The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
More Pr0n
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Views on the desired legality of pornography in the US, from 2010-2018 for contemporary relevance:

Hardcore pornography is a couple of clicks away for anyone with internet access despite just 4% of the public thinking it should not be subject to legal restriction. Almost one-third of the population believes it should be outlawed completely while nearly two-thirds think it should be inaccessible to those under the age of 18.

It is interesting to contrast this with racist speech, something a majority of people (59%) believe should not be subject to legal restrictions.

While nearly everyone thinks pornography should at least be illegal for minors, the idea that this will ever translate into actual law is laughable. Putatively racist speech, on the other hand–well, our philosopher-kings know phrases like “it’s okay” are most certainly not okay. Eighteen year-olds from broken homes having all orifices penetrated simultaneously? What harm could that do to anyone?

GSS variables used: PORNLAW, RACECEN1(1)(2)(3)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), RELIG(3)(9), SPKRAC

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology, Science • Tags: GSS, Polling, Pornography 
Hide 200 CommentsLeave a Comment
200 Comments to "More Pr0n"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. I would like to be the first to point out my fellow chosen people are obviously leading the way on pornography being fully legal. I believe you unwashed goy should follow, regardless of the consequences, into this bright and shiny future of questionably stitched and tucked colored women.

    • Replies: @14wordstofreedom
    You beat me! I’ll just add that even though our host is not a racist antisemite like I am, merely looking for objective truth can make one look that way. Because the Jews as a group are objectively horrible.
    , @Almost Missouri
    Besides the not entirely surprising Jewish position, it is a kind of unusual ethnic constellation. I can't think of too many things where blacks and Asians almost identically agree (to be more porn-tolerant) while whites, Hispanics, feather Indians and Muslims hold down the conservative wing.

    If the question were about alcohol, narcotics or gambling, for instance, would it reshuffle the ethnic order?
    , @Audacious Epigone
    7 in 8 Jews don't think minors should be able to view pornography. They're relatively libertine, but let's not get too carried away!
    , @TheJester
    Jews advocate legalizing pornography (for adults anyway) ...

    Does this fold back on the problems that Jewish men find with Jewish women, which is why over 50% of the men are marrying shiksas ... the highest rate of intermarriage for any traditional faith? Sounds pretty serious when considering the large number angry Jewish women rebounding (a euphemism for getting revenge) in the feminist and @MeToo movements.
  2. Why does one group support legality at 2x-4x the rate of the others I wonder?

    • Replies: @anon
    Easy does it, Tusk.

    Audacious Epigone says: "There are so many other places on the internet for the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the Joos, though, that I wish some people here could give it a break. It’s enfeebling."
     
    , @Mick Jagger gathers no Mosque
    Because porn destroys Christian culture for one can not pray and masturbate at the same time.

    Lust leads to spiritual blindness
  3. For hispanic there is a big difference between US and foreign born.

  4. Something of a shot over the bow towards lolbertarians. The idea that one-third wants total illegality is something of a surprise.

    If we were dreaming up a law, presumably it could be written as to delist pornography from the main search engines, and to force ISPs to age gate computers and mobile devices. Rather easy to trojan horse “Internet ID” in here.

    Law is a poor substitute for virtue.

    Efforts might be more effective to slap more regulations onto production, chasing it out of the country.

    • Replies: @anon

    If we were dreaming up a law, presumably it could be written as to delist pornography from the main search engines, and to force ISPs to age gate computers and mobile devices. Rather easy to trojan horse “Internet ID” in here.
     
    why not just move all porn to XXX tld? and then do something to prevent access to that tld from most computers until users sign up or something

    it's odd to hear all these leftist pro-censorship types talking about "protecting children" from opinions or ideas that might hurt their feelings about but they do nothing to protect them from porn
    , @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Law is a poor substitute for virtue.

     

    When the laws and dictates of the state are specifically meant to stamp out virtue, countervailing laws must come into play to give virtue a chance to grow.
    , @Lars Porsena
    Just ban free porn and force people to use credit cards.

    Bam, age restrictions.
  5. anon[359] • Disclaimer says:
    @216
    Something of a shot over the bow towards lolbertarians. The idea that one-third wants total illegality is something of a surprise.

    If we were dreaming up a law, presumably it could be written as to delist pornography from the main search engines, and to force ISPs to age gate computers and mobile devices. Rather easy to trojan horse "Internet ID" in here.

    Law is a poor substitute for virtue.

    Efforts might be more effective to slap more regulations onto production, chasing it out of the country.

    If we were dreaming up a law, presumably it could be written as to delist pornography from the main search engines, and to force ISPs to age gate computers and mobile devices. Rather easy to trojan horse “Internet ID” in here.

    why not just move all porn to XXX tld? and then do something to prevent access to that tld from most computers until users sign up or something

    it’s odd to hear all these leftist pro-censorship types talking about “protecting children” from opinions or ideas that might hurt their feelings about but they do nothing to protect them from porn

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Crypto-Brythonic
    Something like that will be coming into effect soon in the UK, with automatic blocking of porn sites unless you request otherwise

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_verification_system#United_Kingdom
    , @Dissident

    it’s odd to hear all these leftist pro-censorship types talking about “protecting children” from opinions or ideas that might hurt their feelings about but they do nothing to protect them from porn
     
    Any more odd than any number of other pointed combinations that are also quite prevalent among Respectables?

    Take, for example, the increased pressure that pornography has placed upon even shockingly young girls to perform the depraved acts it glorifies. How much have the preening scolds you allude-to even so much as said, let alone done, about that? Or about the degradation of the women who perform in the filth-in-question? (We are, as the individuals-in-question never cease to remind us, talking here of self-proclaimed champions and defenders of the fairer sex.)

    Then there are the rich examples of self-contradiction and hypocrisy on the part of Goodthinkers that their worship of LGBTQ degeneracy provides. Sexual mutilation of confused and mentally ill children? 'Enlightened treatment', increasingly compulsory. The well-documented link between homosexuality and pederasty? Try raising the topic on a Respectable forum and see how long you last. Or even just the incontrovertible hate-facts that show anal buggery for the inordinately disease-promoting, utterly unnatural, inherently violent act it manifestly is. An act that the now de rigueur normalization of homosexuality requires presenting to children as a perfectly wholesome variant of coitus.

    How many struggling, confused adolescent boys have been ruined by such pernicious indoctrination? How many might, if not for it, ultimately have settled into heterosexuality? Or at least have embraced a less damaging, less depraved form of homosexuality, such as FROT*? (*Graphic content)

    All kinds of corruption of and harm to children that, in many cases is not only tolerated by Respectables but actually sanctioned, promoted and extolled by them. But try to do something harmless, like practice your legal right to photograph children frolicking about in a public park? The very same Respectables are likely to call the police or even harrass you.
  6. @anon

    If we were dreaming up a law, presumably it could be written as to delist pornography from the main search engines, and to force ISPs to age gate computers and mobile devices. Rather easy to trojan horse “Internet ID” in here.
     
    why not just move all porn to XXX tld? and then do something to prevent access to that tld from most computers until users sign up or something

    it's odd to hear all these leftist pro-censorship types talking about "protecting children" from opinions or ideas that might hurt their feelings about but they do nothing to protect them from porn

    Something like that will be coming into effect soon in the UK, with automatic blocking of porn sites unless you request otherwise

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_verification_system#United_Kingdom

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    Be interesting to see how that pans out - I can't see the Great British Public handing over their credit card details or similar ID to some government "Yes, I'm a porn watcher!" list - if nothing else it would become a huge hacking target.

    I know a guy who did IT for a large UK school and it was an ongoing battle between IT and (always male) pupils who were pretty creative at circumventing the porn filters on the school's computers.
    , @notanon

    Something like that will be coming into effect soon in the UK, with automatic blocking of porn sites unless you request otherwise
     
    they're using porn as an excuse to try and get rid of net anonymity.
  7. @Crypto-Brythonic
    Something like that will be coming into effect soon in the UK, with automatic blocking of porn sites unless you request otherwise

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_verification_system#United_Kingdom

    Be interesting to see how that pans out – I can’t see the Great British Public handing over their credit card details or similar ID to some government “Yes, I’m a porn watcher!” list – if nothing else it would become a huge hacking target.

    I know a guy who did IT for a large UK school and it was an ongoing battle between IT and (always male) pupils who were pretty creative at circumventing the porn filters on the school’s computers.

    • Replies: @Dissident

    I know a guy who did IT for a large UK school and it was an ongoing battle between IT and (always male) pupils who were pretty creative at circumventing the porn filters on the school’s computers.
     
    Looks like circumventing filters is not even always necessary:

    How schools and libraries across the country bring in hardcore pornography through commercial databases. Under the radar of parents!


    High schools, middle schools, and libraries across the US and abroad make hardcore pornography – both heterosexual and homosexual – available to children by contracting with large “information” database companies. Children get the access directly through the schools’ and libraries’ web portals.
     
  8. @Schlomo Shekelstein
    I would like to be the first to point out my fellow chosen people are obviously leading the way on pornography being fully legal. I believe you unwashed goy should follow, regardless of the consequences, into this bright and shiny future of questionably stitched and tucked colored women.

    You beat me! I’ll just add that even though our host is not a racist antisemite like I am, merely looking for objective truth can make one look that way. Because the Jews as a group are objectively horrible.

  9. @Schlomo Shekelstein
    I would like to be the first to point out my fellow chosen people are obviously leading the way on pornography being fully legal. I believe you unwashed goy should follow, regardless of the consequences, into this bright and shiny future of questionably stitched and tucked colored women.

    Besides the not entirely surprising Jewish position, it is a kind of unusual ethnic constellation. I can’t think of too many things where blacks and Asians almost identically agree (to be more porn-tolerant) while whites, Hispanics, feather Indians and Muslims hold down the conservative wing.

    If the question were about alcohol, narcotics or gambling, for instance, would it reshuffle the ethnic order?

    • Replies: @Wency
    The Amerindians are the truly surprising one to be leading the pack. I wonder if sample size here is large enough that difference between them and others is statistically significant or not.

    What even is the average self-identified Amerindian? I got curious. About 80% live off reservations, and most of these are racially mixed. The few I've known were culturally members of the white working or lower-middle class, mostly dating and marrying 100% white people.

    One thought is that since a lot of "Indians" could probably pass as white (or just flat-out ARE white -- E. Warren), and are culturally white, there might be something in particular that causes them to identify as Indian rather than white, and this trait might be more relevant in some surveys than the opinions and culture of pure-blooded Indians.

    The sex ratio was 103.4 among 25-34 year old Amerindians according to this link (dated 1990):
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK233091/

    Which is interesting, suggesting that men are more likely to consider themselves Indian, though we'd expect a male-skewed population to be more lenient on porn.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    What I found surprising is how relatively minor the differences are and how very few people approve of the widespread availability of porn.
  10. @216
    Something of a shot over the bow towards lolbertarians. The idea that one-third wants total illegality is something of a surprise.

    If we were dreaming up a law, presumably it could be written as to delist pornography from the main search engines, and to force ISPs to age gate computers and mobile devices. Rather easy to trojan horse "Internet ID" in here.

    Law is a poor substitute for virtue.

    Efforts might be more effective to slap more regulations onto production, chasing it out of the country.

    Law is a poor substitute for virtue.

    When the laws and dictates of the state are specifically meant to stamp out virtue, countervailing laws must come into play to give virtue a chance to grow.

  11. @Almost Missouri
    Besides the not entirely surprising Jewish position, it is a kind of unusual ethnic constellation. I can't think of too many things where blacks and Asians almost identically agree (to be more porn-tolerant) while whites, Hispanics, feather Indians and Muslims hold down the conservative wing.

    If the question were about alcohol, narcotics or gambling, for instance, would it reshuffle the ethnic order?

    The Amerindians are the truly surprising one to be leading the pack. I wonder if sample size here is large enough that difference between them and others is statistically significant or not.

    What even is the average self-identified Amerindian? I got curious. About 80% live off reservations, and most of these are racially mixed. The few I’ve known were culturally members of the white working or lower-middle class, mostly dating and marrying 100% white people.

    One thought is that since a lot of “Indians” could probably pass as white (or just flat-out ARE white — E. Warren), and are culturally white, there might be something in particular that causes them to identify as Indian rather than white, and this trait might be more relevant in some surveys than the opinions and culture of pure-blooded Indians.

    The sex ratio was 103.4 among 25-34 year old Amerindians according to this link (dated 1990):
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK233091/

    Which is interesting, suggesting that men are more likely to consider themselves Indian, though we’d expect a male-skewed population to be more lenient on porn.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Only 95 American Indians in the poll, the smallest racial sample by far, so take it as merely suggestive.
  12. Production or sale of pron should be illegal.

    We should not allow individuals to sell themselves into pron production, just like we shouldn’t allow an individual to sell themself into prostitution, and just like we should allow a person to sell themself into debt slavery (payday loans).

    • Replies: @anon
    You forgot: we should not allow individuals to sell themselves into wage slavery, whoring out their labor all day for a buck.
    , @Dissident

    Production or sale of pron should be illegal.
     
    Where would you draw the line? Where do you stand on softcore porn, such as that of the Playboy/Penthouse type variety?

    We should not allow individuals to sell themselves into pron production, just like we shouldn’t allow an individual to sell themself into prostitution, and just like we should allow a person to sell themself into debt slavery (payday loans).
     
    Forgive me, iffen, but I must question your final two uses of the pronoun themself.

    Even if gramatically defensible (and I must confess ignorance on that particular question), would not himself* be a better choice in the sentence of yours that I quoted above? Should we not take care to avoid even the mere appearance of concession to the Cult-Marx Language Commissars?

    *As French Prime Minister Édouard Philippe declared in November 2017, "The masculine is a neutral form that should be used for terms applicable to women as well as men." I learned of this surprising incident from the very next segment of the Radio Derb edition that I quoted ibid. Perhaps the flower of French manhood may yet blossom again?

  13. @Crypto-Brythonic
    Something like that will be coming into effect soon in the UK, with automatic blocking of porn sites unless you request otherwise

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_verification_system#United_Kingdom

    Something like that will be coming into effect soon in the UK, with automatic blocking of porn sites unless you request otherwise

    they’re using porn as an excuse to try and get rid of net anonymity.

  14. @Tusk
    Why does one group support legality at 2x-4x the rate of the others I wonder?

    Easy does it, Tusk.

    Audacious Epigone says: “There are so many other places on the internet for the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the Joos, though, that I wish some people here could give it a break. It’s enfeebling.”

  15. @iffen
    Production or sale of pron should be illegal.

    We should not allow individuals to sell themselves into pron production, just like we shouldn't allow an individual to sell themself into prostitution, and just like we should allow a person to sell themself into debt slavery (payday loans).

    You forgot: we should not allow individuals to sell themselves into wage slavery, whoring out their labor all day for a buck.

    • Agree: L Woods
    • Replies: @iffen
    I didn't forget. I don't see any economic system working other than capitalism. Wage slavery can be made tolerable with enlightened policies enacted into law.
    , @L Woods
    Funny how labor slavery/“trafficking” doesn’t seem to elicit the same high and mighty concern.
  16. @Tusk
    Why does one group support legality at 2x-4x the rate of the others I wonder?

    Because porn destroys Christian culture for one can not pray and masturbate at the same time.

    Lust leads to spiritual blindness

  17. @anon
    You forgot: we should not allow individuals to sell themselves into wage slavery, whoring out their labor all day for a buck.

    I didn’t forget. I don’t see any economic system working other than capitalism. Wage slavery can be made tolerable with enlightened policies enacted into law.

    • Replies: @anon
    Oh, so you say out of one side of your mouth that free-market capitalism is great. And out the other side that "we should not allow individuals to sell." Got whiplash yet?
    , @Dissident

    I don’t see any economic system working other than capitalism.
     
    Can what we have even legitimately be called capitalism? Would Adam Smith recognize it?
  18. Massive consumption of pornography is merely one symptom of a society in decline. Focusing on eliminating symptoms does not “cure” the disease. But focusing on symptoms allows us to avoid talking about the real causes of our decline.

    We can outlaw, ban, or make illegal all sorts of things: Porn, prostitution, gambling, drugs, unapproved usury, words, books, thoughts; whatever. It doesn’t address the fundamental issues. But it does create the need to for government armed tax collectors, prisons, magistrates, and bureaucrats. It also creates more criminals, of both the active and passive variety, and a black market in which they need to operate. The fact is, outlawing vice never works, and in my observation usually creates a situation worse than the alternative.

    However, address the fundamental issues of well functioning society: Homogeneous, high trust, hard working, family-centric, sacrificial, self sufficient, etc, and watch a more virtuous and moral population emerge. Generally speaking, a more moral and virtuous population desires not to engage in the vices listed above for the most part, certainly not to the extent our society currently does, and the remainder that do are a small and insignificant part of the overall population.

    • Agree: Mark G.
    • Replies: @notanon
    affordable family formation -> less porn consumption
    , @Anonymous
    Outlawing vice does work to restrict the supply and consumption of vice, which is the goal. There will always be criminals who supply and people who consume vice, but that's not an argument against restrictions on vice. The point is to raise the marginal cost of consuming vice. Most ordinary people will reduce consumption of a vice if it becomes too expensive and too much of a hassle to obtain.

    Addressing "the fundamental issues of well functioning society" is much more difficult than outlawing vice, and historically involved much more heavy handed policies, like executing destitute widows for minor theft:

    http://www.executedtoday.com/2017/10/16/1771-mary-jones-hanged-for-shoplifting/
    , @Bill

    The fact is, outlawing vice never works
     
    Let's stop punishing people for killing libertarians. It's counterproductive.
    , @Dissident

    Generally speaking, a more moral and virtuous population desires not to engage in the vices listed above for the most part, certainly not to the extent our society currently does, and the remainder that do are a small and insignificant part of the overall population.
     
    Generally speaking, a population that avoids the vices listed above tends to be a more moral and virtuous one.

    You make valid points but the cause-and-effect goes both ways. Porn is corrupting and corrosive.
  19. @MikeatMikedotMike
    Massive consumption of pornography is merely one symptom of a society in decline. Focusing on eliminating symptoms does not "cure" the disease. But focusing on symptoms allows us to avoid talking about the real causes of our decline.

    We can outlaw, ban, or make illegal all sorts of things: Porn, prostitution, gambling, drugs, unapproved usury, words, books, thoughts; whatever. It doesn't address the fundamental issues. But it does create the need to for government armed tax collectors, prisons, magistrates, and bureaucrats. It also creates more criminals, of both the active and passive variety, and a black market in which they need to operate. The fact is, outlawing vice never works, and in my observation usually creates a situation worse than the alternative.

    However, address the fundamental issues of well functioning society: Homogeneous, high trust, hard working, family-centric, sacrificial, self sufficient, etc, and watch a more virtuous and moral population emerge. Generally speaking, a more moral and virtuous population desires not to engage in the vices listed above for the most part, certainly not to the extent our society currently does, and the remainder that do are a small and insignificant part of the overall population.

    affordable family formation -> less porn consumption

    • Replies: @Rosie

    affordable family formation -> less porn consumption
     
    I also wonder if UBI would help. If you have a secure income, it seems you'd be less likely to allow yourself to be exploited this way.
  20. Eighteen year-olds from broken homes having all orifices penetrated simultaneously?

    On the right, we often take pride in the fact that science usually vindicates our views. One area in which this has not been the case is the science on child development. Adolescence appears to be a real biological thing, and it is actually quite long, so the modern trend of “extended adolescence” is actually more in keeping with our biological nature than the traditional view of early adulthood and responsibility. It is quite absurd to think that 18 year olds can consent to this.

    This chart should set the very minimum age where consent to such things should be valid, i.e, where impulse control begins to exceed sensation-seeking.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141164708
    , @Sean
    The days when an 18 year old had not already had every orifice penetrated before going into porn are gone. Vaginal delivery is a minority method of choice for childbirth in some WEIRD socio-economic groups.
    , @RSDB
    I'd be interested to know if they validated this study across different cultures.

    Humans are very social creatures and we often depend to a surprising extent on the societal climate around us.
    , @notanon
    definitely
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    21 was the age of majority in the UK for hundreds of years. It was when a young person living at home was given their own house key, signifying that their coming and going was no longer to be controlled by their parents. It was also the age when you could vote, and when you could be sent to an adult prison.

    This graph seems to confirm the wisdom of our elders.

    The age of majority was reduced to 18 in 1970, and there's an ongoing campaign to reduce it to 16, partially successful in politically pozzed (tho culturally far less so) Scotland.

