Netflix sexualising children.

Sonics2k

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You're missing the point.

If the DNC have a "mermaid" speaking at their conference, and we're supposed to take it seriously, that means the left wing political party in the US are condoning this insanity. Just like they pretend biological men can get periods.

So it's not a huge stretch to believe they will think pedophilia is a sexual orientation, or at least be tolerant of it. They seem to back every crazy grievance group, so all the pedos need to do is say they're being oppressed.

I have no interest in a back and forth on this, I know you have your opinions and don't want to consider changing them.

It is a massive, massive, gigantic and universal size stretch to assume that just because the DNC invited a gender-queer person to speak at the conference, that they are also okay with child abuse and rape.

You're comparing an orange with a pyramid on Mars.

I have been personally involved in the LGBT community for my entire life, and not in one case has a single person -ever- hinted that pedofilia is okay. The push and reason for the LGBT community has always been about fair and respectful treatment by the state for -consenting- adults.

What I have is not an opinion, it is a outright fact. You have an opinion formed by years of being subjugated to lies, misinformation and paranoia.

Psychiatric Patrick

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Yes, look at twitter, you will be banned if you disagree with a trans person (biological male) who says they have their period.

We're supposed to pretend their fantasies are real.

Well I don't use twitter and support the idea of everyone being banned from social media.

But the incident hasn't happened in the real world yet though?

OMM 0000

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You're missing the point.

If the DNC have a "mermaid" speaking at their conference, and we're supposed to take it seriously, that means the left wing political party in the US are condoning this insanity. Just like they pretend biological men can get periods.

So it's not a huge stretch to believe they will think pedophilia is a sexual orientation, or at least be tolerant of it. They seem to back every crazy grievance group, so all the pedos need to do is say they're being oppressed.

I have no interest in a back and forth on this, I know you have your opinions and don't want to consider changing them.

That's highly unlikely, it's like saying rape will suddenly become okay with the left. Paedophilia isn't suddenly going to become okay as one party isn't capable of consent so it's simply never going to be okay. It isn't the left that tend to get outraged when things like the importance of consent get highlighted. So it's a substantial leap to assume that the left will suddenly decide to normalise paedophilia. It's a slippery slope argument that ultimately is bollocks.

Psychiatric Patrick

circadian wrote: »

This has been my point but apparently I'm testy, wound up or whatever else. Meh, done with the thread.

Bye

Psychiatric Patrick

Gatling wrote: »

Still can't believe people are sooooo upset about a movie they have never seen and likely won't ever watch it ,

Essentially were listening to someones fauxrage about what another person on the internet said about a movie which they might not have seen themselves but we're expected to believe everything said as fact .

The poster was a poor decision but it was obviously aimed at similar movies and programme's with dance and preteen/teens dancing , gymnastics and cheerleading .

You are missing a lot of what people are saying here.

Gatling

Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »

You are missing a lot of what people are saying here.

I'm seeing lots fauxrage and little or no facts about a movie you have not seen .

I'm just saying what someone else said about a whole movie based off a one and half minute youtube clip .

Junkyard Tom

OMM 0000 wrote: »

the left wing political party in the US

The fact that you think the Democrats are 'left wing' just shows how utterly consumed you are by the US culture war and pseudo-intellectual frauds. I recommend you stop getting your ridiculous political views fed to you by YouTube's algorithm.

Psychiatric Patrick

Gatling wrote: »

I'm seeing lots fauxrage and little or no facts about a movie you have not seen .

I'm just saying what someone else said about a whole movie based off a one and half minute youtube clip .

Like I said you missing what a lot of people are saying hey.

Like myself for example. Where is my "rage" - false or otherwise?

I've provided facts - like comments from people who have seen the movie, from the director,

There are plenty of facts out there but it it os not my fault if you can't be bothered t look.

And how do you know who false outage here?

What I see from you is amateur psychiatry - or you might call it faux psychiatry

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You're missing the point.

If the DNC have a "mermaid" speaking at their conference, and we're supposed to take it seriously, that means the left wing political party in the US are condoning this insanity. Just like they pretend biological men can get periods.

So it's not a huge stretch to believe they will think pedophilia is a sexual orientation, or at least be tolerant of it. They seem to back every crazy grievance group, so all the pedos need to do is say they're being oppressed.

I have no interest in a back and forth on this, I know you have your opinions and don't want to consider changing them.

IN a thread about an image on netflix this guy brings up a "mermaid" at the democrate conference and accuses someone else of missing the point

I'm guessing he's not coming back to answer anything!

Gatling

Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »

And how do you know who false outage here?

easy I just read what's posted about what someone said about someone else said about something they haven't seen .

I'm could blame the lock down but that wouldn't even explain this

Psychiatric Patrick

Gatling wrote: »

easy I just read what's posted about what someone said aboutsomeone else said about something they haven't seen .

