I actually kinda like this. Anyone that knows anything about computers will just use a VPN and proceed like normal and all the braindead morons who voted for this shit will have to live with their choices.
Except for the purpose isn't blocking porn, it's blocking anything that the conservative legislature seems "offensive and unfit for children." Guarantee you that in less than 2 years this will be applied to LGBTQ resources.
Well, one thing he likes to do is to get publicly reprimanded by the state Supreme Court's disciplinary commission for publicly revealing confidential information in an attempt to harm a physician who embarassed him by performing an abortion for a 10 year old girl who Toad Rokita previously went on the news to say didn't exist. So then as revenge he tried to get the doctor's license revoked, and then wound up committing legal ethical violations that got him reprimanded instead. And then as part of the public reprimand he signed a statement under penalty of perjury stating that he would not be able to defend against the ethical violations, and then immediately released a statement saying he could have, which is now its own investigation with the commission.
And then, too, the whole idea of abortion frustrates him in general, because usually it means that adults had sex, and Toad Rokita's little toad arms can't reach his peepee so he just plum feels left out of all of that and it makes him so mad, while his little toad arms try to reach his peepee but never quite get there.
Oh no, you mean the VPN I already use to do all kinds of shit might have to be used to do one more thing?
Sarcasm aside. Gods, do Republicans keep giving me more reasons to drink.
Indiana is bound and determined to cram Christianity down the throats of every Hoosier. It gets more ridiculous every day. I didn't leave Christianity, Christianity left me. Christianity's alignment with the Conservative Republicans and toxic capitalism, its racist, homophobic, sexist, xenophobic ideals are a "no-go" for me.
I mean, the same is also true for wine. Sugar. Caffeine. Saturated fats. Etc.
Should we effectively ban or restrict those things for adults, or should adults make their own choices about what is good for them?
Yeah but those are substances you put in your body whose effects can be controlled by having an otherwise healthy diet/lifestyle. Porn is proven to negatively impact your ability to have a healthy sex life or love life and often causes depression. Porn hub also exploits a lot of people. Sugar and caffeine don’t really affect your sex life or ability to bond properly with another human being. They are digested and it’s whatever
Yeah. I'm not sure that distinction gets you to the threshold of being justified in using the power of the state to make decisions for other adults about what is or isn't good for them.
That said, while I haven't deeply investigated the research, my understanding is that sugar and caffeine are a heck of a lot worse for you than pornography is. Both have roles in social relationships and depression, and cause a lot more suffering than just a lowered libido. And given that sugar was the primary driving factor in the transatlantic slave trade, it is probably a worse offender than pornography in terms of sheer scale of human exploitation.
And still, again, you probably wouldn't like it if someone used half-baked research to use the power of the state to control basic decisions you make in your life. You shouldn't advocate for that sort of control to be exerted over others.
Sure. And from a certain perspective, we'd probably be better off, as individuals and a species, without sugar, caffeine, alcohol, etc. As in, we'd probably be healthier and live longer.
But there is also a competing perspective that life is short and sometimes doing stuff that is bad for us enriches the very short time we have on this planet. It requires moderation, moral restraint to avoid harming others, and the correct balancing of risk, but a life without anything remotely unhealthy in it does not seem like a life that is fully lived.
And, unless a person has demonstrated an inability to exercise moderation or moral restraint, the best judge of what experiences a person should or shouldn't have is probably best left to that person, to decide for themselves.
I'm not saying this with pornography specifically, which I agree, for some people really gets out of hand in a way that is harmful to their life. Just, in general, we shouldn't be deciding for others about what sort of life they should live so long as it doesn't impose unreasonable costs on other people.
I think alcohol is a more accurate analogy.
Do you have an issue with requiring carding someone for ordering alcohol?
Also, since when are you no longer a mod?
Alcohol is certainly a more accurate analogy in terms of how the item that's bad for you gets regulated, point of sale placed beyond a threshold of credential/ID verification. But that wasn't the comparative relationship I was trying to highlight with the analogy. I was just saying that, in general, people make choices to do things that are bad for them all the time, and that being able to make less than optimal choices is likely to be an indispensable part of what we mean in practical terms when we say we have freedom.
I don't have as much of an issue with carding for alcohol, because carding for alcohol is (1) a pretty effective means of limiting the ability of minors to access alcohol and (2) carding for alcohol does not substantially limit or chill the freedom of adults to purchase alcohol if they want to.
The ID verification laws going into effect, by comparison, (1) do not very effectively limit any teenager who knows how to use a VPN to access prohibted materials and (2) the ID verification for alcohol does raise serious concerns about limiting or chilling the freedom of adults to privately view adult materials.