    Although you can vote at 18, you still get sent to juvenile prison, and your parents are expected to pay towards your university education up to the age of 25!
    , @Feryl
    Outlawing teenagers from driving appears to be something that would dramatically increase safety in all countries. Car crash rates soared in the 1970's, when America had an extremely high number of teenagers (Boomers) driving around. In other decades, where our population was older and/or teenagers don't drive as much (like oh, the 2010's), car crash rates are much smaller.
  21. @Rosie

    Eighteen year-olds from broken homes having all orifices penetrated simultaneously?
     
    On the right, we often take pride in the fact that science usually vindicates our views. One area in which this has not been the case is the science on child development. Adolescence appears to be a real biological thing, and it is actually quite long, so the modern trend of "extended adolescence" is actually more in keeping with our biological nature than the traditional view of early adulthood and responsibility. It is quite absurd to think that 18 year olds can consent to this.

    This chart should set the very minimum age where consent to such things should be valid, i.e, where impulse control begins to exceed sensation-seeking.

    http://www.macmillanhighered.com/BrainHoney/Resource/22292/digital_first_content/trunk/test/pel4e/asset/img_ch3/myerspel4e_fig_3_14.jpg

    • Replies: @Bill
    This is absurd. They are apparently talking about studies done in contemporary, developed countries. "You right wing weenies are wrong that extended adolescence is bad: our brain scanners demonstrate conclusively that extended adolescence exists."

    Why is NPR interested in this?

    In a minute, we're going to be hearing from some advocates who think that the foster care system needs to be changed, in that in some states, when you reach the age of 18, you are booted out of foster care and their argument is based on some of the research that you are now citing that these young people are not really ready for the adult world.
     
  22. @notanon
    affordable family formation -> less porn consumption

    affordable family formation -> less porn consumption

    I also wonder if UBI would help. If you have a secure income, it seems you’d be less likely to allow yourself to be exploited this way.

    • Agree: iffen, Bill
  23. @Rosie

    Eighteen year-olds from broken homes having all orifices penetrated simultaneously?
     
    On the right, we often take pride in the fact that science usually vindicates our views. One area in which this has not been the case is the science on child development. Adolescence appears to be a real biological thing, and it is actually quite long, so the modern trend of "extended adolescence" is actually more in keeping with our biological nature than the traditional view of early adulthood and responsibility. It is quite absurd to think that 18 year olds can consent to this.

    This chart should set the very minimum age where consent to such things should be valid, i.e, where impulse control begins to exceed sensation-seeking.

    http://www.macmillanhighered.com/BrainHoney/Resource/22292/digital_first_content/trunk/test/pel4e/asset/img_ch3/myerspel4e_fig_3_14.jpg

    The days when an 18 year old had not already had every orifice penetrated before going into porn are gone. Vaginal delivery is a minority method of choice for childbirth in some WEIRD socio-economic groups.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    The days when an 18 year old had not already had every orifice penetrated before going into porn are gone.
     
    I don't know if that's true or not, but why would it matter in any case?
  24. @Rosie

    Eighteen year-olds from broken homes having all orifices penetrated simultaneously?
     
    On the right, we often take pride in the fact that science usually vindicates our views. One area in which this has not been the case is the science on child development. Adolescence appears to be a real biological thing, and it is actually quite long, so the modern trend of "extended adolescence" is actually more in keeping with our biological nature than the traditional view of early adulthood and responsibility. It is quite absurd to think that 18 year olds can consent to this.

    This chart should set the very minimum age where consent to such things should be valid, i.e, where impulse control begins to exceed sensation-seeking.

    http://www.macmillanhighered.com/BrainHoney/Resource/22292/digital_first_content/trunk/test/pel4e/asset/img_ch3/myerspel4e_fig_3_14.jpg

    I’d be interested to know if they validated this study across different cultures.

    Humans are very social creatures and we often depend to a surprising extent on the societal climate around us.

  25. @Sean
    The days when an 18 year old had not already had every orifice penetrated before going into porn are gone. Vaginal delivery is a minority method of choice for childbirth in some WEIRD socio-economic groups.

    The days when an 18 year old had not already had every orifice penetrated before going into porn are gone.

    I don’t know if that’s true or not, but why would it matter in any case?

    • Replies: @Sean
    The drive to restrict access to porn is being led by people who are worried about the effect it has on boys in regards what they think can be expected of a girlfriend, specifically in normalising peculiar sex among the young, as shown by a remarkable increase in anal sex among teens. As for stopping 21 year olds working in the adult industry I have heard a woman performer (Asa Akira) say that 18 is too young and it should be 21 , but there is still hooking--which the girls all do-- so those 18 year olds who head for LA, would just do that for a couple of years. They escort with Hollywood studio people and others in the orbit of mainstream LA celebrity, which seems to be the main attraction. As was being said when California was threatening to make condoms compulsory for porn, if the industry moved to Illinois their supply of fresh meat would dry up.

    Being a white advocate is probabally a lot more devastating to one's life chances than appearing in pornography. That Duke student who appeared in porn has since got taken on at a law firm, which I dare say would not have happened if she had been outed as saying it is all right to be white. A girl going into porn at 18 has at least a chance of becoming a multi millionaire by the time she is 21 years' old. Sasha Grey did it. If you are worried about 18 year olds flushing their life down the crapper before they are old enough to really understand what they are doing, then then publicly expressing pride or even lack of guilt about being white is what you should say they are too young to do before turning 21.
  26. @Rosie

    Eighteen year-olds from broken homes having all orifices penetrated simultaneously?
     
    On the right, we often take pride in the fact that science usually vindicates our views. One area in which this has not been the case is the science on child development. Adolescence appears to be a real biological thing, and it is actually quite long, so the modern trend of "extended adolescence" is actually more in keeping with our biological nature than the traditional view of early adulthood and responsibility. It is quite absurd to think that 18 year olds can consent to this.

    This chart should set the very minimum age where consent to such things should be valid, i.e, where impulse control begins to exceed sensation-seeking.

    http://www.macmillanhighered.com/BrainHoney/Resource/22292/digital_first_content/trunk/test/pel4e/asset/img_ch3/myerspel4e_fig_3_14.jpg

    definitely

  27. i have a mixed view on this.

    i agree with all the anti-porn arguments but i want a completely uncensorable internet for long-term political meme-evolution reasons.

    • Replies: @216
    The Internet may cause an atrophy of traditional "shoe leather" organizing. I've never attended a single political rally/meeting in my life, nor have I ever been a member of any politics-related club.

    DSA was a marginal movement of old leftists when I was in university, but today its the most popular political organization on campuses. Anyone right-wing in university should consider joining to learn their organizational and recruitment methods.
  28. @notanon
    i have a mixed view on this.

    i agree with all the anti-porn arguments but i want a completely uncensorable internet for long-term political meme-evolution reasons.

    The Internet may cause an atrophy of traditional “shoe leather” organizing. I’ve never attended a single political rally/meeting in my life, nor have I ever been a member of any politics-related club.

    DSA was a marginal movement of old leftists when I was in university, but today its the most popular political organization on campuses. Anyone right-wing in university should consider joining to learn their organizational and recruitment methods.

    • Agree: Sean, YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @216
    Interesting

    https://twitter.com/AndrewQuackson/status/1122613481491062785

    Perhaps I should try this
  29. @216
    Something of a shot over the bow towards lolbertarians. The idea that one-third wants total illegality is something of a surprise.

    If we were dreaming up a law, presumably it could be written as to delist pornography from the main search engines, and to force ISPs to age gate computers and mobile devices. Rather easy to trojan horse "Internet ID" in here.

    Law is a poor substitute for virtue.

    Efforts might be more effective to slap more regulations onto production, chasing it out of the country.

    Just ban free porn and force people to use credit cards.

    Bam, age restrictions.

    • Replies: @notanon
    bam, remove internet anonymity
    , @Sean
    That would reverse the effect of the Supreme Court's 1973 Miller decision.The 1973 film The Devil in Miss Jones was ranked number seven in the Variety list of the top ten highest-grossing pictures of 1973, despite lacking the wide release and professional marketing of Hollywood and having been virtually banned across the country for half the year. Hollywood has always hated hard porn, and it became obvious that box-office returns of very low-budget adult erotic films could fund further advances in the technical and production values of porn, making it extremely competitive with Hollywood films. There was concern that, left unchecked, the vast profitability of such films would lead to Hollywood being influenced by pornography. Miller put a stop to that.

    Preventing the pirating of porn would make it vastly more profitable and result in porn being much a more lucrative career. The productions would be far better, and the girls would get much better looking. Do you really want porn to look as good as a Hollywood movie?

  30. @Rosie

    The days when an 18 year old had not already had every orifice penetrated before going into porn are gone.
     
    I don't know if that's true or not, but why would it matter in any case?

    The drive to restrict access to porn is being led by people who are worried about the effect it has on boys in regards what they think can be expected of a girlfriend, specifically in normalising peculiar sex among the young, as shown by a remarkable increase in anal sex among teens. As for stopping 21 year olds working in the adult industry I have heard a woman performer (Asa Akira) say that 18 is too young and it should be 21 , but there is still hooking–which the girls all do– so those 18 year olds who head for LA, would just do that for a couple of years. They escort with Hollywood studio people and others in the orbit of mainstream LA celebrity, which seems to be the main attraction. As was being said when California was threatening to make condoms compulsory for porn, if the industry moved to Illinois their supply of fresh meat would dry up.

    Being a white advocate is probabally a lot more devastating to one’s life chances than appearing in pornography. That Duke student who appeared in porn has since got taken on at a law firm, which I dare say would not have happened if she had been outed as saying it is all right to be white. A girl going into porn at 18 has at least a chance of becoming a multi millionaire by the time she is 21 years’ old. Sasha Grey did it. If you are worried about 18 year olds flushing their life down the crapper before they are old enough to really understand what they are doing, then then publicly expressing pride or even lack of guilt about being white is what you should say they are too young to do before turning 21.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    If you are worried about 18 year olds flushing their life down the crapper before they are old enough to really understand what they are doing, then then publicly expressing pride or even lack of guilt about being white is what you should say they are too young to do before turning 21.
     
    That is only part of it. The other part is the damage to their dignity and self-worth.

    As for stopping 21 year olds working in the adult industry I have heard a woman performer (Asa Akira) say that 18 is too young and it should be 21 , but there is still hooking–which the girls all do– so those 18 year olds who head for LA, would just do that for a couple of years.
     
    At least it wouldn't be published for mass consumption.
    , @216

    The drive to restrict access to porn is being led by people who are worried about the effect it has on boys in regards what they think can be expected of a girlfriend, specifically in normalising peculiar sex among the young, as shown by a remarkable increase in anal sex among teens.
     
    This is a good summary of the mainstream argument, but the manosphere argument is a bit different.

    The manosphere argument is that pron:

    -saps energy
    -reduces interest in meeting women
    -wastes time

    Some MGTOW will claim those factors to be beneficial.

    Additional arguments from the politically-inclined manosphere, Roosh etc:

    -population control
    -psychological warfare
    -Jewish conspiracy
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Being a white advocate is probabally a lot more devastating to one’s life chances than appearing in pornography.

    It's probably more devastating to one's life chances than committing various felonies are.
    , @Dissident

    The drive to restrict access to porn is being led by people who are worried about the effect it has on boys in regards what they think can be expected of a girlfriend, specifically in normalising peculiar sex among the young, as shown by a remarkable increase in anal sex among teens.
     
    On the topic of an increase in heterosexual buggery (anal coitus), I have no doubt that the influence of porn is at least a major contributing factor.

    But what about the normalizing of homosexuality? How much of a role has it played in the normalization of heterosexual buggery? Remember, an essential compononent of the nomralization of homosexuality is the whitewashing, promotion and normalization of the specific practice of anal penetration, a.k.a. buggery.

    How many teenage boys, I wonder, have played the homophobia card on a reluctant girl in order to intimdate her into subjecting to this vile, unhygenic act? What's the matter, Susie? You're not homophobic now, are you?!
  31. @Lars Porsena
    Just ban free porn and force people to use credit cards.

    Bam, age restrictions.

    bam, remove internet anonymity

    • Replies: @Lars Porsena
    Only for porn.
  32. @Sean
    The drive to restrict access to porn is being led by people who are worried about the effect it has on boys in regards what they think can be expected of a girlfriend, specifically in normalising peculiar sex among the young, as shown by a remarkable increase in anal sex among teens. As for stopping 21 year olds working in the adult industry I have heard a woman performer (Asa Akira) say that 18 is too young and it should be 21 , but there is still hooking--which the girls all do-- so those 18 year olds who head for LA, would just do that for a couple of years. They escort with Hollywood studio people and others in the orbit of mainstream LA celebrity, which seems to be the main attraction. As was being said when California was threatening to make condoms compulsory for porn, if the industry moved to Illinois their supply of fresh meat would dry up.

    Being a white advocate is probabally a lot more devastating to one's life chances than appearing in pornography. That Duke student who appeared in porn has since got taken on at a law firm, which I dare say would not have happened if she had been outed as saying it is all right to be white. A girl going into porn at 18 has at least a chance of becoming a multi millionaire by the time she is 21 years' old. Sasha Grey did it. If you are worried about 18 year olds flushing their life down the crapper before they are old enough to really understand what they are doing, then then publicly expressing pride or even lack of guilt about being white is what you should say they are too young to do before turning 21.

    If you are worried about 18 year olds flushing their life down the crapper before they are old enough to really understand what they are doing, then then publicly expressing pride or even lack of guilt about being white is what you should say they are too young to do before turning 21.

    That is only part of it. The other part is the damage to their dignity and self-worth.

    As for stopping 21 year olds working in the adult industry I have heard a woman performer (Asa Akira) say that 18 is too young and it should be 21 , but there is still hooking–which the girls all do– so those 18 year olds who head for LA, would just do that for a couple of years.

    At least it wouldn’t be published for mass consumption.

    • Replies: @216

    At least it wouldn’t be published for mass consumption.
     
    So-called "camgirls" are perhaps less anti-social and less victimized than "porn stars". RedPillers tend to vilify camgirls even more, because of their supposed tax evasion and the emotional exploitation towards the beta male customer. Hypocritically, the infamous Andrew Tate is a camgirl pimp.

    This is why I tend towards the "state-owned vice" model. Having vice industries with DMV-level efficiency would deglamorize the industry and shift its profits into the Treasury. Pron has followed the path of other social media towards monopoly, but with no "Netflix" equivalent of centralized paid streaming.
  33. @Lars Porsena
    Just ban free porn and force people to use credit cards.

    Bam, age restrictions.

    That would reverse the effect of the Supreme Court’s 1973 Miller decision.The 1973 film The Devil in Miss Jones was ranked number seven in the Variety list of the top ten highest-grossing pictures of 1973, despite lacking the wide release and professional marketing of Hollywood and having been virtually banned across the country for half the year. Hollywood has always hated hard porn, and it became obvious that box-office returns of very low-budget adult erotic films could fund further advances in the technical and production values of porn, making it extremely competitive with Hollywood films. There was concern that, left unchecked, the vast profitability of such films would lead to Hollywood being influenced by pornography. Miller put a stop to that.

    Preventing the pirating of porn would make it vastly more profitable and result in porn being much a more lucrative career. The productions would be far better, and the girls would get much better looking. Do you really want porn to look as good as a Hollywood movie?

    • Replies: @Lars Porsena

    the vast profitability of such films would lead to Hollywood being influenced by pornography. Miller put a stop to that.
     
    Well it didn't work.

    Preventing the pirating of porn would make it vastly more profitable and result in porn being much a more lucrative career.
     
    But it would also make it much more inaccessible to adolescents (and even more difficult/embarrassing for a lot of adults). What's the social effect of free porn omnipresent and available to everyone all the time by default?

    Not sure the producers would pay the actors any more instead of just pocketing the difference. There is still supply and demand in effect on the labor market and nowadays people are making porn for free without even needing to be paid.

    The productions would be far better, ... Do you really want porn to look as good as a Hollywood movie?
     
    Is this a problem for getting women interested in porn for costume design? Who is watching porn for that or gives a crap? From what I've seen of internet porn it's all hardcore now they don't even pretend at having a story or characters like back in 70's porn flicks where the pizza guy shows up and they exchange bad puns, they are just screwing.
    , @anon

    The Devil in Miss Jones was ranked number seven in the Variety list of the top ten highest-grossing pictures of 1973, despite lacking the wide release and professional marketing of Hollywood and having been virtually banned across the country for half the year.
     
    why would you believe that?

    what is it based on, did the producers of the film let Variety see their books?

    how would Variety even know to consider a porn film as a top grossing picture, were they tipped off by the producers?

    all these media outlets have an agenda
  34. @notanon
    bam, remove internet anonymity

    Only for porn.

    • Replies: @216
    The state would quickly abuse that power, just as it exploited the anti-terrorism measures in the Patriot Act to go after tax evasion.
    , @notanon
    way i see it the bad guys wanted free porn to damage trad morality so why would they suddenly change their mind after Trump/Brexit?
  35. @Sean
    That would reverse the effect of the Supreme Court's 1973 Miller decision.The 1973 film The Devil in Miss Jones was ranked number seven in the Variety list of the top ten highest-grossing pictures of 1973, despite lacking the wide release and professional marketing of Hollywood and having been virtually banned across the country for half the year. Hollywood has always hated hard porn, and it became obvious that box-office returns of very low-budget adult erotic films could fund further advances in the technical and production values of porn, making it extremely competitive with Hollywood films. There was concern that, left unchecked, the vast profitability of such films would lead to Hollywood being influenced by pornography. Miller put a stop to that.

    Preventing the pirating of porn would make it vastly more profitable and result in porn being much a more lucrative career. The productions would be far better, and the girls would get much better looking. Do you really want porn to look as good as a Hollywood movie?

    the vast profitability of such films would lead to Hollywood being influenced by pornography. Miller put a stop to that.

    Well it didn’t work.

    Preventing the pirating of porn would make it vastly more profitable and result in porn being much a more lucrative career.

    But it would also make it much more inaccessible to adolescents (and even more difficult/embarrassing for a lot of adults). What’s the social effect of free porn omnipresent and available to everyone all the time by default?

    Not sure the producers would pay the actors any more instead of just pocketing the difference. There is still supply and demand in effect on the labor market and nowadays people are making porn for free without even needing to be paid.

    The productions would be far better, … Do you really want porn to look as good as a Hollywood movie?

    Is this a problem for getting women interested in porn for costume design? Who is watching porn for that or gives a crap? From what I’ve seen of internet porn it’s all hardcore now they don’t even pretend at having a story or characters like back in 70’s porn flicks where the pizza guy shows up and they exchange bad puns, they are just screwing.

    • Replies: @Dissident

    What’s the social effect of free porn omnipresent and available to everyone all the time by default?
     
    Seems rather obvious to me that there are a number of effects. One such effect would appear to be evidenced in the the following comments that I came across at an online forum, around five years ago, while doing some research.

    Has Porn Effected peoples Sex lives

    Posted: 2/18/2013 8:53:45 AM
    [...]I've been with more than a few whose sexual "skills" were based off of what they watched in porn movies and honestly believed they were doing something great in the bedroom.

    When I finally had the pleasure to have sex with a man that REALLY knew what he was doing, I had to ask his source of enlightenment. His answer? "I didn't grow up watching porn."
     

    Posted: 1/11/2014 1:08:02 PM

    I have had a female friend tell me that some young guys that grew up with internet porn are very different in bed. She said they don't seem to understand that sex is more than hard banging without real intimacy and that they view women more as objects to use than people. I'm sure this is not true of the majority of younger guys, at least I hope not.
     
  36. @Sean
    The drive to restrict access to porn is being led by people who are worried about the effect it has on boys in regards what they think can be expected of a girlfriend, specifically in normalising peculiar sex among the young, as shown by a remarkable increase in anal sex among teens. As for stopping 21 year olds working in the adult industry I have heard a woman performer (Asa Akira) say that 18 is too young and it should be 21 , but there is still hooking--which the girls all do-- so those 18 year olds who head for LA, would just do that for a couple of years. They escort with Hollywood studio people and others in the orbit of mainstream LA celebrity, which seems to be the main attraction. As was being said when California was threatening to make condoms compulsory for porn, if the industry moved to Illinois their supply of fresh meat would dry up.

    Being a white advocate is probabally a lot more devastating to one's life chances than appearing in pornography. That Duke student who appeared in porn has since got taken on at a law firm, which I dare say would not have happened if she had been outed as saying it is all right to be white. A girl going into porn at 18 has at least a chance of becoming a multi millionaire by the time she is 21 years' old. Sasha Grey did it. If you are worried about 18 year olds flushing their life down the crapper before they are old enough to really understand what they are doing, then then publicly expressing pride or even lack of guilt about being white is what you should say they are too young to do before turning 21.

