.

If it matters, then it should be mentioned. If it’s unrelated, then it’s probably an intent to smear.

i have a feeling “but the trans” is going to reach a fever pitch the closer we get to the midterms

 

[crimsonaudio]

Me too, but we should strive to do what’s best for all. Porn can be made difficult for kids to access without the laws being so stringent or vague that legitimate resources are also blocked.

So come up with a plan for sex education for those who are 'left out'.

But acting like age restrictions are bad is silliness at best - perversion at worst.

If it matters, then it should be mentioned. If it’s unrelated, then it’s probably an intent to smear.

I'd venture a vast majority of parents would agree that it's pertinent in this case.

 

[Huckleberry]

So come up with a plan for sex education for those who are 'left out'.

But acting like age restrictions are bad is silliness at best - perversion at worst.

Your perspective on this issue is pretty clear. Let's wait to see what the legislation looks like if/when it passes before we try to discuss the effectiveness of the bill.

 

[crimsonaudio]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2025766271510360189

 

[CrimsonJazz]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2025766271510360189

That was painful.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I saw the original "this is what he said" and thought to myself, "There's no way he actually said that." And he didn't utter the precise verbiage I saw on the first shock site, but he did (in essence) say the same thing.

But don't forget, he has "Democratic immunity" and there will be no fallout whatsoever long-term. Were he a Republican, of course, this story would be entered in the Big Book of Excuses Why We Keep Losing Elections in the Race chapter, but he'll get away with it.

 

[Huckleberry]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2025766271510360189

He was not speaking to black people exclusively. He was talking to a diverse mix of Americans. He’s made the same sort of statement on podcasts.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2025753768927863038

 

[75thru79]

Not saying it was a better time or anything, but there's a reason we used to burn people like this at the stake. Porn is damaging enough as it is on adults; I can only imagine the effect it would have on children.

Gay porn is "educational"? Yeah, it's educational in that sometimes you need physical proof that there are some really sick people in this world. No, I am not referring to men having sex with men or women with women. I am talking about how absolutely degrading and sick gay porn often is. It is mostly BDSM and other degrading types of sex. God help us if this is what we choose to show gay adolescents how to act in a romantic relationship.

 

[Huckleberry]

I saw the original "this is what he said" and thought to myself, "There's no way he actually said that." And he didn't utter the precise verbiage I saw on the first shock site, but he did (in essence) say the same thing.

But don't forget, he has "Democratic immunity" and there will be no fallout whatsoever long-term. Were he a Republican, of course, this story would be entered in the Big Book of Excuses Why We Keep Losing Elections in the Race chapter, but he'll get away with it.

From the mayor of Atlanta who was sitting next to Newsom:

 

[selmaborntidefan]

From the mayor of Atlanta who was sitting next to Newsom:
View attachment 55770

Faux pas,, and you understand my original skepticism.

I retract nothing on the reality that a Democrat can still get away with anything on race that is considered sufficient to wipe out a Republican, but I concede as well this case isn't an example of same.

Incidentally, Christopher Rufo (hardly a bastion of impartiality and a constant problem on the right with exaggeration) offered the same take as the Atlanta mayor beforehand.

Thank you.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Rep. Pramila Jayapal: "Being undocumented is actually not a crime."

https://twitter.com/x/status/2026665992516948472

 

[DzynKingRTR]

Rep. Pramila Jayapal: "Being undocumented is actually not a crime."

https://twitter.com/x/status/2026665992516948472

I wonder if I went into her house and ate all her food, watched TV and slept there would she think I was breaking the law? I am just visiting, right?

 

[75thru79]

Rep. Pramila Jayapal: "Being undocumented is actually not a crime."

https://twitter.com/x/status/2026665992516948472

You and your kind are the ones who created the definition of "undocumented" and you are right, not having any documentation indicating you are a US citizen is not against the law. I'm sure there are tons of people living in other countries that meet this definition. i.e., not having any US citizenship documentation. The difference is they are not living in the US absent said documentation. It's the act of being undocumented AND living in the US without said documentation that is illegal.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

You and your kind are the ones who created the definition of "undocumented" and you are right, not having any documentation indicating you are a US citizen is not against the law. I'm sure there are tons of people living in other countries that meet this definition. i.e., not having any US citizenship documentation. The difference is they are not living in the US absent said documentation. It's the act of being undocumented AND living in the US without said documentation that is illegal.

Well, I guess I have to say something. It's not a black and white proposition under the law. A person living in the US with an active case for asylum is not "illegal" nor are they committing a crime. If they lose their case and remain, then they're committing a crime. The problem is, in pursuit of Miller's quota, ICE has been scooping up people with active cases, even as they are proceeding to or coming from a scheduled hearing, in violation of the law.

 

[Bamaro]

I dont care what you want to call them but if people are here, not in accordance to US immigration laws, they need to be delt with in a humane manner. If that means sending them back to where they came from, so be it. If they have active proceedings going on, they need to be lefy alone until a determination is made.