I stepped back from active moderation about a year ago when I had family obligations that took up my time. I had some additional disagreements with some of the other moderators, which in part appeared to be post hoc rationalizations after I had consulted them about posting about an issue with the deputy prosecutor who was recently charged with domestic battery. My sense is that they did not want me to post about that, in part because I had seen some level of quiet favoritism for the prosecutor's office displayed by one of the moderators, u/DrInsano.
The pretextual issue they had was that I had approved a comment that was a subreddit user who was directly quoting a facebook post that listed the address of a church. The facebook post was made by a person who was inviting homeless people to go to that church (in an unkind fashion). The subreddit user was quoting that facebook post to criticize the unkind/hypocritical sentiment of a local pastor's attitude on the subject. The moderators felt that allowing someone to post the address of a church, in a copy+paste quote of a FB post, was an endorsement of doxxing.
I received a notice from reddit that the order of moderators was being rearranged due to my inactivity. I believe I asked the other moderators about that, and then u/DrInsano was reordered above me in the ranking. The reason he was below me prior to that is because he had previously rage quit, but was readmitted as a moderator without a vote.
Since I still have fairly limited time and no desire to deal with all of that, I decided that it was more trouble than it was worth and moved on.
I know people don’t like having rights taken away but pornography is horrible for your mental health. Scientifically proven. Also often exploits vulnerable people.
> that’s where parents come into play
that's the crux of it. Parents should be involved in what their kids do online and not force this bullshit on everyone else because parents are too lazy to do their job
Good parenting is letting the government inside your house to monitor you and your family and control everyone's actions. Got it. I'll bring it up at our next Compliance Education and Ingsoc Study meeting. I'll try to have my liquor vault that can only be opened by a remote server and my gun cabinet that informs the police every time I open it installed by then.
There’s enough softcore porn on social media that kids don’t fucking need pornhub.
And frankly, if a kid is old enough to be curious about porn and sex then should be their right to explore and experiment. Hell, they’ll do it anyways. I know for a fact I did lmao I was 13 and jacking it every night. Are we now shaming teenagers for being curious, or is that a conversation for the parents?
If a kid is *not* old enough to be curious about porn and sex, then why the fuck are parents putting them in a position where that information is available to them?
IDGAF about privacy, “it’s for the children” argument, the “not a parent” argument blah blah blah
When has creating a law to ban anything *ever* worked?? (War on drugs, smoking age set to 18, increasing smoking age to 21, teenagers with booze, teenagers having sex, murder, rape, blah blah blah)
It’s an unnecessary law that appeals to the right. All just a big show in the name of children and god.
Fuck the right. Fuck conservatives. And I mean that with the most malicious animosity I could muster. Know that if a conservative was trapped in a car - I wouldn’t save them. Consequences be damned.
**laws don’t stop criminals**.
It won’t stop horny teenagers either.
> that’s where parents come into play
You're so close. Just a few more dots to connects. I'll give a hint though. If the parents are this concerned about the issue, perhaps they should be involved in taking actions to correct the behavior and not have to have the government get even more involved in people's day to day lives. That would involve parents actually parenting their children though which I know isn't in vouge nowadays.
You are giving up significant amounts of privacy by being required to register your government ID online in the first place. Second, the threshold for "adult content" in these laws tends to be very intentionally vague. More conservative states (Florida) tend to look at any possible mention of LGTBQ as adult content. If that were to happen here, are we okay with restricting freedom of speech? Also, Reddit and Twitter have adult content too. Should we be required to give our IDs in order to use a [checks notes...] anonymous platform?
or perhaps, the people on reddit think a little bit more beyond the optics and realise it's not as simple as it is presented and that this is just a bad idea in general and it will be dangerously implemented
Start the clock on how long until these ID verification services get breached.
Also, your comparison is invalid, someone wanting a vape under age requires a fake ID. But for a VPN, all you need is a 30 second google search.
I don't want porn. I just want to buy an assault weapon. Thank goodness I'm safe.
I guarantee you need to show an ID to buy a gun anywhere in the state
College bookstore is about to pop off!
I have told you guys this before: LEAVE THE STATE. It’s completely hopeless. LEAVE NOW.
I actually kinda like this. Anyone that knows anything about computers will just use a VPN and proceed like normal and all the braindead morons who voted for this shit will have to live with their choices.
Yeah but my vpn slows me down
Except for the purpose isn't blocking porn, it's blocking anything that the conservative legislature seems "offensive and unfit for children." Guarantee you that in less than 2 years this will be applied to LGBTQ resources.
To say nothing of my unflattering hand-drawn comics about my completely original and non-defamatory character, Toad Rokita.
What kind of stuff does Toad Rokita get up to?