    The drive to restrict access to porn is being led by people who are worried about the effect it has on boys in regards what they think can be expected of a girlfriend, specifically in normalising peculiar sex among the young, as shown by a remarkable increase in anal sex among teens.

    This is a good summary of the mainstream argument, but the manosphere argument is a bit different.

    The manosphere argument is that pron:

    -saps energy
    -reduces interest in meeting women
    -wastes time

    Some MGTOW will claim those factors to be beneficial.

    Additional arguments from the politically-inclined manosphere, Roosh etc:

    -population control
    -psychological warfare
    -Jewish conspiracy

    • Replies: @Sean
    Re, -Jewish conspiracy.For encouraging mastrubation (he had done nothing else to merit it) Hugh Hefner was given the ADL's freedom award in 1980. Joseph Paul Franklin (who Pierce dedicated Hunter* to) shot Larry Flynt.

    Nietzsche wrote:


    “The reabsorption of semen by the blood is the strongest nourishment and, perhaps more than any other factor, it prompts the stimulus of power, the unrest of all forces toward the overcoming of resistances, the thirst for contradiction and resistance. The feeling of power has so far mounted highest in abstinent priests and hermits (for example, among the Brahmans).”
     
    Fun fact: even as a youth, Adolph Hitler never mastrubated (ref The Psychopathic God). I don't know whether abstaining is more likely to make you believe in a Jewish conspiracy, but I am certain leaving yourself alone is more likely to make you do something very serious about any putative conspiracy you might believe in.

    Hunter ...asks the question, "How should an honorable man confront evil ?"Should he ignore it, with the excuse that it is not his responsibility/ Should he ally himself with the evil, because that’s where the "smart money" is ? Or should he take up arms against it and fight it with all his strength and without regard for the personal consequences, even though he must fight alone ?
     
  37. The genie is out of the bottle.

    Technology is simply too advanced and easily accessible to prevent porn from being created and spread. If you take away “easy” access, people will just create alternate access.

    Anyone with a smartphone, cheap video camera, etc – can create porn. Anyone with a torrent account, access to sites, etc can upload it.

    Can’t remove the ability to make it (in the USA, only one region permits porn to be made legally, all other regions and states have criminal prosecution for creating and/or distributing sex acts) In spite of the illegality of it, it is made everywhere in the 50 states.

    The only thing they could do is try to prevent easy ways to access it and that, well, is a losing proposition. They closed down Craigslist adult channel, Backpage openeded up, they closed backpage, bedpage opened up. They’re trying to close that down, Tinder happened, then grinder. You also have seeking arrangement pages, etc. The same sort of thing would happen with porn, close down pornhub and a dozen more sites will open. Even if you ban all sites, then it just goes dark web.

    And, honestly, the government would rather teenage boys see nekked ladies getting pegged then a slew of people delving in to the dark web, seeing all that you can find and what it offers.

    At worse, they’ll make great show and pomp going after them once or twice and then when “bad orange man” or whomever is next says, tweets something, the news cycle will move on.

    Tech and sex always wins.

    • Replies: @216

    The genie is out of the bottle.

    Technology is simply too advanced and easily accessible to prevent porn from being created and spread. If you take away “easy” access, people will just create alternate access.
     
    I'm not so sure. Read this

    https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/a3xgq5/why-wont-twitter-treat-white-supremacy-like-isis-because-it-would-mean-banning-some-republican-politicians-too

    Anyone with a smartphone, cheap video camera, etc – can create porn. Anyone with a torrent account, access to sites, etc can upload it.
     
    How much pron is on YouTube? They clearly have some way to keep it off.

    They’re trying to close that down, Tinder happened, then grinder.
     
    Tinder is owned by IAC, a transnational corporation controlled by a Hollywood macher. It's not going anywhere, though I'm amazed at the extent that it has been unregulated. This is because it harms most men, and benefits women.

    The same sort of thing would happen with porn, close down pornhub and a dozen more sites will open. Even if you ban all sites, then it just goes dark web.
     
    Almost all of the pron sites are owned by the same company, Mindgeek, one of the largest bandwidth consumers in the world. We can just nationalize that company, and most content will now be subject to censorship and punitive taxation.
  38. @Lars Porsena
    Only for porn.

    The state would quickly abuse that power, just as it exploited the anti-terrorism measures in the Patriot Act to go after tax evasion.

  39. @Rosie

    If you are worried about 18 year olds flushing their life down the crapper before they are old enough to really understand what they are doing, then then publicly expressing pride or even lack of guilt about being white is what you should say they are too young to do before turning 21.
     
    That is only part of it. The other part is the damage to their dignity and self-worth.

    As for stopping 21 year olds working in the adult industry I have heard a woman performer (Asa Akira) say that 18 is too young and it should be 21 , but there is still hooking–which the girls all do– so those 18 year olds who head for LA, would just do that for a couple of years.
     
    At least it wouldn't be published for mass consumption.

    At least it wouldn’t be published for mass consumption.

    So-called “camgirls” are perhaps less anti-social and less victimized than “porn stars”. RedPillers tend to vilify camgirls even more, because of their supposed tax evasion and the emotional exploitation towards the beta male customer. Hypocritically, the infamous Andrew Tate is a camgirl pimp.

    This is why I tend towards the “state-owned vice” model. Having vice industries with DMV-level efficiency would deglamorize the industry and shift its profits into the Treasury. Pron has followed the path of other social media towards monopoly, but with no “Netflix” equivalent of centralized paid streaming.

    • Replies: @Crypto-Brythonic
    Why does a camgirl need a pimp?
    , @Rosie

    This is why I tend towards the “state-owned vice” model.
     
    I don't know enough about it to have an opinion either way, but it sounds like an idea worth pursuing. There is a very small number of women who are sociopathic and don't mind being exploited, so long as the exploitation is mutual. If the trade can be limited to these relatively insensitive and emotionally-durable women, that would reduce the harm considerably.
  40. @Kaosweaver
    The genie is out of the bottle.

    Technology is simply too advanced and easily accessible to prevent porn from being created and spread. If you take away "easy" access, people will just create alternate access.

    Anyone with a smartphone, cheap video camera, etc - can create porn. Anyone with a torrent account, access to sites, etc can upload it.

    Can't remove the ability to make it (in the USA, only one region permits porn to be made legally, all other regions and states have criminal prosecution for creating and/or distributing sex acts) In spite of the illegality of it, it is made everywhere in the 50 states.

    The only thing they could do is try to prevent easy ways to access it and that, well, is a losing proposition. They closed down Craigslist adult channel, Backpage openeded up, they closed backpage, bedpage opened up. They're trying to close that down, Tinder happened, then grinder. You also have seeking arrangement pages, etc. The same sort of thing would happen with porn, close down pornhub and a dozen more sites will open. Even if you ban all sites, then it just goes dark web.

    And, honestly, the government would rather teenage boys see nekked ladies getting pegged then a slew of people delving in to the dark web, seeing all that you can find and what it offers.

    At worse, they'll make great show and pomp going after them once or twice and then when "bad orange man" or whomever is next says, tweets something, the news cycle will move on.

    Tech and sex always wins.

    The genie is out of the bottle.

    Technology is simply too advanced and easily accessible to prevent porn from being created and spread. If you take away “easy” access, people will just create alternate access.

    I’m not so sure. Read this

    https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/a3xgq5/why-wont-twitter-treat-white-supremacy-like-isis-because-it-would-mean-banning-some-republican-politicians-too

    Anyone with a smartphone, cheap video camera, etc – can create porn. Anyone with a torrent account, access to sites, etc can upload it.

    How much pron is on YouTube? They clearly have some way to keep it off.

    They’re trying to close that down, Tinder happened, then grinder.

    Tinder is owned by IAC, a transnational corporation controlled by a Hollywood macher. It’s not going anywhere, though I’m amazed at the extent that it has been unregulated. This is because it harms most men, and benefits women.

    The same sort of thing would happen with porn, close down pornhub and a dozen more sites will open. Even if you ban all sites, then it just goes dark web.

    Almost all of the pron sites are owned by the same company, Mindgeek, one of the largest bandwidth consumers in the world. We can just nationalize that company, and most content will now be subject to censorship and punitive taxation.

    • Replies: @anon

    Almost all of the pron sites are owned by the same company, Mindgeek, one of the largest bandwidth consumers in the world.
     
    i think you overstate this by quite a bit. wikipedia says they own Brazzers, Reality Kings, Digital Playground and some lesser sites as well as some tube sites. I dont see major studios like Vivid, Wicked, Evil Angel, etc listed though

    We can just nationalize that company, and most content will now be subject to censorship and punitive taxation.
     
    we can? great!
  41. @216

    At least it wouldn’t be published for mass consumption.
     
    So-called "camgirls" are perhaps less anti-social and less victimized than "porn stars". RedPillers tend to vilify camgirls even more, because of their supposed tax evasion and the emotional exploitation towards the beta male customer. Hypocritically, the infamous Andrew Tate is a camgirl pimp.

    This is why I tend towards the "state-owned vice" model. Having vice industries with DMV-level efficiency would deglamorize the industry and shift its profits into the Treasury. Pron has followed the path of other social media towards monopoly, but with no "Netflix" equivalent of centralized paid streaming.

    Why does a camgirl need a pimp?

  42. @Lars Porsena
    Only for porn.

    way i see it the bad guys wanted free porn to damage trad morality so why would they suddenly change their mind after Trump/Brexit?

  43. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike
    Massive consumption of pornography is merely one symptom of a society in decline. Focusing on eliminating symptoms does not "cure" the disease. But focusing on symptoms allows us to avoid talking about the real causes of our decline.

    We can outlaw, ban, or make illegal all sorts of things: Porn, prostitution, gambling, drugs, unapproved usury, words, books, thoughts; whatever. It doesn't address the fundamental issues. But it does create the need to for government armed tax collectors, prisons, magistrates, and bureaucrats. It also creates more criminals, of both the active and passive variety, and a black market in which they need to operate. The fact is, outlawing vice never works, and in my observation usually creates a situation worse than the alternative.

    However, address the fundamental issues of well functioning society: Homogeneous, high trust, hard working, family-centric, sacrificial, self sufficient, etc, and watch a more virtuous and moral population emerge. Generally speaking, a more moral and virtuous population desires not to engage in the vices listed above for the most part, certainly not to the extent our society currently does, and the remainder that do are a small and insignificant part of the overall population.

    Outlawing vice does work to restrict the supply and consumption of vice, which is the goal. There will always be criminals who supply and people who consume vice, but that’s not an argument against restrictions on vice. The point is to raise the marginal cost of consuming vice. Most ordinary people will reduce consumption of a vice if it becomes too expensive and too much of a hassle to obtain.

    Addressing “the fundamental issues of well functioning society” is much more difficult than outlawing vice, and historically involved much more heavy handed policies, like executing destitute widows for minor theft:

    http://www.executedtoday.com/2017/10/16/1771-mary-jones-hanged-for-shoplifting/

    • Agree: LondonBob
    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike

    Outlawing vice does work to restrict the supply and consumption of vice, which is the goal
     
    .

    The goal is to build a society full of individuals who have little need or want of vice.

    There will always be criminals who supply and people who consume vice, but that’s not an argument against restrictions on vice.
     
    I'm not against restrictions and or regulations, I'm against implementing more laws that do nothing but create more criminality. If you need an argument as to the disastrous consequences of outlawing vice, do a search on Prohibition.

    The point is to raise the marginal cost of consuming vice. Most ordinary people will reduce consumption of a vice if it becomes too expensive and too much of a hassle to obtain.
     
    If the point were to raise the cost of consuming vice (it isn't,) then simply impose a vice tax. It doesn't seem to work very well keeping the poor from consuming tobacco/alcohol products though.

    "Addressing “the fundamental issues of well functioning society” is much more difficult than outlawing vice."

    Of course it is. That's why it's not addressed. Much easier to throw people in jail and render them useless. Jailing a 16 year old boy for watching porn seems like madness to me, but whatever.
    , @Liberty Mike
    No, outlawing vice does not restrict its supply or its consumption.

    You busy-body, do-gooder totalitarians never learn. There are none as blind as those who will not see.

    Like all progressives, you appear to be unconcerned about the costs of your prohibition schemes. As is the case with all such schemes, the cost of implementing and enforcing them is occasioned by a spectacular misallocation of resources.


    Your anti-porn fetish should not be financed by those who oppose it. If your anti-porn message is so compelling, sell it through persuasion.

    , @LondonBob
    As part of the vodka belt countries in Europe Sweden had a problem with alcoholism and so introduced the systembolaget. Alcohol above 3.5 percent proof can only be obtained from state run shops, with limited opening hours.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systembolaget

    It is still easy enough to stock your drinks cabinet but it deters impulse buyers and the underage. I think Russia has also tightened laws on who can sell alcohol too.
    , @Dissident

    Addressing “the fundamental issues of well functioning society” is much more difficult than outlawing vice, and historically involved much more heavy handed policies, like executing destitute widows for minor theft:

    http://www.executedtoday.com/2017/10/16/1771-mary-jones-hanged-for-shoplifting/
     
    Conspicuously absent from the piece you linked about the Mary Jones case is any mention that it featured rather prominently in Charles Dickens' novel Barnaby Rudge. In addition to speaking explicitly of the case in the preface, one of the prominent characters in the novel is a man who was orphaned as a child by a woman who is clearly based directly on the historical Mary Jones.
  44. @216

    At least it wouldn’t be published for mass consumption.
     
    So-called "camgirls" are perhaps less anti-social and less victimized than "porn stars". RedPillers tend to vilify camgirls even more, because of their supposed tax evasion and the emotional exploitation towards the beta male customer. Hypocritically, the infamous Andrew Tate is a camgirl pimp.

    This is why I tend towards the "state-owned vice" model. Having vice industries with DMV-level efficiency would deglamorize the industry and shift its profits into the Treasury. Pron has followed the path of other social media towards monopoly, but with no "Netflix" equivalent of centralized paid streaming.

    This is why I tend towards the “state-owned vice” model.

    I don’t know enough about it to have an opinion either way, but it sounds like an idea worth pursuing. There is a very small number of women who are sociopathic and don’t mind being exploited, so long as the exploitation is mutual. If the trade can be limited to these relatively insensitive and emotionally-durable women, that would reduce the harm considerably.

  45. anon[653] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean
    That would reverse the effect of the Supreme Court's 1973 Miller decision.The 1973 film The Devil in Miss Jones was ranked number seven in the Variety list of the top ten highest-grossing pictures of 1973, despite lacking the wide release and professional marketing of Hollywood and having been virtually banned across the country for half the year. Hollywood has always hated hard porn, and it became obvious that box-office returns of very low-budget adult erotic films could fund further advances in the technical and production values of porn, making it extremely competitive with Hollywood films. There was concern that, left unchecked, the vast profitability of such films would lead to Hollywood being influenced by pornography. Miller put a stop to that.

    Preventing the pirating of porn would make it vastly more profitable and result in porn being much a more lucrative career. The productions would be far better, and the girls would get much better looking. Do you really want porn to look as good as a Hollywood movie?

    The Devil in Miss Jones was ranked number seven in the Variety list of the top ten highest-grossing pictures of 1973, despite lacking the wide release and professional marketing of Hollywood and having been virtually banned across the country for half the year.

    why would you believe that?

    what is it based on, did the producers of the film let Variety see their books?

    how would Variety even know to consider a porn film as a top grossing picture, were they tipped off by the producers?

    all these media outlets have an agenda

  46. anon[653] • Disclaimer says:
    @216

    The genie is out of the bottle.

    Technology is simply too advanced and easily accessible to prevent porn from being created and spread. If you take away “easy” access, people will just create alternate access.
     
    I'm not so sure. Read this

    https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/a3xgq5/why-wont-twitter-treat-white-supremacy-like-isis-because-it-would-mean-banning-some-republican-politicians-too

    Anyone with a smartphone, cheap video camera, etc – can create porn. Anyone with a torrent account, access to sites, etc can upload it.
     
    How much pron is on YouTube? They clearly have some way to keep it off.

    They’re trying to close that down, Tinder happened, then grinder.
     
    Tinder is owned by IAC, a transnational corporation controlled by a Hollywood macher. It's not going anywhere, though I'm amazed at the extent that it has been unregulated. This is because it harms most men, and benefits women.

    The same sort of thing would happen with porn, close down pornhub and a dozen more sites will open. Even if you ban all sites, then it just goes dark web.
     
    Almost all of the pron sites are owned by the same company, Mindgeek, one of the largest bandwidth consumers in the world. We can just nationalize that company, and most content will now be subject to censorship and punitive taxation.

    Almost all of the pron sites are owned by the same company, Mindgeek, one of the largest bandwidth consumers in the world.

    i think you overstate this by quite a bit. wikipedia says they own Brazzers, Reality Kings, Digital Playground and some lesser sites as well as some tube sites. I dont see major studios like Vivid, Wicked, Evil Angel, etc listed though

    We can just nationalize that company, and most content will now be subject to censorship and punitive taxation.

    we can? great!

  47. @Anonymous
    Outlawing vice does work to restrict the supply and consumption of vice, which is the goal. There will always be criminals who supply and people who consume vice, but that's not an argument against restrictions on vice. The point is to raise the marginal cost of consuming vice. Most ordinary people will reduce consumption of a vice if it becomes too expensive and too much of a hassle to obtain.

    Addressing "the fundamental issues of well functioning society" is much more difficult than outlawing vice, and historically involved much more heavy handed policies, like executing destitute widows for minor theft:

    http://www.executedtoday.com/2017/10/16/1771-mary-jones-hanged-for-shoplifting/

    Outlawing vice does work to restrict the supply and consumption of vice, which is the goal

    .

    The goal is to build a society full of individuals who have little need or want of vice.

    There will always be criminals who supply and people who consume vice, but that’s not an argument against restrictions on vice.

    I’m not against restrictions and or regulations, I’m against implementing more laws that do nothing but create more criminality. If you need an argument as to the disastrous consequences of outlawing vice, do a search on Prohibition.

    The point is to raise the marginal cost of consuming vice. Most ordinary people will reduce consumption of a vice if it becomes too expensive and too much of a hassle to obtain.

    If the point were to raise the cost of consuming vice (it isn’t,) then simply impose a vice tax. It doesn’t seem to work very well keeping the poor from consuming tobacco/alcohol products though.

    “Addressing “the fundamental issues of well functioning society” is much more difficult than outlawing vice.”

    Of course it is. That’s why it’s not addressed. Much easier to throw people in jail and render them useless. Jailing a 16 year old boy for watching porn seems like madness to me, but whatever.

    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    Too many dissident rightists are actually commie / progressive / statists. They are enemies of civilization; of peace and prosperity; and of liberty itself.

    Note how quick they are to play the busy-body, do-gooder.

    Note their incredible lack of creativity as manifested by their hackneyed and loser there ought to be a law policy prescriptions.

    Note their love of ever burgeoning bureaucracy.

    Note their fondness for the administrative state.

    Note their infatuation with the government worker as being noble and not the parasite that he is.

    Note their disdain for the private, non-crony sector.

    Note their envy of those who know how to serve their customers upon a voluntary and consensual basis and thereby build wealth and value.

    Note how they destroy civilization.

    , @Anonymous
    Vice is by definition a bad tendency or habit resulting from inherent traits and faults. You'd have to change human nature to remove a particular vice, and even if you did, you'd have new vices.

    Prohibition was highly successful:

    https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html


    alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition. Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928.

    Arrests for public drunkennness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922. For the population as a whole, the best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30 percent to 50 percent.

    Third, violent crime did not increase dramatically during Prohibition. Homicide rates rose dramatically from 1900 to 1910 but remained roughly constant during Prohibition's 14 year rule. Organized crime may have become more visible and lurid during Prohibition, but it existed before and after.

    Fourth, following the repeal of Prohibition, alcohol consumption increased. Today, alcohol is estimated to be the cause of more than 23,000 motor vehicle deaths and is implicated in more than half of the nation's 20,000 homicides. In contrast, drugs have not yet been persuasively linked to highway fatalities and are believed to account for 10 percent to 20 percent of homicides.
     

    You don't jail the 16 yr old boy. You hang the producer and distributor.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Whatever the vice in question, the more effective tactic seems always to be to go after the providers, at least primarily, rather than the consumers.
  48. @216

    The drive to restrict access to porn is being led by people who are worried about the effect it has on boys in regards what they think can be expected of a girlfriend, specifically in normalising peculiar sex among the young, as shown by a remarkable increase in anal sex among teens.
     