I'm could blame the lock down but that wouldn't even explain this

I see you overlooked the part of my post where you could give a glib response.

People are looking into this beyond just the poster and trailer.

You can't be bothered to do the same or follow the thread properly. So what are you spending your time on it?

And getting "thanks" from a guy who claimed he was not bothering with the thread anymore because he was in a huff.

BorneTobyWilde

https://www.instagram.com/p/CEOzLLMKNIB/

BorneTobyWilde

Netflix are the problem.

Unfair to attack the movie, but it's all lost in the outrage, and then people attack the director, when she was trying to do the opposite of what Netflix did. She should take action against Netflix, people are attacking her and her movie, all because of Netflix and the way they promoted it.
Netflix is worth over 200 billion, she should go take one of those billions.

Gatling

Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »

So what are you spending your time on it?

And getting "thanks" from a guy who claimed he was not bothering with the thread anymore because he was in a huff.

Lol oh dear

i_surge

Deleted User wrote: »

That's highly unlikely, it's like saying rape will suddenly become okay with the left. Paedophilia isn't suddenly going to become okay as one party isn't capable of consent so it's simply never going to be okay. It isn't the left that tend to get outraged when things like the importance of consent get highlighted. So it's a substantial leap to assume that the left will suddenly decide to normalise paedophilia. It's a slippery slope argument that ultimately is bollocks.

It was ok in my example of an ideological person gone overboard.

Her "must respect culture" rule scrambled her ethics to the point of excusing genuine rape cultures in parts of Africa.

AndrewJRenko

TomTomTim wrote: »

At least two of said posters were very passionately arguing for children to be thought more about sex in school here a few months back. Combined with their contributions here, it certainly isn't a good look.

Slightly unfortunate typo, but I guess you meant that people were passionately arguing for children to be taught more about sex, rather than thought more.

What's not a good look about children being taught more, about sex or about anything really?

Gruffalox wrote: »

What if their followers are younger? Much younger? Especially if they follow a person from TikTok to Only Fans. It is not a good example to young teens, in the same way as drugs or joy riding or online bullying cliques are not a good example to or influence on young teens and should be legitimately called out as such. Just because it is sexual does not make it exempt from critique

If her followers are younger, then the problem is with their parents who are failing to manage their internet access. It really doesn't matter where yer wan is from or what platforms she uses, parents should be managing the internet access of their children.

I listened to the podcast, as it's not an area I know much about. She makes it clear that her original tiktok channel wasn't aimed at kids either, so it's not like the Disney channel is suddenly showing porn. She's gone from a tiktok channel aimed at young adults to a Only Fans porn channel for paying adults.

Gruffalox wrote: »

Who are the gob****es, Andrew? Are you calling all people who disagree with you gob****es and yet simultaneously practising ultra- liberal moral relativism? Anyone can do anything as long as they are over 18....except disagree with you. A person or all persons can masturbate on camera for paying customers but you only feel roused to public ejaculation of contempt if someone has a different opinion than you.

The gobsh1tes are those jumping on the 'let's take a kick at Netflix' bandwagon from American far-right groups who really don't like that Netflix bring all this gay stuff and sex stuff into American homes, mostly people who wouldn't watch a French film unless it involves a plumber calling to a sexy housewife.

i_surge wrote: »

Anyone who can't see the two sides of everything is a bit of a fool.

What's the two sides of racism all about then?

Gruffalox wrote: »

Actually the joke is on her. Because right now it might seem like easy money to get paid lots for merely holding the cheeks of your arse apart on film, but there will come a time when she may realise that she has lost human dignity by carelessly releasing such material into the public sphere, where it will have been copied and circulated ad infinitum.
It is much more than mere titillation or tittie pictures - people do not seem to get that there is such a thing as scale and nuance, and that soft core sexy photos are not the same as what I have seen promoted on that kneevo's channel earlier posted. It is quantitatively and qualitatively different.
There has to be a constant upping of the ante to compete. Being a pretty girl with nice breasts is fairly common, let's face it, and no one is going to pay much for that. Most young girls are sweet looking and have nice breasts and a bit of makeup and lighting will make any of them look great. But it is not enough to compete.
She may have children someday who she does not want to see her in such an undignified manner, publicly abasing herself in graphic ways as masturbatory material for what amounts in the end to a few pounds. It is not empowering. It is degrading of one's power.
Or she may meet someone she falls in love with who might not have a laissez faire attitude to pictures and video of her doing all manner of things to herself for a few pounds circulating the globe. She might become intellectually involved in a project or research which would have meaning for her later on and which would be undermined by her haven publicly demeaned her dignity in former years. These people should have more ambition and respect for themselves. I think it reflects something gone wrong in them.

This really is prurient Mary Whitehouse 'won't someone please think of the children' stuff. How does having done porn block her from being intellectually involved in a project or research? I don't recall qualifying questions like 'have you done porn' as part of any research that I've been involved in.