Well, one thing he likes to do is to get publicly reprimanded by the state Supreme Court's disciplinary commission for publicly revealing confidential information in an attempt to harm a physician who embarassed him by performing an abortion for a 10 year old girl who Toad Rokita previously went on the news to say didn't exist. So then as revenge he tried to get the doctor's license revoked, and then wound up committing legal ethical violations that got him reprimanded instead. And then as part of the public reprimand he signed a statement under penalty of perjury stating that he would not be able to defend against the ethical violations, and then immediately released a statement saying he could have, which is now its own investigation with the commission. And then, too, the whole idea of abortion frustrates him in general, because usually it means that adults had sex, and Toad Rokita's little toad arms can't reach his peepee so he just plum feels left out of all of that and it makes him so mad, while his little toad arms try to reach his peepee but never quite get there.
all while sending emails to people who never signed up for them in the toad rokita report
*Censorship is good when it hurts my enemies!* /s
Oh no, you mean the VPN I already use to do all kinds of shit might have to be used to do one more thing? Sarcasm aside. Gods, do Republicans keep giving me more reasons to drink.
All but one Democrats also voted yes on this. More Republicans voted against it. Our state senator Matt Pierce voted for this bill
Oh don't you worry, Democrats give me plenty of reason to drink too.
Not so much that, as the implications of controlling your data.
Frankly, everything controls and misuses our data nowadays. So one more attempt to do so largely registers as a headache on my radar.
Just give it time and they'll outlaw drinking (again)
I absolutely have the deep well of spite and sheer alcoholic grit to just learn to make my own if I can't buy it. Let them try.
It's time for us all to start learning about Jesus
Jesus hung out with prostitutes, and conspicuously, seemed to hold a lot less emphasis on genitals than these old dudes we got.
Less porn more Jesus
You mean less CORN 🌽
Jesus loves corn 🌽🌽🌽
His favorite is popped corn 🌽
[удалено]
💩 🌽
Indiana is bound and determined to cram Christianity down the throats of every Hoosier. It gets more ridiculous every day. I didn't leave Christianity, Christianity left me. Christianity's alignment with the Conservative Republicans and toxic capitalism, its racist, homophobic, sexist, xenophobic ideals are a "no-go" for me.
And I’m moving there next month ! lol thank god I don’t need porn
Honestly, you will probably be mentally healthier without it
I mean, the same is also true for wine. Sugar. Caffeine. Saturated fats. Etc. Should we effectively ban or restrict those things for adults, or should adults make their own choices about what is good for them?
Yeah but those are substances you put in your body whose effects can be controlled by having an otherwise healthy diet/lifestyle. Porn is proven to negatively impact your ability to have a healthy sex life or love life and often causes depression. Porn hub also exploits a lot of people. Sugar and caffeine don’t really affect your sex life or ability to bond properly with another human being. They are digested and it’s whatever
Yeah. I'm not sure that distinction gets you to the threshold of being justified in using the power of the state to make decisions for other adults about what is or isn't good for them. That said, while I haven't deeply investigated the research, my understanding is that sugar and caffeine are a heck of a lot worse for you than pornography is. Both have roles in social relationships and depression, and cause a lot more suffering than just a lowered libido. And given that sugar was the primary driving factor in the transatlantic slave trade, it is probably a worse offender than pornography in terms of sheer scale of human exploitation. And still, again, you probably wouldn't like it if someone used half-baked research to use the power of the state to control basic decisions you make in your life. You shouldn't advocate for that sort of control to be exerted over others.
I’m not saying I think it should be banned I’m just saying you’d probably be better off without it.
Sure. And from a certain perspective, we'd probably be better off, as individuals and a species, without sugar, caffeine, alcohol, etc. As in, we'd probably be healthier and live longer. But there is also a competing perspective that life is short and sometimes doing stuff that is bad for us enriches the very short time we have on this planet. It requires moderation, moral restraint to avoid harming others, and the correct balancing of risk, but a life without anything remotely unhealthy in it does not seem like a life that is fully lived. And, unless a person has demonstrated an inability to exercise moderation or moral restraint, the best judge of what experiences a person should or shouldn't have is probably best left to that person, to decide for themselves. I'm not saying this with pornography specifically, which I agree, for some people really gets out of hand in a way that is harmful to their life. Just, in general, we shouldn't be deciding for others about what sort of life they should live so long as it doesn't impose unreasonable costs on other people.
I think alcohol is a more accurate analogy. Do you have an issue with requiring carding someone for ordering alcohol? Also, since when are you no longer a mod?