    This is a good summary of the mainstream argument, but the manosphere argument is a bit different.

    The manosphere argument is that pron:

    -saps energy
    -reduces interest in meeting women
    -wastes time

    Some MGTOW will claim those factors to be beneficial.

    Additional arguments from the politically-inclined manosphere, Roosh etc:

    -population control
    -psychological warfare
    -Jewish conspiracy

    Re, -Jewish conspiracy.For encouraging mastrubation (he had done nothing else to merit it) Hugh Hefner was given the ADL’s freedom award in 1980. Joseph Paul Franklin (who Pierce dedicated Hunter* to) shot Larry Flynt.

    Nietzsche wrote:

    “The reabsorption of semen by the blood is the strongest nourishment and, perhaps more than any other factor, it prompts the stimulus of power, the unrest of all forces toward the overcoming of resistances, the thirst for contradiction and resistance. The feeling of power has so far mounted highest in abstinent priests and hermits (for example, among the Brahmans).”

    Fun fact: even as a youth, Adolph Hitler never mastrubated (ref The Psychopathic God). I don’t know whether abstaining is more likely to make you believe in a Jewish conspiracy, but I am certain leaving yourself alone is more likely to make you do something very serious about any putative conspiracy you might believe in.

    Hunter …asks the question, “How should an honorable man confront evil ?”Should he ignore it, with the excuse that it is not his responsibility/ Should he ally himself with the evil, because that’s where the “smart money” is ? Or should he take up arms against it and fight it with all his strength and without regard for the personal consequences, even though he must fight alone ?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I think Freud said something similar in Civilization and Its Discontents.

    At any rate, is the "reabsorption" and sublimation idea accurate physiologically? Doesn't the body just expel buildup with nocturnal emissions?
    , @Anonymous
    E. Michael Jones is the primary right wing intellectual these days who talks about pornography and describes it as a form of social and political control. He highlights Jewish participation in the pornography business, and points to how the Israeli government took over Palestinian airwaves to broadcast pornography during one of their conflicts:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEExIhmv_Ow
    , @Dissident

    Fun fact: even as a youth, Adolph Hitler never mastrubated (ref The Psychopathic God).
     
    Isn't that a rather absurd claim, if only because how could anyone ever verify it?
  49. Audacious Epigone: “It is interesting to contrast this with racist speech, something a majority of people (59%) believe should not be subject to legal restrictions.”

    As with all surveys, everything depends upon how the question is phrased, who is asked, and how terms are defined. Leaving people to define the term for themselves can lead to bizarre results, as each person may be thinking of something different. Justice Potter’s definition of “I know it when I see it” is not going to be enough.

    What’s racism, for example? Saying the word “nigger” may be racist to some, while saying “honkey” might not be. I doubt that 59% of white people would agree that calling a negro a “nigger” to his face should be legal. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if most of them think it is already illegal, and in many jurisdictions they’d be correct (see case law under “fighting words”). Also, even if the 59% figure is accurate, it implies that a substantial minority of 41% think that racist speech should be illegal.

    Likewise with pornography. To some, pictures of women’s feet are arousing. Does that make it pornography? Pictures of children? How about pictures of children “suggestively” posed? Or a crucifix in a jar of piss? Nine tenths of pornography is in the eye of the beholder.

    Worse for free speech, both racism and pornography can be lumped together into the single category of “obscene”, and condemned as injurious to public health and order. In wishing the state to regulate such things, we should be careful what we wish for; racists and other speakers of truth especially so.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Worse for free speech, both racism and pornography can be lumped together

    Pornography is not speech.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    The way it is asked is important, but it's not the only thing that matters, and both of these questions are fairly straightforward.

    The observation I made was not intended to necessarily compare crass racial slurs to crass dirty sex, even, because that's not what has our overlords up in arms. In fact, they'd probably prefer proles out there dropping the n-bomb and doing the zieg heil to the content of a site like American Renaissance being viewed. The latter is a lot less objectionable--and a lot more convincing--to normies who manage to approach it with an open mind. That, of course, is exactly why it must be stamped out.
  50. @MikeatMikedotMike
    Massive consumption of pornography is merely one symptom of a society in decline. Focusing on eliminating symptoms does not "cure" the disease. But focusing on symptoms allows us to avoid talking about the real causes of our decline.

    We can outlaw, ban, or make illegal all sorts of things: Porn, prostitution, gambling, drugs, unapproved usury, words, books, thoughts; whatever. It doesn't address the fundamental issues. But it does create the need to for government armed tax collectors, prisons, magistrates, and bureaucrats. It also creates more criminals, of both the active and passive variety, and a black market in which they need to operate. The fact is, outlawing vice never works, and in my observation usually creates a situation worse than the alternative.

    However, address the fundamental issues of well functioning society: Homogeneous, high trust, hard working, family-centric, sacrificial, self sufficient, etc, and watch a more virtuous and moral population emerge. Generally speaking, a more moral and virtuous population desires not to engage in the vices listed above for the most part, certainly not to the extent our society currently does, and the remainder that do are a small and insignificant part of the overall population.

    The fact is, outlawing vice never works

    Let’s stop punishing people for killing libertarians. It’s counterproductive.

    • Replies: @iffen
    I'm a bit confused. Is the vice part being a libertarian or killing them?
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    Is this supposed to be snark? Libertarianism has nothing to do with my position.
  51. @Rosie
    https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141164708

    This is absurd. They are apparently talking about studies done in contemporary, developed countries. “You right wing weenies are wrong that extended adolescence is bad: our brain scanners demonstrate conclusively that extended adolescence exists.”

    Why is NPR interested in this?

    In a minute, we’re going to be hearing from some advocates who think that the foster care system needs to be changed, in that in some states, when you reach the age of 18, you are booted out of foster care and their argument is based on some of the research that you are now citing that these young people are not really ready for the adult world.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    18 is way too young to kick kids out of foster care. A well-adjusted 18 year old from a good home could scarcely manage in this economy.
  52. @Bill

    The fact is, outlawing vice never works
     
    Let's stop punishing people for killing libertarians. It's counterproductive.

    I’m a bit confused. Is the vice part being a libertarian or killing them?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Whoa, let's not be guilty of acting as though Reason is representative of all libertarians. There are plenty of great libertarians out there--Tom Woods, Stefan Molyneux, Lew Rockwell, Jeff Deist, Scott Horton--to put a finger on any of them means getting through me, first!
  53. @Dr. Robert Morgan
    Audacious Epigone: "It is interesting to contrast this with racist speech, something a majority of people (59%) believe should not be subject to legal restrictions."

    As with all surveys, everything depends upon how the question is phrased, who is asked, and how terms are defined. Leaving people to define the term for themselves can lead to bizarre results, as each person may be thinking of something different. Justice Potter's definition of "I know it when I see it" is not going to be enough.

    What's racism, for example? Saying the word "nigger" may be racist to some, while saying "honkey" might not be. I doubt that 59% of white people would agree that calling a negro a "nigger" to his face should be legal. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me at all if most of them think it is already illegal, and in many jurisdictions they'd be correct (see case law under "fighting words"). Also, even if the 59% figure is accurate, it implies that a substantial minority of 41% think that racist speech should be illegal.

    Likewise with pornography. To some, pictures of women's feet are arousing. Does that make it pornography? Pictures of children? How about pictures of children "suggestively" posed? Or a crucifix in a jar of piss? Nine tenths of pornography is in the eye of the beholder.

    Worse for free speech, both racism and pornography can be lumped together into the single category of "obscene", and condemned as injurious to public health and order. In wishing the state to regulate such things, we should be careful what we wish for; racists and other speakers of truth especially so.

    Worse for free speech, both racism and pornography can be lumped together

    Pornography is not speech.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Pornography is not speech."

    LOL. Actors and actresses speaking words on a set. Consenting adults being filmed performing certain. It's definitively speech.

    "Only political speech should be protected. Written or film pornography is not political speech."

    That is an extremely narrow view of speech. Fortunately, the world does not operate according to iffen. Why take an untenable position?

  54. @MikeatMikedotMike

    Outlawing vice does work to restrict the supply and consumption of vice, which is the goal
     
    .

    The goal is to build a society full of individuals who have little need or want of vice.

    There will always be criminals who supply and people who consume vice, but that’s not an argument against restrictions on vice.
     
    I'm not against restrictions and or regulations, I'm against implementing more laws that do nothing but create more criminality. If you need an argument as to the disastrous consequences of outlawing vice, do a search on Prohibition.

    The point is to raise the marginal cost of consuming vice. Most ordinary people will reduce consumption of a vice if it becomes too expensive and too much of a hassle to obtain.
     
    If the point were to raise the cost of consuming vice (it isn't,) then simply impose a vice tax. It doesn't seem to work very well keeping the poor from consuming tobacco/alcohol products though.

    "Addressing “the fundamental issues of well functioning society” is much more difficult than outlawing vice."

    Of course it is. That's why it's not addressed. Much easier to throw people in jail and render them useless. Jailing a 16 year old boy for watching porn seems like madness to me, but whatever.

    Too many dissident rightists are actually commie / progressive / statists. They are enemies of civilization; of peace and prosperity; and of liberty itself.

    Note how quick they are to play the busy-body, do-gooder.

    Note their incredible lack of creativity as manifested by their hackneyed and loser there ought to be a law policy prescriptions.

    Note their love of ever burgeoning bureaucracy.

    Note their fondness for the administrative state.

    Note their infatuation with the government worker as being noble and not the parasite that he is.

    Note their disdain for the private, non-crony sector.

    Note their envy of those who know how to serve their customers upon a voluntary and consensual basis and thereby build wealth and value.

    Note how they destroy civilization.

    • Replies: @Lars Porsena
    Can we also make note of how stuffed with straw they are while we are at it?
  55. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    Outlawing vice does work to restrict the supply and consumption of vice, which is the goal
     
    .

    The goal is to build a society full of individuals who have little need or want of vice.

    There will always be criminals who supply and people who consume vice, but that’s not an argument against restrictions on vice.
     
    I'm not against restrictions and or regulations, I'm against implementing more laws that do nothing but create more criminality. If you need an argument as to the disastrous consequences of outlawing vice, do a search on Prohibition.

    The point is to raise the marginal cost of consuming vice. Most ordinary people will reduce consumption of a vice if it becomes too expensive and too much of a hassle to obtain.
     
    If the point were to raise the cost of consuming vice (it isn't,) then simply impose a vice tax. It doesn't seem to work very well keeping the poor from consuming tobacco/alcohol products though.

    "Addressing “the fundamental issues of well functioning society” is much more difficult than outlawing vice."

    Of course it is. That's why it's not addressed. Much easier to throw people in jail and render them useless. Jailing a 16 year old boy for watching porn seems like madness to me, but whatever.

    Vice is by definition a bad tendency or habit resulting from inherent traits and faults. You’d have to change human nature to remove a particular vice, and even if you did, you’d have new vices.

    Prohibition was highly successful:

    https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html

    alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition. Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928.

    Arrests for public drunkennness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922. For the population as a whole, the best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30 percent to 50 percent.

    Third, violent crime did not increase dramatically during Prohibition. Homicide rates rose dramatically from 1900 to 1910 but remained roughly constant during Prohibition’s 14 year rule. Organized crime may have become more visible and lurid during Prohibition, but it existed before and after.

    Fourth, following the repeal of Prohibition, alcohol consumption increased. Today, alcohol is estimated to be the cause of more than 23,000 motor vehicle deaths and is implicated in more than half of the nation’s 20,000 homicides. In contrast, drugs have not yet been persuasively linked to highway fatalities and are believed to account for 10 percent to 20 percent of homicides.

    You don’t jail the 16 yr old boy. You hang the producer and distributor.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    Nah, it was a failure:

    https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/alcohol-prohibition-was-failure#full

    "You don’t jail the 16 yr old boy. You hang the producer and distributor."
     
    LOL yeah ok - so by that logic:

    When a 16 year old acquires alcohol unlawfully and kills someone in a wreck, prosecute Miller Brewing Co. and Diagio Distributors.

    When a 14 year old negro murders someone on the southside of Chicago with a stolen gun, prosecute the NRA and Ruger (oh wait, we're already doing that; score one for you guys!)

    Further, regarding porn, most of the biggest porn websites are outside of the US. Good luck with your prosecutions.

    Again again again, you're attempting to treat symptoms.
  56. O/T

    Bad optics

    Is it really so hard to just avoid whining in public? This always makes us look weak, and encourages the left.

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    Virtually everything in that tweet is a lie.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Sellner and Pettibone should sue David Beard for slander/libel. Sellner is not a "neo-nazi"--and with major television stations now condoning violence against "nazis", this amounts to a material threat on their personal safety--and he was not "in contact" with the New Zealand shooter.

    How about lawfare for optics? We need some huge civil suits to be brought and won. It's tougher because those two are both "public figures", but if a private person gets targeted like this, a lawsuit needs to be automatic on our side.
  57. ..”neo-nazi” leader who was in contact with the mass killer in New Zealand…”

    if i send a $3 donation to the Trump campaign am i “in contact with” Trump?

    • Replies: @216
    The quote thread contains a BBC article indicating that Sellner attended the meetings 10 years ago of an banned Nazi organization in Austria. That would have made him 18-19 at the time.

    I'm not willing to grant mulligans, that evidence is na optics disaster that crimestops any moderate sympathetic to the cause. He shouldn't be in a leadership position, by now most people have forgotten his boat fiasco.

    How exactly is a median working class voter supposed to appreciate the First World problems of a wealthy white woman? She's not banned from Austria, so the wedding could be held there. This is a "look at me I'm persecuted".
    , @Audacious Epigone
    It's even more mendacious than that--if you make a $3 donation to Trump, then Trump is in contact with you!
  58. iffen: “Pornography is not speech.”

    Writing isn’t speech either. But many written works are considered pornography. Is Sade’s 120 Days of Sodom pornography? Or only its filmic depiction?

    • Replies: @iffen
    Only political speech should be protected. Written or film pornography is not political speech.
  59. @Anonymous
    Outlawing vice does work to restrict the supply and consumption of vice, which is the goal. There will always be criminals who supply and people who consume vice, but that's not an argument against restrictions on vice. The point is to raise the marginal cost of consuming vice. Most ordinary people will reduce consumption of a vice if it becomes too expensive and too much of a hassle to obtain.

    Addressing "the fundamental issues of well functioning society" is much more difficult than outlawing vice, and historically involved much more heavy handed policies, like executing destitute widows for minor theft:

    http://www.executedtoday.com/2017/10/16/1771-mary-jones-hanged-for-shoplifting/

    No, outlawing vice does not restrict its supply or its consumption.

    You busy-body, do-gooder totalitarians never learn. There are none as blind as those who will not see.

    Like all progressives, you appear to be unconcerned about the costs of your prohibition schemes. As is the case with all such schemes, the cost of implementing and enforcing them is occasioned by a spectacular misallocation of resources.

    Your anti-porn fetish should not be financed by those who oppose it. If your anti-porn message is so compelling, sell it through persuasion.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Outlawing murder does not restrict the supply of murders? Are you sure?
  60. @Sean
    Re, -Jewish conspiracy.For encouraging mastrubation (he had done nothing else to merit it) Hugh Hefner was given the ADL's freedom award in 1980. Joseph Paul Franklin (who Pierce dedicated Hunter* to) shot Larry Flynt.

    Nietzsche wrote:


    “The reabsorption of semen by the blood is the strongest nourishment and, perhaps more than any other factor, it prompts the stimulus of power, the unrest of all forces toward the overcoming of resistances, the thirst for contradiction and resistance. The feeling of power has so far mounted highest in abstinent priests and hermits (for example, among the Brahmans).”
     
    Fun fact: even as a youth, Adolph Hitler never mastrubated (ref The Psychopathic God). I don't know whether abstaining is more likely to make you believe in a Jewish conspiracy, but I am certain leaving yourself alone is more likely to make you do something very serious about any putative conspiracy you might believe in.

    Hunter ...asks the question, "How should an honorable man confront evil ?"Should he ignore it, with the excuse that it is not his responsibility/ Should he ally himself with the evil, because that’s where the "smart money" is ? Or should he take up arms against it and fight it with all his strength and without regard for the personal consequences, even though he must fight alone ?
     

    I think Freud said something similar in Civilization and Its Discontents.

    At any rate, is the “reabsorption” and sublimation idea accurate physiologically? Doesn’t the body just expel buildup with nocturnal emissions?

    • Replies: @Sean
    In his The Inflamed Mind, Bulmore established to my satisfaction that immune activation (being ill) will make you depressed and out of the social mix. Body fat largely consists of consists of “macrophages, the robocops of the immune system, and one of the principal sources of inflammatory cytokines.

    "Overweight or obese people, with a higher body mass index, will generally have higher blood levels of cytokines and CRP than slimmer people. We also know that overweight people are more likely to be depressed.”
     
    According to Hitler, life boils down to the search for food and love. Mark Mattson cites research suggesting cutting your energy intake by fasting will improve mental sharpness and motivation.

    https://youtu.be/NuGefQV1Nxk?t=70

    Within obvious limits, that makes perfect sense because a coalition of genes trying to get into the future is pulling our strings to survive and reproduce as much as possible, which requires eating. But, their wetware vehicle reproducing is more important than anything for the 4base puppetmasters, so I strongly suspect lack of sexual release turns on a similar mechanism to fasting and mentally turbocharges.

    Of course depressed people tend to self medicate with comfort eating and and mastrubation; prisoners do both a lot. Bullmore says stress during early life (and I wonder if that may include your mother getting the flu when she was pregnant with you) means "survivors may enter adult life with their immune system set on a hair-trigger, poised to react to minor infections and social setbacks with a disproportionate inflammatory response that causes depressive symptoms.”

    The porn tube sites now mean hours of surfing free 24/7 unlimited porn stolen from the production companies, who in many cases are now capitulating and allowing free quarter hour condensed versions in the hope of selling the full thing . That must result in more mastrubation. The women performers hate the porntube sites because they know they would be getting paid several times more if the pirate porntube sites were shut down. It would make porn far more difficult and > 100 times more expensive and difficult to get if the pirates were closed down and from the point of view of men consuming they would not be short circuiting their instincts so much.

    However, the porn starlets would be like real stars in remuneration and it would become a much more accepted and prestigious occupation with unbroken girls good looking enough to be mainstream models and actresses considering it. Only one appeared in a sex tape but the Kardashian sisters are worth around a billion and they are influencers. So banning the pirate sites would lead to porn invading the culture in a new way.

  61. @anon

    .."neo-nazi" leader who was in contact with the mass killer in New Zealand..."
     
    if i send a $3 donation to the Trump campaign am i "in contact with" Trump?

    The quote thread contains a BBC article indicating that Sellner attended the meetings 10 years ago of an banned Nazi organization in Austria. That would have made him 18-19 at the time.

    I’m not willing to grant mulligans, that evidence is na optics disaster that crimestops any moderate sympathetic to the cause. He shouldn’t be in a leadership position, by now most people have forgotten his boat fiasco.

    How exactly is a median working class voter supposed to appreciate the First World problems of a wealthy white woman? She’s not banned from Austria, so the wedding could be held there. This is a “look at me I’m persecuted”.

    • Replies: @anon
    i think you missed my point

    apparently the New Zealand shooter once donated to Sellner's current organization but never actually attempted to contact Sellner afaik. This tweeter Beard then claims Sellner "was in contact with" the NZ shooter as though Sellner was in on the plan

  62. @Bill

    The fact is, outlawing vice never works
     
    Let's stop punishing people for killing libertarians. It's counterproductive.

    Is this supposed to be snark? Libertarianism has nothing to do with my position.

  63. @Dr. Robert Morgan
    iffen: "Pornography is not speech."

    Writing isn't speech either. But many written works are considered pornography. Is Sade's 120 Days of Sodom pornography? Or only its filmic depiction?

    Only political speech should be protected. Written or film pornography is not political speech.

    • Replies: @Known Fact
    What if the porn stars debate political issues while they're banging away?
  64. @Schlomo Shekelstein
    I would like to be the first to point out my fellow chosen people are obviously leading the way on pornography being fully legal. I believe you unwashed goy should follow, regardless of the consequences, into this bright and shiny future of questionably stitched and tucked colored women.

    7 in 8 Jews don’t think minors should be able to view pornography. They’re relatively libertine, but let’s not get too carried away!

  65. @Anonymous
    Vice is by definition a bad tendency or habit resulting from inherent traits and faults. You'd have to change human nature to remove a particular vice, and even if you did, you'd have new vices.