Psychiatric Patrick

Gatling wrote: »

Lol oh dear

Again ignoring half the post

Mr. Karate

Apparently Netflix aren't done courting controversy yet.

https://caldronpool.com/netflix-animation-pushes-gross-pedophilia-and-child-pornography/amp/?fbclid=IwAR2ScZMo6uuy-6EksjKgRFgB0AcvzPfKZRFFkCCXAVAMU4kPMHmJ52g6Sw8

Psychiatric Patrick

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Netflix are the problem.

Unfair to attack the movie, but it's all lost in the outrage, and then people attack the director, when she was trying to do the opposite of what Netflix did. She should take action against Netflix, people are attacking her and her movie, all because of Netflix and the way they promoted it.
Netflix is worth over 200 billion, she should go take one of those billions.

Are you aware there are people criticising Netflix for what they did?

Are you aware there are people here criticising the movie who are well aware that it denounces the sexualisation of children?

Psychiatric Patrick

Mr. Karate wrote: »

Apparently Netflix aren't done courting controversy yet.

https://caldronpool.com/netflix-animation-pushes-gross-pedophilia-and-child-pornography/amp/?fbclid=IwAR2ScZMo6uuy-6EksjKgRFgB0AcvzPfKZRFFkCCXAVAMU4kPMHmJ52g6Sw8

That is not new.

Sonics2k

Mr. Karate wrote: »

Apparently Netflix aren't done courting controversy yet.

https://caldronpool.com/netflix-animation-pushes-gross-pedophilia-and-child-pornography/amp/?fbclid=IwAR2ScZMo6uuy-6EksjKgRFgB0AcvzPfKZRFFkCCXAVAMU4kPMHmJ52g6Sw8

Yeah that's a two year old article, and it most certainly is not about pedophilia.

i_surge

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Slightly unfortunate typo, but I guess you meant that people were passionately arguing for children to be taught more about sex, rather than thought more.

What's not a good look about children being taught more, about sex or about anything really?


If her followers are younger, then the problem is with their parents who are failing to manage their internet access. It really doesn't matter where yer wan is from or what platforms she uses, parents should be managing the internet access of their children.

I listened to the podcast, as it's not an area I know much about. She makes it clear that her original tiktok channel wasn't aimed at kids either, so it's not like the Disney channel is suddenly showing porn. She's gone from a tiktok channel aimed at young adults to a Only Fans porn channel for paying adults.



The gobsh1tes are those jumping on the 'let's take a kick at Netflix' bandwagon from American far-right groups who really don't like that Netflix bring all this gay stuff and sex stuff into American homes, mostly people who wouldn't watch a French film unless it involves a plumber calling to a sexy housewife.


What's the two sides of racism all about then?



This really is prurient Mary Whitehouse 'won't someone please think of the children' stuff. How does having done porn block her from being intellectually involved in a project or research? I don't recall qualifying questions like 'have you done porn' as part of any research that I've been involved in.

Why are you asking me what sounds like an exam question expecting an essay.

There are two sides to everything, you weigh them up and you find the truth. It isn't hard.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Mr. Karate wrote: »

Apparently Netflix aren't done courting controversy yet.

https://caldronpool.com/netflix-animation-pushes-gross-pedophilia-and-child-pornography/amp/?fbclid=IwAR2ScZMo6uuy-6EksjKgRFgB0AcvzPfKZRFFkCCXAVAMU4kPMHmJ52g6Sw8

Caldronpool is "was launched in October 2017 to offer a conservative and Christian perspective on important cultural issues" - so hardly controversial.

Snake Plisken

Yeah Big Mouth needs to be removed as well, sick stuff as is this documentary. Netflix seem to have an internal problem they need to sort out

hots

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Yeah Big Mouth needs to be removed as well, sick stuff as is this documentary. Netflix seem to have an internal problem they need to sort out

Not sure if I need my sarcasm detector checked or not...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Yeah Big Mouth needs to be removed as well, sick stuff as is this documentary. Netflix seem to have an internal problem they need to sort out

PRAISE JEEEE-SYS!!!

AndrewJRenko

i_surge wrote: »

Why are you asking me what sounds like an exam question expecting an essay.

There are two sides to everything, you weigh them up and you find the truth. It isn't hard.

So something like, well, at least the old Nazis had snappy uniforms - what that what you had in mind?

i_surge

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So something like, well, at least the old Nazis had snappy uniforms - what that what you had in mind?

Wtf are you on about?

I will clarify, people who cling to one side of the ideological spectrum at all costs are fools.

More like Nonceflix.

Get it? Nonce, instead of Net?

Eric Cartman

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Yeah Big Mouth needs to be removed as well, sick stuff as is this documentary. Netflix seem to have an internal problem they need to sort out[/QUOTE]

Their head of content Ted Sarandos with Harvey Weinstein :


with Kevin spacey :


He certainly keeps some odd company.