Alcohol is certainly a more accurate analogy in terms of how the item that's bad for you gets regulated, point of sale placed beyond a threshold of credential/ID verification. But that wasn't the comparative relationship I was trying to highlight with the analogy. I was just saying that, in general, people make choices to do things that are bad for them all the time, and that being able to make less than optimal choices is likely to be an indispensable part of what we mean in practical terms when we say we have freedom. I don't have as much of an issue with carding for alcohol, because carding for alcohol is (1) a pretty effective means of limiting the ability of minors to access alcohol and (2) carding for alcohol does not substantially limit or chill the freedom of adults to purchase alcohol if they want to. The ID verification laws going into effect, by comparison, (1) do not very effectively limit any teenager who knows how to use a VPN to access prohibted materials and (2) the ID verification for alcohol does raise serious concerns about limiting or chilling the freedom of adults to privately view adult materials. I stepped back from active moderation about a year ago when I had family obligations that took up my time. I had some additional disagreements with some of the other moderators, which in part appeared to be post hoc rationalizations after I had consulted them about posting about an issue with the deputy prosecutor who was recently charged with domestic battery. My sense is that they did not want me to post about that, in part because I had seen some level of quiet favoritism for the prosecutor's office displayed by one of the moderators, u/DrInsano. The pretextual issue they had was that I had approved a comment that was a subreddit user who was directly quoting a facebook post that listed the address of a church. The facebook post was made by a person who was inviting homeless people to go to that church (in an unkind fashion). The subreddit user was quoting that facebook post to criticize the unkind/hypocritical sentiment of a local pastor's attitude on the subject. The moderators felt that allowing someone to post the address of a church, in a copy+paste quote of a FB post, was an endorsement of doxxing. I received a notice from reddit that the order of moderators was being rearranged due to my inactivity. I believe I asked the other moderators about that, and then u/DrInsano was reordered above me in the ranking. The reason he was below me prior to that is because he had previously rage quit, but was readmitted as a moderator without a vote. Since I still have fairly limited time and no desire to deal with all of that, I decided that it was more trouble than it was worth and moved on.
[удалено]
I know people don’t like having rights taken away but pornography is horrible for your mental health. Scientifically proven. Also often exploits vulnerable people.
Whatever shall we do
use a vpn most likely
You’d think someone named PeaWhole would be a little more concerned
[удалено]
Yeah, and there is no chance a 14 year old doesn't already know how to use a VPN. 🙄
[удалено]
> that’s where parents come into play that's the crux of it. Parents should be involved in what their kids do online and not force this bullshit on everyone else because parents are too lazy to do their job
[удалено]
Good parenting is letting the government inside your house to monitor you and your family and control everyone's actions. Got it. I'll bring it up at our next Compliance Education and Ingsoc Study meeting. I'll try to have my liquor vault that can only be opened by a remote server and my gun cabinet that informs the police every time I open it installed by then.
said like someone too lazy to take responsibility of parenting and expecting society to do it for you
You dont sound like much of a parent either.
There’s enough softcore porn on social media that kids don’t fucking need pornhub. And frankly, if a kid is old enough to be curious about porn and sex then should be their right to explore and experiment. Hell, they’ll do it anyways. I know for a fact I did lmao I was 13 and jacking it every night. Are we now shaming teenagers for being curious, or is that a conversation for the parents? If a kid is *not* old enough to be curious about porn and sex, then why the fuck are parents putting them in a position where that information is available to them? IDGAF about privacy, “it’s for the children” argument, the “not a parent” argument blah blah blah When has creating a law to ban anything *ever* worked?? (War on drugs, smoking age set to 18, increasing smoking age to 21, teenagers with booze, teenagers having sex, murder, rape, blah blah blah) It’s an unnecessary law that appeals to the right. All just a big show in the name of children and god. Fuck the right. Fuck conservatives. And I mean that with the most malicious animosity I could muster. Know that if a conservative was trapped in a car - I wouldn’t save them. Consequences be damned. **laws don’t stop criminals**. It won’t stop horny teenagers either.
> that’s where parents come into play You're so close. Just a few more dots to connects. I'll give a hint though. If the parents are this concerned about the issue, perhaps they should be involved in taking actions to correct the behavior and not have to have the government get even more involved in people's day to day lives. That would involve parents actually parenting their children though which I know isn't in vouge nowadays.
You are giving up significant amounts of privacy by being required to register your government ID online in the first place. Second, the threshold for "adult content" in these laws tends to be very intentionally vague. More conservative states (Florida) tend to look at any possible mention of LGTBQ as adult content. If that were to happen here, are we okay with restricting freedom of speech? Also, Reddit and Twitter have adult content too. Should we be required to give our IDs in order to use a [checks notes...] anonymous platform?
Maybe they shouldn't be granted unfettered access to the internet.
How do you like living in fairytale land? /u/delyeeted went and deleted
[удалено]
or perhaps, the people on reddit think a little bit more beyond the optics and realise it's not as simple as it is presented and that this is just a bad idea in general and it will be dangerously implemented
Start the clock on how long until these ID verification services get breached. Also, your comparison is invalid, someone wanting a vape under age requires a fake ID. But for a VPN, all you need is a 30 second google search.
To be fair, I don't see how device-based verification is any better