    Prohibition was highly successful:

    https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html


    alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition. Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928.

    Arrests for public drunkennness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922. For the population as a whole, the best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30 percent to 50 percent.

    Third, violent crime did not increase dramatically during Prohibition. Homicide rates rose dramatically from 1900 to 1910 but remained roughly constant during Prohibition's 14 year rule. Organized crime may have become more visible and lurid during Prohibition, but it existed before and after.

    Fourth, following the repeal of Prohibition, alcohol consumption increased. Today, alcohol is estimated to be the cause of more than 23,000 motor vehicle deaths and is implicated in more than half of the nation's 20,000 homicides. In contrast, drugs have not yet been persuasively linked to highway fatalities and are believed to account for 10 percent to 20 percent of homicides.
     

    You don't jail the 16 yr old boy. You hang the producer and distributor.

    Nah, it was a failure:

    https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/alcohol-prohibition-was-failure#full

    “You don’t jail the 16 yr old boy. You hang the producer and distributor.”

    LOL yeah ok – so by that logic:

    When a 16 year old acquires alcohol unlawfully and kills someone in a wreck, prosecute Miller Brewing Co. and Diagio Distributors.

    When a 14 year old negro murders someone on the southside of Chicago with a stolen gun, prosecute the NRA and Ruger (oh wait, we’re already doing that; score one for you guys!)

    Further, regarding porn, most of the biggest porn websites are outside of the US. Good luck with your prosecutions.

    Again again again, you’re attempting to treat symptoms.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Cato is a libertarian think tank, and that Cato article makes libertarian arguments to propose that Prohibition was a failure after conceding that consumption of alcohol did in fact decline, which was the entire point of Prohibition.

    Producing and distributing alcohol is not illegal, so you wouldn't prosecute brewers and distributors if a 16 yr old gets in a wreck.

    Prohibition was the 18th amendment to the Constitution, so it was not like contemporary gun control attempts that seek to go after gun manufacturers. As an amendment to the Constitution, it was more akin to the Second Amendment.

    Not just pornography, but drug production is also done outside the US and smuggled in. During Prohibition, bootleggers brought in alcohol from Canada and elsewhere.

    Pornography is a vice that exploits inherent human qualities like lust. The vast majority of people do not and would not ever produce and distribute pornography just to make money by exploiting these qualities. Restrictions on pornography go after the small minority of people who do exploit them for profit.
  66. @Almost Missouri
    Besides the not entirely surprising Jewish position, it is a kind of unusual ethnic constellation. I can't think of too many things where blacks and Asians almost identically agree (to be more porn-tolerant) while whites, Hispanics, feather Indians and Muslims hold down the conservative wing.

    If the question were about alcohol, narcotics or gambling, for instance, would it reshuffle the ethnic order?

    What I found surprising is how relatively minor the differences are and how very few people approve of the widespread availability of porn.

  67. @Wency
    The Amerindians are the truly surprising one to be leading the pack. I wonder if sample size here is large enough that difference between them and others is statistically significant or not.

    What even is the average self-identified Amerindian? I got curious. About 80% live off reservations, and most of these are racially mixed. The few I've known were culturally members of the white working or lower-middle class, mostly dating and marrying 100% white people.

    One thought is that since a lot of "Indians" could probably pass as white (or just flat-out ARE white -- E. Warren), and are culturally white, there might be something in particular that causes them to identify as Indian rather than white, and this trait might be more relevant in some surveys than the opinions and culture of pure-blooded Indians.

    The sex ratio was 103.4 among 25-34 year old Amerindians according to this link (dated 1990):
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK233091/

    Which is interesting, suggesting that men are more likely to consider themselves Indian, though we'd expect a male-skewed population to be more lenient on porn.

    Only 95 American Indians in the poll, the smallest racial sample by far, so take it as merely suggestive.

  68. @iffen
    Worse for free speech, both racism and pornography can be lumped together

    Pornography is not speech.

    “Pornography is not speech.”

    LOL. Actors and actresses speaking words on a set. Consenting adults being filmed performing certain. It’s definitively speech.

    “Only political speech should be protected. Written or film pornography is not political speech.”

    That is an extremely narrow view of speech. Fortunately, the world does not operate according to iffen. Why take an untenable position?

    • Replies: @iffen
    Just put me in the strict constructionist camp on the 1st Amendment. The founding fathers were referencing political speech, not porn.
  69. @216
    O/T

    Bad optics

    https://twitter.com/dabeard/status/1122960564672765952

    Is it really so hard to just avoid whining in public? This always makes us look weak, and encourages the left.

    Virtually everything in that tweet is a lie.

    • Replies: @216
    I wish both of them luck with the defamation lawsuit.
  70. @Cloudbuster
    Virtually everything in that tweet is a lie.

    I wish both of them luck with the defamation lawsuit.

  71. @Bill
    This is absurd. They are apparently talking about studies done in contemporary, developed countries. "You right wing weenies are wrong that extended adolescence is bad: our brain scanners demonstrate conclusively that extended adolescence exists."

    Why is NPR interested in this?

    In a minute, we're going to be hearing from some advocates who think that the foster care system needs to be changed, in that in some states, when you reach the age of 18, you are booted out of foster care and their argument is based on some of the research that you are now citing that these young people are not really ready for the adult world.
     

    18 is way too young to kick kids out of foster care. A well-adjusted 18 year old from a good home could scarcely manage in this economy.

    • Replies: @RSDB
    What's your opinion on foster care as opposed to the orphanage system?
  72. O/T

    If you want a glimpse of the hole we are in, notice the dogpiling here.

    Most accounts are not pseudononymous, and thus cannot reply to the leftist hate machine below without risking a further dogpiling, doxxing, etc.

    • Replies: @anon
    isn't Lauren Chan aka Roaming Millenial?

    if so i think she has made some statements against WN and white identitarianism stuff in the past
  73. @Corvinus
    "Pornography is not speech."

    LOL. Actors and actresses speaking words on a set. Consenting adults being filmed performing certain. It's definitively speech.

    "Only political speech should be protected. Written or film pornography is not political speech."

    That is an extremely narrow view of speech. Fortunately, the world does not operate according to iffen. Why take an untenable position?

    Just put me in the strict constructionist camp on the 1st Amendment. The founding fathers were referencing political speech, not porn.

  74. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike
    Nah, it was a failure:

    https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/alcohol-prohibition-was-failure#full

    "You don’t jail the 16 yr old boy. You hang the producer and distributor."
     
    LOL yeah ok - so by that logic:

    When a 16 year old acquires alcohol unlawfully and kills someone in a wreck, prosecute Miller Brewing Co. and Diagio Distributors.

    When a 14 year old negro murders someone on the southside of Chicago with a stolen gun, prosecute the NRA and Ruger (oh wait, we're already doing that; score one for you guys!)

    Further, regarding porn, most of the biggest porn websites are outside of the US. Good luck with your prosecutions.

    Again again again, you're attempting to treat symptoms.

    Cato is a libertarian think tank, and that Cato article makes libertarian arguments to propose that Prohibition was a failure after conceding that consumption of alcohol did in fact decline, which was the entire point of Prohibition.

    Producing and distributing alcohol is not illegal, so you wouldn’t prosecute brewers and distributors if a 16 yr old gets in a wreck.

    Prohibition was the 18th amendment to the Constitution, so it was not like contemporary gun control attempts that seek to go after gun manufacturers. As an amendment to the Constitution, it was more akin to the Second Amendment.

    Not just pornography, but drug production is also done outside the US and smuggled in. During Prohibition, bootleggers brought in alcohol from Canada and elsewhere.

    Pornography is a vice that exploits inherent human qualities like lust. The vast majority of people do not and would not ever produce and distribute pornography just to make money by exploiting these qualities. Restrictions on pornography go after the small minority of people who do exploit them for profit.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike

    "Cato is a libertarian think tank, and that Cato article makes libertarian arguments to propose that Prohibition was a failure after conceding that consumption of alcohol did in fact decline, which was the entire point of Prohibition. "
     
    So what? I notice you don't actually refute any of the points of the article, just discredit the source. You linked the NYT for Christ's sake. From a credibility standpoint, you're way behind.

    If you're going to state that lower alcohol consumption is the only measure of the Act's success or failure by willfully ignoring the deleterious unintended consequences, then you're just flat dishonest. Like the Obamacare fanboys who claimed the ACA was a success when "healthcare" enrollment increased immediately following its implementation. The G sticks a gun in someone's face to change their behavior and you're applauding that as a success.

    Lastly, prohibition was such a resounding success that it was repealed 14 years later. No better indicator than that!
    , @Feryl
    "Cato is a libertarian think tank, and that Cato article makes libertarian arguments to propose that Prohibition was a failure after conceding that consumption of alcohol did in fact decline, which was the entire point of Prohibition. "

    As much as I hate Reaganism for it's economic effects and manifest hypocrisy/failures (at shutting down gay bars, preventing the ownership of dangerous dogs, keeping the mentally ill off the streets, etc.), I will concede that The War On Drugs was a necessary (and effective) response to the horrible drug culture that was mainstreamed in the 70's. Drug use among teenagers was much lower in the late 80's and early 90's than it was in the late 70's/early 80's peak of mainstream acceptance of drug use. You hear enough about drug dealers being the scum of the Earth, and we put enough of them behind bars by circa 1990, you get the message that drugs....Are bad.
  75. @anon
    You forgot: we should not allow individuals to sell themselves into wage slavery, whoring out their labor all day for a buck.

    Funny how labor slavery/“trafficking” doesn’t seem to elicit the same high and mighty concern.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Funny how labor slavery/“trafficking” doesn’t seem to elicit the same high and mighty concern.
     
    Is that all you have? Tiresome and irrelevant attacks on women's motives?
  76. @216
    The Internet may cause an atrophy of traditional "shoe leather" organizing. I've never attended a single political rally/meeting in my life, nor have I ever been a member of any politics-related club.

    DSA was a marginal movement of old leftists when I was in university, but today its the most popular political organization on campuses. Anyone right-wing in university should consider joining to learn their organizational and recruitment methods.
  77. @Liberty Mike
    Too many dissident rightists are actually commie / progressive / statists. They are enemies of civilization; of peace and prosperity; and of liberty itself.

    Note how quick they are to play the busy-body, do-gooder.

    Note their incredible lack of creativity as manifested by their hackneyed and loser there ought to be a law policy prescriptions.

    Note their love of ever burgeoning bureaucracy.

    Note their fondness for the administrative state.

    Note their infatuation with the government worker as being noble and not the parasite that he is.

    Note their disdain for the private, non-crony sector.

    Note their envy of those who know how to serve their customers upon a voluntary and consensual basis and thereby build wealth and value.

    Note how they destroy civilization.

    Can we also make note of how stuffed with straw they are while we are at it?

  78. @L Woods
    Funny how labor slavery/“trafficking” doesn’t seem to elicit the same high and mighty concern.

    Funny how labor slavery/“trafficking” doesn’t seem to elicit the same high and mighty concern.

    Is that all you have? Tiresome and irrelevant attacks on women’s motives?

  79. @216
    The quote thread contains a BBC article indicating that Sellner attended the meetings 10 years ago of an banned Nazi organization in Austria. That would have made him 18-19 at the time.

    I'm not willing to grant mulligans, that evidence is na optics disaster that crimestops any moderate sympathetic to the cause. He shouldn't be in a leadership position, by now most people have forgotten his boat fiasco.

    How exactly is a median working class voter supposed to appreciate the First World problems of a wealthy white woman? She's not banned from Austria, so the wedding could be held there. This is a "look at me I'm persecuted".

    i think you missed my point

    apparently the New Zealand shooter once donated to Sellner’s current organization but never actually attempted to contact Sellner afaik. This tweeter Beard then claims Sellner “was in contact with” the NZ shooter as though Sellner was in on the plan

    • Replies: @216
    IIRC, the two did attempt to schedule a meeting, because his donation was 1K, which Sellner said was rather large.

    IMO, the reason why the NZ shooter made the donation was to smear Sellner's reputation, knocking out a more moderate leader.

    While the typical tendency is to rally around someone being attacked by the leftist mob, I think Sellner's leadership flaws are being exposed again. The victimhood tack is not open to our movements, as the Megaphone denies it. But the victimhood tack is useful for raising donations, which frankly seems obscene to me given her family's wealth.
  80. @216
    O/T

    If you want a glimpse of the hole we are in, notice the dogpiling here.

    https://twitter.com/TheLaurenChen/status/1122983284395450369

    Most accounts are not pseudononymous, and thus cannot reply to the leftist hate machine below without risking a further dogpiling, doxxing, etc.

    isn’t Lauren Chan aka Roaming Millenial?

    if so i think she has made some statements against WN and white identitarianism stuff in the past

    • Replies: @Rosie

    if so i think she has made some statements against WN and white identitarianism stuff in the past
     
    My understanding is that she's a combat who is intellectually honest enough to admit that the Left's double standard on identity politics is untenable.
  81. @anon
    i think you missed my point

    apparently the New Zealand shooter once donated to Sellner's current organization but never actually attempted to contact Sellner afaik. This tweeter Beard then claims Sellner "was in contact with" the NZ shooter as though Sellner was in on the plan

    IIRC, the two did attempt to schedule a meeting, because his donation was 1K, which Sellner said was rather large.

    IMO, the reason why the NZ shooter made the donation was to smear Sellner’s reputation, knocking out a more moderate leader.

    While the typical tendency is to rally around someone being attacked by the leftist mob, I think Sellner’s leadership flaws are being exposed again. The victimhood tack is not open to our movements, as the Megaphone denies it. But the victimhood tack is useful for raising donations, which frankly seems obscene to me given her family’s wealth.

    • Replies: @anon

    IIRC, the two did attempt to schedule a meeting, because his donation was 1K, which Sellner said was rather large.
     
    ok, i didn't hear that
  82. @216
    IIRC, the two did attempt to schedule a meeting, because his donation was 1K, which Sellner said was rather large.

    IMO, the reason why the NZ shooter made the donation was to smear Sellner's reputation, knocking out a more moderate leader.

    While the typical tendency is to rally around someone being attacked by the leftist mob, I think Sellner's leadership flaws are being exposed again. The victimhood tack is not open to our movements, as the Megaphone denies it. But the victimhood tack is useful for raising donations, which frankly seems obscene to me given her family's wealth.

    IIRC, the two did attempt to schedule a meeting, because his donation was 1K, which Sellner said was rather large.

    ok, i didn’t hear that

  83. This is interesting, where a black leftist divided by zero.

    The reply thread is also unnerving. The price demanded for “Bigotstan” was sterilization of everyone who moves there.

    • LOL: L Woods
  84. @Sean
    The drive to restrict access to porn is being led by people who are worried about the effect it has on boys in regards what they think can be expected of a girlfriend, specifically in normalising peculiar sex among the young, as shown by a remarkable increase in anal sex among teens. As for stopping 21 year olds working in the adult industry I have heard a woman performer (Asa Akira) say that 18 is too young and it should be 21 , but there is still hooking--which the girls all do-- so those 18 year olds who head for LA, would just do that for a couple of years. They escort with Hollywood studio people and others in the orbit of mainstream LA celebrity, which seems to be the main attraction. As was being said when California was threatening to make condoms compulsory for porn, if the industry moved to Illinois their supply of fresh meat would dry up.

    Being a white advocate is probabally a lot more devastating to one's life chances than appearing in pornography. That Duke student who appeared in porn has since got taken on at a law firm, which I dare say would not have happened if she had been outed as saying it is all right to be white. A girl going into porn at 18 has at least a chance of becoming a multi millionaire by the time she is 21 years' old. Sasha Grey did it. If you are worried about 18 year olds flushing their life down the crapper before they are old enough to really understand what they are doing, then then publicly expressing pride or even lack of guilt about being white is what you should say they are too young to do before turning 21.

    Being a white advocate is probabally a lot more devastating to one’s life chances than appearing in pornography.

    It’s probably more devastating to one’s life chances than committing various felonies are.

  85. @MikeatMikedotMike

    Outlawing vice does work to restrict the supply and consumption of vice, which is the goal
     
    .

    The goal is to build a society full of individuals who have little need or want of vice.

    There will always be criminals who supply and people who consume vice, but that’s not an argument against restrictions on vice.
     
    I'm not against restrictions and or regulations, I'm against implementing more laws that do nothing but create more criminality. If you need an argument as to the disastrous consequences of outlawing vice, do a search on Prohibition.

    The point is to raise the marginal cost of consuming vice. Most ordinary people will reduce consumption of a vice if it becomes too expensive and too much of a hassle to obtain.
     
    If the point were to raise the cost of consuming vice (it isn't,) then simply impose a vice tax. It doesn't seem to work very well keeping the poor from consuming tobacco/alcohol products though.

    "Addressing “the fundamental issues of well functioning society” is much more difficult than outlawing vice."

    Of course it is. That's why it's not addressed. Much easier to throw people in jail and render them useless. Jailing a 16 year old boy for watching porn seems like madness to me, but whatever.

    Whatever the vice in question, the more effective tactic seems always to be to go after the providers, at least primarily, rather than the consumers.

    • Replies: @216
    I prefer the frame of production/consumption.

    If there is a demand for vice, a supply will get there.

    But if the demand is reduced, supply will follow.

    Wrt pron, the demand is rooted in male disengagement and lack of a fulfilling partner. Re-engaging men is difficult, but this is the only way to treat the disease instead of the symptoms.

    When interdicting the supply of vice, I prefer "adulteration", where the quality of the product is degraded and then dumped onto the market. Imagine the only pron being that of fat women.
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    Yeah - I mentioned some examples of this in another comment. Is it the bar's fault when someone drinks too much before driving off and killing someone? Is it the firearm manufacturer's fault when a gang banger steals a gun and murders someone with it?

    The precedent of targeting manufacturers/providers/distributors is a pretty slippery slope, AFAIC. The elimination of personal responsibility being quite the banana peel.
  86. Eighteen year-olds from broken homes having all orifices penetrated simultaneously?

    I think the kid in Larry Kramer’s Faggots was only sixteen. (As were some of the customers at Stonewall.)

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Gay teens are usually alienated from their family and community, and will rush into the (all too open) arms of older gay men. That what got Milo in trouble, remember. He said that it's natural for underage gay males to seek "mentors".

    To the extent that sixteen is a "magic" number, well that is usually the age where males become more assertive and aggressive. So it's not as if these "poor kids" needed much of a push to dabble in the "gay lifestyle.

    When do people "grow up"? We'll never have a consensus on that. Men stop being as aggressive once they are....27. Men's voices don't fully mature until they are about....32. And that's just the averages, of course there are younger and older exceptions to this.

    Men age much more slowly than women do; although society usually wants to be more protective of women, truth be told women reach psychological maturity much faster than men do.
  87. Why can’t all homophobic & racist people live in their own fucking community ?

    We did. It was called “America”.

    • Replies: @216
    In their defense, we aren't insular. Our ancestors conquered this continent. We have not and do not "mind our own business" on a communal and national basis. We look self-serving compared to these enraged, but optimistic, SJW PeeOhCee.

    To their eyes, the "arc of progress" is attriting away our supermajority until we are diluted and dispossessed. And we are so "fragile" that our immidiate response is to demand ethnic cleansing rather than "coexistence".

    Your quick strike response is not an adequate counter to their moral system. We need a response that demolishes their claims as nothing but envy.

  88. @Dr. Robert Morgan
    Audacious Epigone: "It is interesting to contrast this with racist speech, something a majority of people (59%) believe should not be subject to legal restrictions."

    As with all surveys, everything depends upon how the question is phrased, who is asked, and how terms are defined. Leaving people to define the term for themselves can lead to bizarre results, as each person may be thinking of something different. Justice Potter's definition of "I know it when I see it" is not going to be enough.

    What's racism, for example? Saying the word "nigger" may be racist to some, while saying "honkey" might not be. I doubt that 59% of white people would agree that calling a negro a "nigger" to his face should be legal. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me at all if most of them think it is already illegal, and in many jurisdictions they'd be correct (see case law under "fighting words"). Also, even if the 59% figure is accurate, it implies that a substantial minority of 41% think that racist speech should be illegal.

    Likewise with pornography. To some, pictures of women's feet are arousing. Does that make it pornography? Pictures of children? How about pictures of children "suggestively" posed? Or a crucifix in a jar of piss? Nine tenths of pornography is in the eye of the beholder.

    Worse for free speech, both racism and pornography can be lumped together into the single category of "obscene", and condemned as injurious to public health and order. In wishing the state to regulate such things, we should be careful what we wish for; racists and other speakers of truth especially so.

    The way it is asked is important, but it’s not the only thing that matters, and both of these questions are fairly straightforward.

    The observation I made was not intended to necessarily compare crass racial slurs to crass dirty sex, even, because that’s not what has our overlords up in arms. In fact, they’d probably prefer proles out there dropping the n-bomb and doing the zieg heil to the content of a site like American Renaissance being viewed. The latter is a lot less objectionable–and a lot more convincing–to normies who manage to approach it with an open mind. That, of course, is exactly why it must be stamped out.

  89. @iffen
    I'm a bit confused. Is the vice part being a libertarian or killing them?

    Whoa, let’s not be guilty of acting as though Reason is representative of all libertarians. There are plenty of great libertarians out there–Tom Woods, Stefan Molyneux, Lew Rockwell, Jeff Deist, Scott Horton–to put a finger on any of them means getting through me, first!

    • Replies: @iffen
    You forgot the Pauls! LOL
    , @Liberty Mike
    Tom Woods does not support porno prohibition.

    Lew Rockwell does not support porno prohibition.

    They recognize that prohibition schemes are reservoirs from which commie / proggie / statists can attempt to sate their insatiable thirst for power.

    Dissident rightists must eschew their puerile fetish for magical lawmaking and murderous strongmen to come and save the day. Its a loser's gambit.
  90. @Audacious Epigone
    Whatever the vice in question, the more effective tactic seems always to be to go after the providers, at least primarily, rather than the consumers.

    I prefer the frame of production/consumption.

    If there is a demand for vice, a supply will get there.

    But if the demand is reduced, supply will follow.

    Wrt pron, the demand is rooted in male disengagement and lack of a fulfilling partner. Re-engaging men is difficult, but this is the only way to treat the disease instead of the symptoms.

    When interdicting the supply of vice, I prefer “adulteration”, where the quality of the product is degraded and then dumped onto the market. Imagine the only pron being that of fat women.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Porn is always going to be preferable to large numbers of men consorting with prostitutes. There is no safe way to have sex with a mega slut.

    Prostitution has been so stigmatized and marginalized since the late 60's precisely because media sex and nudity have become normalized since then. I grew up in mundane Midwestern suburb in the early 90's where one of the local video stores rented porn. How many of the porn renters would, in the old era, gone looking for a hooker instead of doing their business at home? Let's not forget either that hookers are often slapped around, raped, and even killed by pimps and johns.

    As offensive and "dirty" as all this business may seem, guys are always going to be in need of "relief". It doesn't matter how spiritually and psychologically debasing this compulsion is, we're always going to have it. Ideally a willing long-term partner will be available as an option, but absent that.....
  91. @216
    O/T

    Bad optics

    https://twitter.com/dabeard/status/1122960564672765952

    Is it really so hard to just avoid whining in public? This always makes us look weak, and encourages the left.

    Sellner and Pettibone should sue David Beard for slander/libel. Sellner is not a “neo-nazi”–and with major television stations now condoning violence against “nazis”, this amounts to a material threat on their personal safety–and he was not “in contact” with the New Zealand shooter.

    How about lawfare for optics? We need some huge civil suits to be brought and won. It’s tougher because those two are both “public figures”, but if a private person gets targeted like this, a lawsuit needs to be automatic on our side.

    • Agree: Rosie
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I wasn't aware of the potential meeting, either. If that's accurate, then I withdraw the urging to sue as that would make things far more difficult.
    , @anon
    according to some Alt-Right podcasts there are a few groups of lawyers starting to coalesce around these issues and they claim to have some decent plaintiffs

    i'll believe it when i see it
  92. @anon

    .."neo-nazi" leader who was in contact with the mass killer in New Zealand..."
     
    if i send a $3 donation to the Trump campaign am i "in contact with" Trump?

    It’s even more mendacious than that–if you make a $3 donation to Trump, then Trump is in contact with you!

  93. @Liberty Mike
    No, outlawing vice does not restrict its supply or its consumption.

    You busy-body, do-gooder totalitarians never learn. There are none as blind as those who will not see.

    Like all progressives, you appear to be unconcerned about the costs of your prohibition schemes. As is the case with all such schemes, the cost of implementing and enforcing them is occasioned by a spectacular misallocation of resources.


    Your anti-porn fetish should not be financed by those who oppose it. If your anti-porn message is so compelling, sell it through persuasion.

    Outlawing murder does not restrict the supply of murders? Are you sure?

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    We are speaking of vices, not violent crime.

    However - building a high trust, homogeneous society based on the values I've mentioned already, then there will be less of both, regardless of the penal consequences.
  94. @Reg Cæsar

    Why can’t all homophobic & racist people live in their own fucking community ?
     
    We did. It was called "America".

    In their defense, we aren’t insular. Our ancestors conquered this continent. We have not and do not “mind our own business” on a communal and national basis. We look self-serving compared to these enraged, but optimistic, SJW PeeOhCee.

    To their eyes, the “arc of progress” is attriting away our supermajority until we are diluted and dispossessed. And we are so “fragile” that our immidiate response is to demand ethnic cleansing rather than “coexistence”.

    Your quick strike response is not an adequate counter to their moral system. We need a response that demolishes their claims as nothing but envy.

  95. @anon
    isn't Lauren Chan aka Roaming Millenial?

    if so i think she has made some statements against WN and white identitarianism stuff in the past

    if so i think she has made some statements against WN and white identitarianism stuff in the past

    My understanding is that she’s a combat who is intellectually honest enough to admit that the Left’s double standard on identity politics is untenable.

  96. @Audacious Epigone
    Sellner and Pettibone should sue David Beard for slander/libel. Sellner is not a "neo-nazi"--and with major television stations now condoning violence against "nazis", this amounts to a material threat on their personal safety--and he was not "in contact" with the New Zealand shooter.

    How about lawfare for optics? We need some huge civil suits to be brought and won. It's tougher because those two are both "public figures", but if a private person gets targeted like this, a lawsuit needs to be automatic on our side.

    I wasn’t aware of the potential meeting, either. If that’s accurate, then I withdraw the urging to sue as that would make things far more difficult.

  97. @iffen
    I didn't forget. I don't see any economic system working other than capitalism. Wage slavery can be made tolerable with enlightened policies enacted into law.

    Oh, so you say out of one side of your mouth that free-market capitalism is great. And out the other side that “we should not allow individuals to sell.” Got whiplash yet?

    • Replies: @iffen
    Unrestrained capitalism is not great. That shoud be clear from my comments.
  98. @Audacious Epigone
    Sellner and Pettibone should sue David Beard for slander/libel. Sellner is not a "neo-nazi"--and with major television stations now condoning violence against "nazis", this amounts to a material threat on their personal safety--and he was not "in contact" with the New Zealand shooter.

    How about lawfare for optics? We need some huge civil suits to be brought and won. It's tougher because those two are both "public figures", but if a private person gets targeted like this, a lawsuit needs to be automatic on our side.

    according to some Alt-Right podcasts there are a few groups of lawyers starting to coalesce around these issues and they claim to have some decent plaintiffs

    i’ll believe it when i see it

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Those who are able to avoid being categorized as "public figures" are the ones who could really make things happen.
  99. @iffen
    Production or sale of pron should be illegal.

    We should not allow individuals to sell themselves into pron production, just like we shouldn't allow an individual to sell themself into prostitution, and just like we should allow a person to sell themself into debt slavery (payday loans).

    Production or sale of pron should be illegal.

    Where would you draw the line? Where do you stand on softcore porn, such as that of the Playboy/Penthouse type variety?

    We should not allow individuals to sell themselves into pron production, just like we shouldn’t allow an individual to sell themself into prostitution, and just like we should allow a person to sell themself into debt slavery (payday loans).

    Forgive me, iffen, but I must question your final two uses of the pronoun themself.

    Even if gramatically defensible (and I must confess ignorance on that particular question), would not himself* be a better choice in the sentence of yours that I quoted above? Should we not take care to avoid even the mere appearance of concession to the Cult-Marx Language Commissars?

    *As French Prime Minister Édouard Philippe declared in November 2017, “The masculine is a neutral form that should be used for terms applicable to women as well as men.” I learned of this surprising incident from the very next segment of the Radio Derb edition that I quoted ibid. Perhaps the flower of French manhood may yet blossom again?

    • Replies: @iffen
    Should we not take care to avoid even the mere appearance of concession to the Cult-Marx Language Commissars?

    Yes, I am all in on the fight against that nebulous amoeba, Cultural Marxism. For instance, I will forever use B. C. and A. D. It was just the careless use of conversational grammar.

    Where would you draw the line? Where do you stand on softcore porn, such as that of the Playboy/Penthouse type variety?

    I would axe them. The visual line would be fairly steep. The written word would get more slack.

    Where the line would be drawn does not give me as much trouble as reconciling the unfairness of prohibiting a collection of photographs of nudes for the low culture proles while giving the high culture art collection of nudes painted by masters a pass.

  100. @Anonymous
    Outlawing vice does work to restrict the supply and consumption of vice, which is the goal. There will always be criminals who supply and people who consume vice, but that's not an argument against restrictions on vice. The point is to raise the marginal cost of consuming vice. Most ordinary people will reduce consumption of a vice if it becomes too expensive and too much of a hassle to obtain.

    Addressing "the fundamental issues of well functioning society" is much more difficult than outlawing vice, and historically involved much more heavy handed policies, like executing destitute widows for minor theft:

    http://www.executedtoday.com/2017/10/16/1771-mary-jones-hanged-for-shoplifting/

    As part of the vodka belt countries in Europe Sweden had a problem with alcoholism and so introduced the systembolaget. Alcohol above 3.5 percent proof can only be obtained from state run shops, with limited opening hours.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systembolaget

    It is still easy enough to stock your drinks cabinet but it deters impulse buyers and the underage. I think Russia has also tightened laws on who can sell alcohol too.

  101. @Schlomo Shekelstein
    I would like to be the first to point out my fellow chosen people are obviously leading the way on pornography being fully legal. I believe you unwashed goy should follow, regardless of the consequences, into this bright and shiny future of questionably stitched and tucked colored women.

    Jews advocate legalizing pornography (for adults anyway) …

    Does this fold back on the problems that Jewish men find with Jewish women, which is why over 50% of the men are marrying shiksas … the highest rate of intermarriage for any traditional faith? Sounds pretty serious when considering the large number angry Jewish women rebounding (a euphemism for getting revenge) in the feminist and @MeToo movements.

  102. @anon
    Oh, so you say out of one side of your mouth that free-market capitalism is great. And out the other side that "we should not allow individuals to sell." Got whiplash yet?

    Unrestrained capitalism is not great. That shoud be clear from my comments.

    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    The market is always superior to the fatal conceit of those who would do the restraining, comrade.

    If you don't like pornography, don't partake.

    If you don't like pornography and you hypothesize that is not good for the soul of men, you are free to express the same. Just don't use force to impose your fetish upon the rest of us.
  103. @Dissident

    Production or sale of pron should be illegal.
     
    Where would you draw the line? Where do you stand on softcore porn, such as that of the Playboy/Penthouse type variety?

    We should not allow individuals to sell themselves into pron production, just like we shouldn’t allow an individual to sell themself into prostitution, and just like we should allow a person to sell themself into debt slavery (payday loans).
     
    Forgive me, iffen, but I must question your final two uses of the pronoun themself.

    Even if gramatically defensible (and I must confess ignorance on that particular question), would not himself* be a better choice in the sentence of yours that I quoted above? Should we not take care to avoid even the mere appearance of concession to the Cult-Marx Language Commissars?

    *As French Prime Minister Édouard Philippe declared in November 2017, "The masculine is a neutral form that should be used for terms applicable to women as well as men." I learned of this surprising incident from the very next segment of the Radio Derb edition that I quoted ibid. Perhaps the flower of French manhood may yet blossom again?

    Should we not take care to avoid even the mere appearance of concession to the Cult-Marx Language Commissars?

    Yes, I am all in on the fight against that nebulous amoeba, Cultural Marxism. For instance, I will forever use B. C. and A. D. It was just the careless use of conversational grammar.

    Where would you draw the line? Where do you stand on softcore porn, such as that of the Playboy/Penthouse type variety?

    I would axe them. The visual line would be fairly steep. The written word would get more slack.

    Where the line would be drawn does not give me as much trouble as reconciling the unfairness of prohibiting a collection of photographs of nudes for the low culture proles while giving the high culture art collection of nudes painted by masters a pass.

    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    That line is not for you to draw for anybody except yourself and your family.
    , @Dissident
    (I had asked iffen Where would you draw the line? Where do you stand on softcore porn, such as that of the Playboy/Penthouse type variety? iffen replied,)

    I would axe them. The visual line would be fairly steep. The written word would get more slack.
     
    As I expect is the case for many other men who came-of-age during the pre-Internet era, Playboy and the like hold a certain nostalgia for me. Contrasted against the abyss of utter depravity and rank degradation that has supplanted the aforesaid iconic publication, it appears charmingly innocent.

    But I realize that this, alas, is but a mirage; an illusion. And one that may be quite pernicious. For the reality, sobering and even hideous as it may be, is that Playboy, Penthouse, Gallery and any number of other similar publications of their era all played a critical role, in their time, of lowering public standards of morality. Only through such progressive, gradual, incremental breaches, could we find ourselves inundated in the deluge of bilgewater that we presently do. It didn't happen overnight.


    Where the line would be drawn does not give me as much trouble as reconciling the unfairness of prohibiting a collection of photographs of nudes for the low culture proles while giving the high culture art collection of nudes painted by masters a pass.
     
    I appreciate that concern.

    What's the difference between pornography and erotica?

    The answer I'm thinking of here is similar to that to the question 'What's the difference between a terrorist and freedom fighter?' Point is, the distinctions are highly subjective.

    Just curious, would you take a more lenient position toward drawn or computer-generated imagery that is clearly distinguishable from any realistic human likeness?

    Thanks for an interesting reply.

  104. @Audacious Epigone
    Whoa, let's not be guilty of acting as though Reason is representative of all libertarians. There are plenty of great libertarians out there--Tom Woods, Stefan Molyneux, Lew Rockwell, Jeff Deist, Scott Horton--to put a finger on any of them means getting through me, first!

    You forgot the Pauls! LOL

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  105. @Audacious Epigone
    Whoa, let's not be guilty of acting as though Reason is representative of all libertarians. There are plenty of great libertarians out there--Tom Woods, Stefan Molyneux, Lew Rockwell, Jeff Deist, Scott Horton--to put a finger on any of them means getting through me, first!

    Tom Woods does not support porno prohibition.

    Lew Rockwell does not support porno prohibition.

    They recognize that prohibition schemes are reservoirs from which commie / proggie / statists can attempt to sate their insatiable thirst for power.

    Dissident rightists must eschew their puerile fetish for magical lawmaking and murderous strongmen to come and save the day. Its a loser’s gambit.

  106. @iffen
    Should we not take care to avoid even the mere appearance of concession to the Cult-Marx Language Commissars?

    Yes, I am all in on the fight against that nebulous amoeba, Cultural Marxism. For instance, I will forever use B. C. and A. D. It was just the careless use of conversational grammar.

    Where would you draw the line? Where do you stand on softcore porn, such as that of the Playboy/Penthouse type variety?

    I would axe them. The visual line would be fairly steep. The written word would get more slack.

    Where the line would be drawn does not give me as much trouble as reconciling the unfairness of prohibiting a collection of photographs of nudes for the low culture proles while giving the high culture art collection of nudes painted by masters a pass.

    That line is not for you to draw for anybody except yourself and your family.

    • Replies: @iffen
    That line is not for you to draw for anybody except yourself and your family.

    No, comrade, at some point behavior concerns the entire community. Porn is bad for the whole and its prohibition takes precedence over the individual.
  107. @iffen
    Unrestrained capitalism is not great. That shoud be clear from my comments.

    The market is always superior to the fatal conceit of those who would do the restraining, comrade.

    If you don’t like pornography, don’t partake.

    If you don’t like pornography and you hypothesize that is not good for the soul of men, you are free to express the same. Just don’t use force to impose your fetish upon the rest of us.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
    The problem of libertardians is that they only see the individual, but seem unable to see society as a whole.

    The "market" is not superior to anything, it certainly should not be seen as more important than other elements, and it certainly does not take precedence over the well-being of a community or a society

    Pornography is not good for individuals, and is even worse for society as a whole. There are several studies about it, you can google them. I don't think I need also to show that meth and crack are generally bad for individuals and for society as a whole, but libertarians will blabber on about "victimless crime".
  108. 3185585

    Comrades like iffen tend to ape the progressive claptrap that protection of speech under the FA applies only to political speech, notwithstanding the fact that there is no textual support for such non-sense.

    Robert Bork, the man who routinely rubber-stamped New Deal legislation and its progeny, often spouted the absurdity that the FA protects only political speech.

  109. @Liberty Mike
    That line is not for you to draw for anybody except yourself and your family.

    That line is not for you to draw for anybody except yourself and your family.

    No, comrade, at some point behavior concerns the entire community. Porn is bad for the whole and its prohibition takes precedence over the individual.

    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    Porn prohibition concerns the entire community as it is bad for the whole occasioned, as it is, by spectacular misallocations of resources and the spawning of more parasitical public sector parasites, busy-bodies, do-gooders, and scolds.
    , @Talha
    Iceland seems to have decided so:
    https://www.antarcticajournal.com/iceland-internet-porn-ban/


    Supposed to go into effect this spring, wonder how it’ll go. Will be an interesting and unprecedented case to watch in the West.

    Peace.
  110. @iffen
    That line is not for you to draw for anybody except yourself and your family.

    No, comrade, at some point behavior concerns the entire community. Porn is bad for the whole and its prohibition takes precedence over the individual.

    Porn prohibition concerns the entire community as it is bad for the whole occasioned, as it is, by spectacular misallocations of resources and the spawning of more parasitical public sector parasites, busy-bodies, do-gooders, and scolds.

    • Replies: @iffen
    by spectacular misallocations of resources and the spawning of more parasitical public sector parasites

    Don't you worry about the expense one whit, there are plenty of comrades that will volutarily provide those services, just like there are many volunteer SJWs.

  111. @Anonymous
    Cato is a libertarian think tank, and that Cato article makes libertarian arguments to propose that Prohibition was a failure after conceding that consumption of alcohol did in fact decline, which was the entire point of Prohibition.

    Producing and distributing alcohol is not illegal, so you wouldn't prosecute brewers and distributors if a 16 yr old gets in a wreck.

    Prohibition was the 18th amendment to the Constitution, so it was not like contemporary gun control attempts that seek to go after gun manufacturers. As an amendment to the Constitution, it was more akin to the Second Amendment.

    Not just pornography, but drug production is also done outside the US and smuggled in. During Prohibition, bootleggers brought in alcohol from Canada and elsewhere.

    Pornography is a vice that exploits inherent human qualities like lust. The vast majority of people do not and would not ever produce and distribute pornography just to make money by exploiting these qualities. Restrictions on pornography go after the small minority of people who do exploit them for profit.

    “Cato is a libertarian think tank, and that Cato article makes libertarian arguments to propose that Prohibition was a failure after conceding that consumption of alcohol did in fact decline, which was the entire point of Prohibition. “

    So what? I notice you don’t actually refute any of the points of the article, just discredit the source. You linked the NYT for Christ’s sake. From a credibility standpoint, you’re way behind.

    If you’re going to state that lower alcohol consumption is the only measure of the Act’s success or failure by willfully ignoring the deleterious unintended consequences, then you’re just flat dishonest. Like the Obamacare fanboys who claimed the ACA was a success when “healthcare” enrollment increased immediately following its implementation. The G sticks a gun in someone’s face to change their behavior and you’re applauding that as a success.

    Lastly, prohibition was such a resounding success that it was repealed 14 years later. No better indicator than that!

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I linked to the NYT article for the hard numbers it cites, as shown in the paragraphs I quoted, not for any moral or ideological arguments it makes. People can draw their own conclusions from the numbers.

    The primary "unintended consequence" of Prohibition was the increase in organized crime and bootlegging. That's not an argument against Prohibition, just as the presence of Mexican drug cartels and the drug and human traffickers is not an argument against drug laws and border controls.

    Prohibition was a Constitutional amendment. It went through Congress and was ratified by the states. It was not some unconstitutional, overreaching action by the executive branch.

    Prohibition was part of a larger culture war between the northern, midwestern, rural WASPs that had dominated 19th century America and the more urban, ethnic America that would come to dominate the 20th century. The proponents of Prohibition did not have the culture and demographics on its side.
  112. It would be even better if the leftist celebrities could be shamed into taking pay cuts for those workers. And if those celebrities were named and shamed for hiring illegal housekeepers and nannies.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    That's the key to popularity right now; be iconoclastic. Trump won by saying that Bush and McCain were morons who ran their party (and this country) into the ground. It would be cheap and boring for Sanders to attack oil companies etc. It shows guts and integrity to attack the elites on "your" side.
  113. @Audacious Epigone
    Outlawing murder does not restrict the supply of murders? Are you sure?

    We are speaking of vices, not violent crime.

    However – building a high trust, homogeneous society based on the values I’ve mentioned already, then there will be less of both, regardless of the penal consequences.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Touche, that was a pretty sloppy response on my part.
  114. 3185585

    Why are you jumping from handle Anonymous 373 to Dr. Robert Morgan? Pick one.

    You just posted the same comment under each name.

  115. @iffen
    That line is not for you to draw for anybody except yourself and your family.

    No, comrade, at some point behavior concerns the entire community. Porn is bad for the whole and its prohibition takes precedence over the individual.

    Iceland seems to have decided so:
    https://www.antarcticajournal.com/iceland-internet-porn-ban/

    Supposed to go into effect this spring, wonder how it’ll go. Will be an interesting and unprecedented case to watch in the West.

    Peace.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @Talha
    Also, this helps as well in the public debate:
    “The Knesset approved the first reading of a bill limiting the Israeli access to porn-sites and sites presenting adult-related materials on Tuesday.”
    https://m.jpost.com/Israel-News/Ahead-of-elections-Knesset-pushes-porn-sex-workers-laws-576038

    I mean, if the most awesomeness of democracies in the Middle East is doing it for the sake of their public concerns, why can’t we do it here? Remember, we stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel.

    Peace.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    I don't think Iceland can put a man on the moon, but that's neither here nor there.
    , @RSDB
    What exactly is the Antarctica Journal? I remember poking around it when you first posted this and it seemed a little odd; then I did a quick search for the story and it seemed there was a very similar story floating around news sites but dating to 2013. I'm not sure which dots I'm failing to connect, but it would be sad if the story was wrong and this was just brought up and not tried.

    Anyway the Israeli story is interesting.

    Remember, we stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel.
     
    Right on, brothers!
  116. @Talha
    Iceland seems to have decided so:
    https://www.antarcticajournal.com/iceland-internet-porn-ban/


    Supposed to go into effect this spring, wonder how it’ll go. Will be an interesting and unprecedented case to watch in the West.

    Peace.

    Also, this helps as well in the public debate:
    “The Knesset approved the first reading of a bill limiting the Israeli access to porn-sites and sites presenting adult-related materials on Tuesday.”
    https://m.jpost.com/Israel-News/Ahead-of-elections-Knesset-pushes-porn-sex-workers-laws-576038

    I mean, if the most awesomeness of democracies in the Middle East is doing it for the sake of their public concerns, why can’t we do it here? Remember, we stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel.

    Peace.

  117. @Liberty Mike
    Porn prohibition concerns the entire community as it is bad for the whole occasioned, as it is, by spectacular misallocations of resources and the spawning of more parasitical public sector parasites, busy-bodies, do-gooders, and scolds.

    by spectacular misallocations of resources and the spawning of more parasitical public sector parasites

    Don’t you worry about the expense one whit, there are plenty of comrades that will volutarily provide those services, just like there are many volunteer SJWs.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    Are you going to volunteer to go to the shop that sells porn and then tell the owner to stop selling it and then shoot and kill him if he says "no"? Are you going to be ready for the possibility he might have a gun and shoot you if you try to threaten him? If the government is not involved then nothing will happen if he shoots you. I'm not sure many people are going to be volunteering for something like that. I'm also not sure the government is going to allow volunteers to enforce a porn ban. Governments always want to maintain a monopoly on the use of force. If they decided porn should be banned then they will enforce the ban themselves.
  118. @Anonymous
    I think Freud said something similar in Civilization and Its Discontents.

    At any rate, is the "reabsorption" and sublimation idea accurate physiologically? Doesn't the body just expel buildup with nocturnal emissions?

    In his The Inflamed Mind, Bulmore established to my satisfaction that immune activation (being ill) will make you depressed and out of the social mix. Body fat largely consists of consists of “macrophages, the robocops of the immune system, and one of the principal sources of inflammatory cytokines.

    “Overweight or obese people, with a higher body mass index, will generally have higher blood levels of cytokines and CRP than slimmer people. We also know that overweight people are more likely to be depressed.”

    According to Hitler, life boils down to the search for food and love. Mark Mattson cites research suggesting cutting your energy intake by fasting will improve mental sharpness and motivation.

    Within obvious limits, that makes perfect sense because a coalition of genes trying to get into the future is pulling our strings to survive and reproduce as much as possible, which requires eating. But, their wetware vehicle reproducing is more important than anything for the 4base puppetmasters, so I strongly suspect lack of sexual release turns on a similar mechanism to fasting and mentally turbocharges.

    Of course depressed people tend to self medicate with comfort eating and and mastrubation; prisoners do both a lot. Bullmore says stress during early life (and I wonder if that may include your mother getting the flu when she was pregnant with you) means “survivors may enter adult life with their immune system set on a hair-trigger, poised to react to minor infections and social setbacks with a disproportionate inflammatory response that causes depressive symptoms.”

    The porn tube sites now mean hours of surfing free 24/7 unlimited porn stolen from the production companies, who in many cases are now capitulating and allowing free quarter hour condensed versions in the hope of selling the full thing . That must result in more mastrubation. The women performers hate the porntube sites because they know they would be getting paid several times more if the pirate porntube sites were shut down. It would make porn far more difficult and > 100 times more expensive and difficult to get if the pirates were closed down and from the point of view of men consuming they would not be short circuiting their instincts so much.

    However, the porn starlets would be like real stars in remuneration and it would become a much more accepted and prestigious occupation with unbroken girls good looking enough to be mainstream models and actresses considering it. Only one appeared in a sex tape but the Kardashian sisters are worth around a billion and they are influencers. So banning the pirate sites would lead to porn invading the culture in a new way.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Within obvious limits, that makes perfect sense because a coalition of genes trying to get into the future is pulling our strings to survive and reproduce as much as possible, which requires eating. But, their wetware vehicle reproducing is more important than anything for the 4base puppetmasters, so I strongly suspect lack of sexual release turns on a similar mechanism to fasting and mentally turbocharges.
     
    I remember reading Art De Vany say that fasting signals to those genes that there are fewer calories in the environment and thus makes them focus on maintenance, repair, and preservation of their "vehicle" into the future i.e. the body. While gorging on food signals an environment of abundance and caloric surplus, and the genes consequently care less about the long term maintenance of their vehicle and more about jumping ship to another vehicle via sexual reproduction.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    According to Hitler does night also follow day, or is it day that follows night? Good grief.
  119. i think it should be pretty self-evident that TPTB have until now wanted there to be free porn on the internet (precisely because it’s corrupting).

    if you accept that point then their reason for changing their mind will be something else e.g. clamping down on dissident politics.

    if you accept both those points then the likely outcome is there won’t be any reduction in pron – they’ll just put it on TV instead wrapped up in shows they drench in cultural poison so if people want their pron fix they gotta inject their eyeballs with other kinds of poz at the same time.

  120. @anon

    If we were dreaming up a law, presumably it could be written as to delist pornography from the main search engines, and to force ISPs to age gate computers and mobile devices. Rather easy to trojan horse “Internet ID” in here.
     
    why not just move all porn to XXX tld? and then do something to prevent access to that tld from most computers until users sign up or something

    it's odd to hear all these leftist pro-censorship types talking about "protecting children" from opinions or ideas that might hurt their feelings about but they do nothing to protect them from porn

    it’s odd to hear all these leftist pro-censorship types talking about “protecting children” from opinions or ideas that might hurt their feelings about but they do nothing to protect them from porn

    Any more odd than any number of other pointed combinations that are also quite prevalent among Respectables?

    Take, for example, the increased pressure that pornography has placed upon even shockingly young girls to perform the depraved acts it glorifies. How much have the preening scolds you allude-to even so much as said, let alone done, about that? Or about the degradation of the women who perform in the filth-in-question? (We are, as the individuals-in-question never cease to remind us, talking here of self-proclaimed champions and defenders of the fairer sex.)

    Then there are the rich examples of self-contradiction and hypocrisy on the part of Goodthinkers that their worship of LGBTQ degeneracy provides. Sexual mutilation of confused and mentally ill children? ‘Enlightened treatment’, increasingly compulsory. The well-documented link between homosexuality and pederasty? Try raising the topic on a Respectable forum and see how long you last. Or even just the incontrovertible hate-facts that show anal buggery for the inordinately disease-promoting, utterly unnatural, inherently violent act it manifestly is. An act that the now de rigueur normalization of homosexuality requires presenting to children as a perfectly wholesome variant of coitus.

    How many struggling, confused adolescent boys have been ruined by such pernicious indoctrination? How many might, if not for it, ultimately have settled into heterosexuality? Or at least have embraced a less damaging, less depraved form of homosexuality, such as FROT*? (*Graphic content)

    All kinds of corruption of and harm to children that, in many cases is not only tolerated by Respectables but actually sanctioned, promoted and extolled by them. But try to do something harmless, like practice your legal right to photograph children frolicking about in a public park? The very same Respectables are likely to call the police or even harrass you.

  121. @YetAnotherAnon
    Be interesting to see how that pans out - I can't see the Great British Public handing over their credit card details or similar ID to some government "Yes, I'm a porn watcher!" list - if nothing else it would become a huge hacking target.

    I know a guy who did IT for a large UK school and it was an ongoing battle between IT and (always male) pupils who were pretty creative at circumventing the porn filters on the school's computers.

    I know a guy who did IT for a large UK school and it was an ongoing battle between IT and (always male) pupils who were pretty creative at circumventing the porn filters on the school’s computers.

    Looks like circumventing filters is not even always necessary:

    How schools and libraries across the country bring in hardcore pornography through commercial databases. Under the radar of parents!

    High schools, middle schools, and libraries across the US and abroad make hardcore pornography – both heterosexual and homosexual – available to children by contracting with large “information” database companies. Children get the access directly through the schools’ and libraries’ web portals.

  122. @MikeatMikedotMike
    Massive consumption of pornography is merely one symptom of a society in decline. Focusing on eliminating symptoms does not "cure" the disease. But focusing on symptoms allows us to avoid talking about the real causes of our decline.

    We can outlaw, ban, or make illegal all sorts of things: Porn, prostitution, gambling, drugs, unapproved usury, words, books, thoughts; whatever. It doesn't address the fundamental issues. But it does create the need to for government armed tax collectors, prisons, magistrates, and bureaucrats. It also creates more criminals, of both the active and passive variety, and a black market in which they need to operate. The fact is, outlawing vice never works, and in my observation usually creates a situation worse than the alternative.

    However, address the fundamental issues of well functioning society: Homogeneous, high trust, hard working, family-centric, sacrificial, self sufficient, etc, and watch a more virtuous and moral population emerge. Generally speaking, a more moral and virtuous population desires not to engage in the vices listed above for the most part, certainly not to the extent our society currently does, and the remainder that do are a small and insignificant part of the overall population.

    Generally speaking, a more moral and virtuous population desires not to engage in the vices listed above for the most part, certainly not to the extent our society currently does, and the remainder that do are a small and insignificant part of the overall population.

    Generally speaking, a population that avoids the vices listed above tends to be a more moral and virtuous one.

    You make valid points but the cause-and-effect goes both ways. Porn is corrupting and corrosive.

  123. @iffen
    I didn't forget. I don't see any economic system working other than capitalism. Wage slavery can be made tolerable with enlightened policies enacted into law.

    I don’t see any economic system working other than capitalism.

    Can what we have even legitimately be called capitalism? Would Adam Smith recognize it?

  124. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    "Cato is a libertarian think tank, and that Cato article makes libertarian arguments to propose that Prohibition was a failure after conceding that consumption of alcohol did in fact decline, which was the entire point of Prohibition. "
     
    So what? I notice you don't actually refute any of the points of the article, just discredit the source. You linked the NYT for Christ's sake. From a credibility standpoint, you're way behind.

    If you're going to state that lower alcohol consumption is the only measure of the Act's success or failure by willfully ignoring the deleterious unintended consequences, then you're just flat dishonest. Like the Obamacare fanboys who claimed the ACA was a success when "healthcare" enrollment increased immediately following its implementation. The G sticks a gun in someone's face to change their behavior and you're applauding that as a success.

    Lastly, prohibition was such a resounding success that it was repealed 14 years later. No better indicator than that!

    I linked to the NYT article for the hard numbers it cites, as shown in the paragraphs I quoted, not for any moral or ideological arguments it makes. People can draw their own conclusions from the numbers.

    The primary “unintended consequence” of Prohibition was the increase in organized crime and bootlegging. That’s not an argument against Prohibition, just as the presence of Mexican drug cartels and the drug and human traffickers is not an argument against drug laws and border controls.

    Prohibition was a Constitutional amendment. It went through Congress and was ratified by the states. It was not some unconstitutional, overreaching action by the executive branch.

    Prohibition was part of a larger culture war between the northern, midwestern, rural WASPs that had dominated 19th century America and the more urban, ethnic America that would come to dominate the 20th century. The proponents of Prohibition did not have the culture and demographics on its side.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike

    "I linked to the NYT article for the hard numbers it cites, as shown in the paragraphs I quoted, not for any moral or ideological arguments it makes."
     
    There is plenty of hard data in the Cato article.

    The primary “unintended consequence” of Prohibition was the increase in organized crime and bootlegging. That’s not an argument against Prohibition...
     
    Yes, actually, it is. Positive and negative effects of any action must be measured in order to assess its overall benefit.

    Prohibition was a Constitutional amendment. It went through Congress and was ratified by the states. It was not some unconstitutional, overreaching action by the executive branch.
     
    Theoretically human sacrifice could be approved by congress and ratified by the states. If you're not able to understand the difference between an inalienable right (in which the first 10 amendments address) and the intrusive overreach of the 18th amendment, then we should just agree to disagree from this point on.
    , @Feryl
    Prohibition was an attempt to curb vice. And like you say, ineffective attempts at interdiction don't mean that vice should be permitted.

    In a decadent era (like, say, 1970-present), elites are increasingly disinterested in cracking down on vice, because of a social Darwinist attitude that losers are going to get what's coming to them, anyway. In a time of growing noblesse oblige (like 1900-1970), elites believe that we ought to strongly discourage vice in order to protect the underclass.
  125. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean
    Re, -Jewish conspiracy.For encouraging mastrubation (he had done nothing else to merit it) Hugh Hefner was given the ADL's freedom award in 1980. Joseph Paul Franklin (who Pierce dedicated Hunter* to) shot Larry Flynt.

    Nietzsche wrote:


    “The reabsorption of semen by the blood is the strongest nourishment and, perhaps more than any other factor, it prompts the stimulus of power, the unrest of all forces toward the overcoming of resistances, the thirst for contradiction and resistance. The feeling of power has so far mounted highest in abstinent priests and hermits (for example, among the Brahmans).”
     
    Fun fact: even as a youth, Adolph Hitler never mastrubated (ref The Psychopathic God). I don't know whether abstaining is more likely to make you believe in a Jewish conspiracy, but I am certain leaving yourself alone is more likely to make you do something very serious about any putative conspiracy you might believe in.

    Hunter ...asks the question, "How should an honorable man confront evil ?"Should he ignore it, with the excuse that it is not his responsibility/ Should he ally himself with the evil, because that’s where the "smart money" is ? Or should he take up arms against it and fight it with all his strength and without regard for the personal consequences, even though he must fight alone ?
     

    E. Michael Jones is the primary right wing intellectual these days who talks about pornography and describes it as a form of social and political control. He highlights Jewish participation in the pornography business, and points to how the Israeli government took over Palestinian airwaves to broadcast pornography during one of their conflicts:

  126. @Rosie

    Eighteen year-olds from broken homes having all orifices penetrated simultaneously?
     
    On the right, we often take pride in the fact that science usually vindicates our views. One area in which this has not been the case is the science on child development. Adolescence appears to be a real biological thing, and it is actually quite long, so the modern trend of "extended adolescence" is actually more in keeping with our biological nature than the traditional view of early adulthood and responsibility. It is quite absurd to think that 18 year olds can consent to this.

    This chart should set the very minimum age where consent to such things should be valid, i.e, where impulse control begins to exceed sensation-seeking.

    http://www.macmillanhighered.com/BrainHoney/Resource/22292/digital_first_content/trunk/test/pel4e/asset/img_ch3/myerspel4e_fig_3_14.jpg

    21 was the age of majority in the UK for hundreds of years. It was when a young person living at home was given their own house key, signifying that their coming and going was no longer to be controlled by their parents. It was also the age when you could vote, and when you could be sent to an adult prison.

    This graph seems to confirm the wisdom of our elders.

    The age of majority was reduced to 18 in 1970, and there’s an ongoing campaign to reduce it to 16, partially successful in politically pozzed (tho culturally far less so) Scotland.

    Although you can vote at 18, you still get sent to juvenile prison, and your parents are expected to pay towards your university education up to the age of 25!

  127. @iffen
    by spectacular misallocations of resources and the spawning of more parasitical public sector parasites

    Don't you worry about the expense one whit, there are plenty of comrades that will volutarily provide those services, just like there are many volunteer SJWs.

    Are you going to volunteer to go to the shop that sells porn and then tell the owner to stop selling it and then shoot and kill him if he says “no”? Are you going to be ready for the possibility he might have a gun and shoot you if you try to threaten him? If the government is not involved then nothing will happen if he shoots you. I’m not sure many people are going to be volunteering for something like that. I’m also not sure the government is going to allow volunteers to enforce a porn ban. Governments always want to maintain a monopoly on the use of force. If they decided porn should be banned then they will enforce the ban themselves.

    • Replies: @anon
    if you wanted you could get a group of religious types to picket the porn shops and maybe shame them out of town. most porn shops are owned by the usual suspects
  128. @Anonymous
    I linked to the NYT article for the hard numbers it cites, as shown in the paragraphs I quoted, not for any moral or ideological arguments it makes. People can draw their own conclusions from the numbers.

    The primary "unintended consequence" of Prohibition was the increase in organized crime and bootlegging. That's not an argument against Prohibition, just as the presence of Mexican drug cartels and the drug and human traffickers is not an argument against drug laws and border controls.

    Prohibition was a Constitutional amendment. It went through Congress and was ratified by the states. It was not some unconstitutional, overreaching action by the executive branch.

    Prohibition was part of a larger culture war between the northern, midwestern, rural WASPs that had dominated 19th century America and the more urban, ethnic America that would come to dominate the 20th century. The proponents of Prohibition did not have the culture and demographics on its side.

    “I linked to the NYT article for the hard numbers it cites, as shown in the paragraphs I quoted, not for any moral or ideological arguments it makes.”

    There is plenty of hard data in the Cato article.

    The primary “unintended consequence” of Prohibition was the increase in organized crime and bootlegging. That’s not an argument against Prohibition…

    Yes, actually, it is. Positive and negative effects of any action must be measured in order to assess its overall benefit.

    Prohibition was a Constitutional amendment. It went through Congress and was ratified by the states. It was not some unconstitutional, overreaching action by the executive branch.

    Theoretically human sacrifice could be approved by congress and ratified by the states. If you’re not able to understand the difference between an inalienable right (in which the first 10 amendments address) and the intrusive overreach of the 18th amendment, then we should just agree to disagree from this point on.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I don't think it's a good argument against Prohibition, just as pointing out drug cartels and human trafficking are not good arguments for drug legalization and lax borders. The criminal element should not have veto power over legislation. If they do, you effectively have a failed state.

    I never said Prohibition was in the Bill of Rights. The fact that it was a Constitutional amendment means that it fulfilled much stricter procedures than ordinary legislation.
  129. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean
    In his The Inflamed Mind, Bulmore established to my satisfaction that immune activation (being ill) will make you depressed and out of the social mix. Body fat largely consists of consists of “macrophages, the robocops of the immune system, and one of the principal sources of inflammatory cytokines.

    "Overweight or obese people, with a higher body mass index, will generally have higher blood levels of cytokines and CRP than slimmer people. We also know that overweight people are more likely to be depressed.”
     
    According to Hitler, life boils down to the search for food and love. Mark Mattson cites research suggesting cutting your energy intake by fasting will improve mental sharpness and motivation.

    https://youtu.be/NuGefQV1Nxk?t=70

    Within obvious limits, that makes perfect sense because a coalition of genes trying to get into the future is pulling our strings to survive and reproduce as much as possible, which requires eating. But, their wetware vehicle reproducing is more important than anything for the 4base puppetmasters, so I strongly suspect lack of sexual release turns on a similar mechanism to fasting and mentally turbocharges.

    Of course depressed people tend to self medicate with comfort eating and and mastrubation; prisoners do both a lot. Bullmore says stress during early life (and I wonder if that may include your mother getting the flu when she was pregnant with you) means "survivors may enter adult life with their immune system set on a hair-trigger, poised to react to minor infections and social setbacks with a disproportionate inflammatory response that causes depressive symptoms.”

    The porn tube sites now mean hours of surfing free 24/7 unlimited porn stolen from the production companies, who in many cases are now capitulating and allowing free quarter hour condensed versions in the hope of selling the full thing . That must result in more mastrubation. The women performers hate the porntube sites because they know they would be getting paid several times more if the pirate porntube sites were shut down. It would make porn far more difficult and > 100 times more expensive and difficult to get if the pirates were closed down and from the point of view of men consuming they would not be short circuiting their instincts so much.

    However, the porn starlets would be like real stars in remuneration and it would become a much more accepted and prestigious occupation with unbroken girls good looking enough to be mainstream models and actresses considering it. Only one appeared in a sex tape but the Kardashian sisters are worth around a billion and they are influencers. So banning the pirate sites would lead to porn invading the culture in a new way.

    Within obvious limits, that makes perfect sense because a coalition of genes trying to get into the future is pulling our strings to survive and reproduce as much as possible, which requires eating. But, their wetware vehicle reproducing is more important than anything for the 4base puppetmasters, so I strongly suspect lack of sexual release turns on a similar mechanism to fasting and mentally turbocharges.

    I remember reading Art De Vany say that fasting signals to those genes that there are fewer calories in the environment and thus makes them focus on maintenance, repair, and preservation of their “vehicle” into the future i.e. the body. While gorging on food signals an environment of abundance and caloric surplus, and the genes consequently care less about the long term maintenance of their vehicle and more about jumping ship to another vehicle via sexual reproduction.

    • Replies: @Sean
    In non seasonal breeder humans that is more of a tweak than a real shift, I think, as with the bodyfat being tapped into in winter and availability of fructose in summer making for a slightly different emphasis. On the other hand, eating a lot of sugar to create the extra drive and practicing sexual abstinence to dam it up (as someone better left unmentioned did) may be a recipe for the willpower that enables great exploits; the decline of middle age would come sooner though. I suspect there would be a real risk of suicide for white men. Mississippi introduced conjugal visits for black prisoners only in 1915.
  130. @Audacious Epigone
    Whatever the vice in question, the more effective tactic seems always to be to go after the providers, at least primarily, rather than the consumers.

    Yeah – I mentioned some examples of this in another comment. Is it the bar’s fault when someone drinks too much before driving off and killing someone? Is it the firearm manufacturer’s fault when a gang banger steals a gun and murders someone with it?

    The precedent of targeting manufacturers/providers/distributors is a pretty slippery slope, AFAIC. The elimination of personal responsibility being quite the banana peel.

  131. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    "I linked to the NYT article for the hard numbers it cites, as shown in the paragraphs I quoted, not for any moral or ideological arguments it makes."
     
    There is plenty of hard data in the Cato article.

    The primary “unintended consequence” of Prohibition was the increase in organized crime and bootlegging. That’s not an argument against Prohibition...
     
    Yes, actually, it is. Positive and negative effects of any action must be measured in order to assess its overall benefit.

    Prohibition was a Constitutional amendment. It went through Congress and was ratified by the states. It was not some unconstitutional, overreaching action by the executive branch.
     
    Theoretically human sacrifice could be approved by congress and ratified by the states. If you're not able to understand the difference between an inalienable right (in which the first 10 amendments address) and the intrusive overreach of the 18th amendment, then we should just agree to disagree from this point on.

    I don’t think it’s a good argument against Prohibition, just as pointing out drug cartels and human trafficking are not good arguments for drug legalization and lax borders. The criminal element should not have veto power over legislation. If they do, you effectively have a failed state.

    I never said Prohibition was in the Bill of Rights. The fact that it was a Constitutional amendment means that it fulfilled much stricter procedures than ordinary legislation.

    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    Upon what basis is it not a good argument. You are engaging in tautology.

    Prohibitionists tend to overlook or be oblivious to second and third order effects of their prohibitionist schemes.

    The creation and solidification of black market criminal syndicates who use violence to maintain and enhance their position is a substantive argument militating against any scheme to prohibit any activity that, in and of itself, is not a crime, per se.

    Prohibition inevitably leads to massive corruption as public sector types, be they beat cops, detectives, federal agents, commissars, politicians, and judges, are far more apt to be corrupted than people who are in the private sector actually making and producing wealth. Bribes, payoffs, and unequal administration of the law thrives under prohibition regimes. Stated otherwise, the rule of law breaks down and that cost is far greater than the costs of alcohol abuse.

    Dissident rightists suffer from the same fatal conceit as that of all commie / proggie / socialists and statists: they think they they are far more capable of managing life, the economy, and the administration of justice than anybody else. In short, they think that their central planning schemes will carry the day.
  132. @Mark G.
    Are you going to volunteer to go to the shop that sells porn and then tell the owner to stop selling it and then shoot and kill him if he says "no"? Are you going to be ready for the possibility he might have a gun and shoot you if you try to threaten him? If the government is not involved then nothing will happen if he shoots you. I'm not sure many people are going to be volunteering for something like that. I'm also not sure the government is going to allow volunteers to enforce a porn ban. Governments always want to maintain a monopoly on the use of force. If they decided porn should be banned then they will enforce the ban themselves.

    if you wanted you could get a group of religious types to picket the porn shops and maybe shame them out of town. most porn shops are owned by the usual suspects

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    Picketing a porn shop would be legal under freedom of speech. In the Raymond Chandler novel "The Big Sleep" there was a bookstore that was a front for a pornography lending library. Porn shops must have been completely illegal back then. You could also boycott the owner. For example, if you are the local barber you could refuse to give him haircuts.
  133. @anon
    if you wanted you could get a group of religious types to picket the porn shops and maybe shame them out of town. most porn shops are owned by the usual suspects

    Picketing a porn shop would be legal under freedom of speech. In the Raymond Chandler novel “The Big Sleep” there was a bookstore that was a front for a pornography lending library. Porn shops must have been completely illegal back then. You could also boycott the owner. For example, if you are the local barber you could refuse to give him haircuts.

    • Replies: @anon

    Picketing a porn shop would be legal under freedom of speech.
     
    i'm surprised its apparently almost never done, for whatever reason

    seems like a local church here and there would be serious about removing it from their community
    , @Feryl
    Shutting down "adult bookstores" that are fronts for casual sex hook-ups and/or prostitution, is quite advisable in my opinion. Promiscuity spreads disease, and frequently engaging in sex with strangers is quite dangerous in the sense of violence always being a possibility.

    But trying to outlaw all forms of porn is a fool's errand, since those campaigns to crack down on "obscenity" never could eradicate prostitution as well, no matter how hard they tried.

    At the end of the day, we need to have nuance in terms of what is really so dangerous as to be offensive enough to crack down on (e.g., homosexuals injecting crystal meth and spreading AIDS) and what is merely "obscene" but not terribly dangerous all things considered (e.g., Marijuana, "Satanic" rock music, and porno). Shutting down businesses (be they gay bars or "dating" apps) that facilitate hard drug use and/or promiscuity is what we ought to do, and once did, in the 1930's-1960's). Once clubs and services that promoted casual sex and drug use were let "off the hook" in the early 70's, crime, violence, and sex all spiraled out of control. By circa 1980, gay sex clubs could openly advertise (with suggestive imagery and language permitted) and businesses that sold cocaine paraphernalia produced glossy ads. Reaganism was an impotent and failed attempt to bring back wholesome values; since Reagan did nothing but bitch about the government being worthless at "everything", then who in the world was going to really think that we'd get back to shutting down gay bars? But Reagan was just telling Silents and Boomers what they wanted to hear; the party that started around 1970 wasn't getting shut down, no matter it's effects on social well-being.
  134. @Lars Porsena

    the vast profitability of such films would lead to Hollywood being influenced by pornography. Miller put a stop to that.
     
    Well it didn't work.

    Preventing the pirating of porn would make it vastly more profitable and result in porn being much a more lucrative career.
     
    But it would also make it much more inaccessible to adolescents (and even more difficult/embarrassing for a lot of adults). What's the social effect of free porn omnipresent and available to everyone all the time by default?

    Not sure the producers would pay the actors any more instead of just pocketing the difference. There is still supply and demand in effect on the labor market and nowadays people are making porn for free without even needing to be paid.

    The productions would be far better, ... Do you really want porn to look as good as a Hollywood movie?
     
    Is this a problem for getting women interested in porn for costume design? Who is watching porn for that or gives a crap? From what I've seen of internet porn it's all hardcore now they don't even pretend at having a story or characters like back in 70's porn flicks where the pizza guy shows up and they exchange bad puns, they are just screwing.

    What’s the social effect of free porn omnipresent and available to everyone all the time by default?

    Seems rather obvious to me that there are a number of effects. One such effect would appear to be evidenced in the the following comments that I came across at an online forum, around five years ago, while doing some research.

    Has Porn Effected peoples Sex lives

    Posted: 2/18/2013 8:53:45 AM
    […]I’ve been with more than a few whose sexual “skills” were based off of what they watched in porn movies and honestly believed they were doing something great in the bedroom.

    When I finally had the pleasure to have sex with a man that REALLY knew what he was doing, I had to ask his source of enlightenment. His answer? “I didn’t grow up watching porn.”

    Posted: 1/11/2014 1:08:02 PM

    I have had a female friend tell me that some young guys that grew up with internet porn are very different in bed. She said they don’t seem to understand that sex is more than hard banging without real intimacy and that they view women more as objects to use than people. I’m sure this is not true of the majority of younger guys, at least I hope not.

  135. @Mark G.
    Picketing a porn shop would be legal under freedom of speech. In the Raymond Chandler novel "The Big Sleep" there was a bookstore that was a front for a pornography lending library. Porn shops must have been completely illegal back then. You could also boycott the owner. For example, if you are the local barber you could refuse to give him haircuts.

    Picketing a porn shop would be legal under freedom of speech.

    i’m surprised its apparently almost never done, for whatever reason

    seems like a local church here and there would be serious about removing it from their community

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    https://youtu.be/suyQ44rRL5M
  136. @216
    I prefer the frame of production/consumption.

    If there is a demand for vice, a supply will get there.

    But if the demand is reduced, supply will follow.

    Wrt pron, the demand is rooted in male disengagement and lack of a fulfilling partner. Re-engaging men is difficult, but this is the only way to treat the disease instead of the symptoms.

    When interdicting the supply of vice, I prefer "adulteration", where the quality of the product is degraded and then dumped onto the market. Imagine the only pron being that of fat women.

    Porn is always going to be preferable to large numbers of men consorting with prostitutes. There is no safe way to have sex with a mega slut.

    Prostitution has been so stigmatized and marginalized since the late 60’s precisely because media sex and nudity have become normalized since then. I grew up in mundane Midwestern suburb in the early 90’s where one of the local video stores rented porn. How many of the porn renters would, in the old era, gone looking for a hooker instead of doing their business at home? Let’s not forget either that hookers are often slapped around, raped, and even killed by pimps and johns.

    As offensive and “dirty” as all this business may seem, guys are always going to be in need of “relief”. It doesn’t matter how spiritually and psychologically debasing this compulsion is, we’re always going to have it. Ideally a willing long-term partner will be available as an option, but absent that…..

  137. @Mark G.
    Picketing a porn shop would be legal under freedom of speech. In the Raymond Chandler novel "The Big Sleep" there was a bookstore that was a front for a pornography lending library. Porn shops must have been completely illegal back then. You could also boycott the owner. For example, if you are the local barber you could refuse to give him haircuts.

    Shutting down “adult bookstores” that are fronts for casual sex hook-ups and/or prostitution, is quite advisable in my opinion. Promiscuity spreads disease, and frequently engaging in sex with strangers is quite dangerous in the sense of violence always being a possibility.

    But trying to outlaw all forms of porn is a fool’s errand, since those campaigns to crack down on “obscenity” never could eradicate prostitution as well, no matter how hard they tried.

    At the end of the day, we need to have nuance in terms of what is really so dangerous as to be offensive enough to crack down on (e.g., homosexuals injecting crystal meth and spreading AIDS) and what is merely “obscene” but not terribly dangerous all things considered (e.g., Marijuana, “Satanic” rock music, and porno). Shutting down businesses (be they gay bars or “dating” apps) that facilitate hard drug use and/or promiscuity is what we ought to do, and once did, in the 1930’s-1960’s). Once clubs and services that promoted casual sex and drug use were let “off the hook” in the early 70’s, crime, violence, and sex all spiraled out of control. By circa 1980, gay sex clubs could openly advertise (with suggestive imagery and language permitted) and businesses that sold cocaine paraphernalia produced glossy ads. Reaganism was an impotent and failed attempt to bring back wholesome values; since Reagan did nothing but bitch about the government being worthless at “everything”, then who in the world was going to really think that we’d get back to shutting down gay bars? But Reagan was just telling Silents and Boomers what they wanted to hear; the party that started around 1970 wasn’t getting shut down, no matter it’s effects on social well-being.

  138. @Anonymous
    I linked to the NYT article for the hard numbers it cites, as shown in the paragraphs I quoted, not for any moral or ideological arguments it makes. People can draw their own conclusions from the numbers.

    The primary "unintended consequence" of Prohibition was the increase in organized crime and bootlegging. That's not an argument against Prohibition, just as the presence of Mexican drug cartels and the drug and human traffickers is not an argument against drug laws and border controls.

    Prohibition was a Constitutional amendment. It went through Congress and was ratified by the states. It was not some unconstitutional, overreaching action by the executive branch.

    Prohibition was part of a larger culture war between the northern, midwestern, rural WASPs that had dominated 19th century America and the more urban, ethnic America that would come to dominate the 20th century. The proponents of Prohibition did not have the culture and demographics on its side.

    Prohibition was an attempt to curb vice. And like you say, ineffective attempts at interdiction don’t mean that vice should be permitted.

    In a decadent era (like, say, 1970-present), elites are increasingly disinterested in cracking down on vice, because of a social Darwinist attitude that losers are going to get what’s coming to them, anyway. In a time of growing noblesse oblige (like 1900-1970), elites believe that we ought to strongly discourage vice in order to protect the underclass.

  139. @216
    https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/1122950001657827328

    It would be even better if the leftist celebrities could be shamed into taking pay cuts for those workers. And if those celebrities were named and shamed for hiring illegal housekeepers and nannies.

    That’s the key to popularity right now; be iconoclastic. Trump won by saying that Bush and McCain were morons who ran their party (and this country) into the ground. It would be cheap and boring for Sanders to attack oil companies etc. It shows guts and integrity to attack the elites on “your” side.

    • Replies: @216
    I'm not sure how many celebrities are fans of Bernie, compared to the neoliberal candidates.

    He didn't tag the leading actors, who are more known and marginally more likeable than the rather opaque Bob Iger.

    Maybe we could argue that they'd supposedly pay higher taxes willingly, but if the directors and actors came out in support, the company would be pressure to grant some concession.

    That said, the most this would amount to in practical terms (rather than electioneering) would be a one-time bonus. I don't know the specifics of the business, but are the amusement parks running at a high enough profit margin to sustain "middle-class"?
  140. @Reg Cæsar

    Eighteen year-olds from broken homes having all orifices penetrated simultaneously?
     
    I think the kid in Larry Kramer's Faggots was only sixteen. (As were some of the customers at Stonewall.)

    Gay teens are usually alienated from their family and community, and will rush into the (all too open) arms of older gay men. That what got Milo in trouble, remember. He said that it’s natural for underage gay males to seek “mentors”.

    To the extent that sixteen is a “magic” number, well that is usually the age where males become more assertive and aggressive. So it’s not as if these “poor kids” needed much of a push to dabble in the “gay lifestyle.

    When do people “grow up”? We’ll never have a consensus on that. Men stop being as aggressive once they are….27. Men’s voices don’t fully mature until they are about….32. And that’s just the averages, of course there are younger and older exceptions to this.

    Men age much more slowly than women do; although society usually wants to be more protective of women, truth be told women reach psychological maturity much faster than men do.

    • Replies: @L Woods

    Men age much more slowly than women do; although society usually wants to be more protective of women, truth be told women reach psychological maturity much faster than men do.
     
    Bit of a non-sequitor— society behaves the way it does towards young males precisely because it hopes to knock them out of the running while they’re still vulnerable.
  141. @Anonymous
    Outlawing vice does work to restrict the supply and consumption of vice, which is the goal. There will always be criminals who supply and people who consume vice, but that's not an argument against restrictions on vice. The point is to raise the marginal cost of consuming vice. Most ordinary people will reduce consumption of a vice if it becomes too expensive and too much of a hassle to obtain.

    Addressing "the fundamental issues of well functioning society" is much more difficult than outlawing vice, and historically involved much more heavy handed policies, like executing destitute widows for minor theft:

    http://www.executedtoday.com/2017/10/16/1771-mary-jones-hanged-for-shoplifting/

    Addressing “the fundamental issues of well functioning society” is much more difficult than outlawing vice, and historically involved much more heavy handed policies, like executing destitute widows for minor theft:

    http://www.executedtoday.com/2017/10/16/1771-mary-jones-hanged-for-shoplifting/

    Conspicuously absent from the piece you linked about the Mary Jones case is any mention that it featured rather prominently in Charles Dickens’ novel Barnaby Rudge. In addition to speaking explicitly of the case in the preface, one of the prominent characters in the novel is a man who was orphaned as a child by a woman who is clearly based directly on the historical Mary Jones.

  142. 216 says:
    @Feryl
    That's the key to popularity right now; be iconoclastic. Trump won by saying that Bush and McCain were morons who ran their party (and this country) into the ground. It would be cheap and boring for Sanders to attack oil companies etc. It shows guts and integrity to attack the elites on "your" side.

    I’m not sure how many celebrities are fans of Bernie, compared to the neoliberal candidates.

    He didn’t tag the leading actors, who are more known and marginally more likeable than the rather opaque Bob Iger.

    Maybe we could argue that they’d supposedly pay higher taxes willingly, but if the directors and actors came out in support, the company would be pressure to grant some concession.

    That said, the most this would amount to in practical terms (rather than electioneering) would be a one-time bonus. I don’t know the specifics of the business, but are the amusement parks running at a high enough profit margin to sustain “middle-class”?

    • Replies: @Feryl
    But what are the chances of any Republican heavy weights calling out the business owners in the GOP aligned industries (military, energy, agriculture, construction, mining, etc.)? All Republicans ever do is treat business owners like an oppressed minority; hell, even with a Republican dominated government in the early 2010's, little was done to rein in subsidies (or monopolies) associated with the Left leaning industries/companies.

    Trump's own regime did nothing to stop further media consolidation, even though it's creating massively powerful (and Cult-Marx) conglomerates. Disney is one of the worst offenders in the "woke" neo-liberal rogue's gallery, what with them straw purchasing tickets to Captain Marvel to push a narrative that it was a "hit" (meanwhile, her screen time in Avengers was evidently pared down quite a bit, and executives/handlers are apparently worried that Brie Larson will act vindictively about her character being ignored).

    The establishment Left and Right both stink, but the difference is that Leftists are inherently more anarchic and disdainful of rules/decorum than Rightists are, so with the Left we at least get the occasional reminder that elites don't necessarily deserve respect. The Right's foot-soldiers can be rebellious too, but the gentry Right gets really REALLY butt-hurt about calling out the integrity and value of business owners, even the Left-leaning ones (!).

    Plus, even the lower-class Right can drink the kool-aid about "self-reliant" and "tough-minded" business owners fending off annoying unions, gov. regulators, etc. There was some GOP congressional candidate in MN who called out restaurant wait staff for complaining about their pay and their rights. Dumbass. Most people born since the Carter era aren't naive enough to automatically take the side of shareholders/business owners over the workforce. Get with the program. This isn't the 60's or 70's anymore, when most workers had strong rights and good wages (and therefore had little valid reason to complain).
  143. @Anonymous
    Cato is a libertarian think tank, and that Cato article makes libertarian arguments to propose that Prohibition was a failure after conceding that consumption of alcohol did in fact decline, which was the entire point of Prohibition.

    Producing and distributing alcohol is not illegal, so you wouldn't prosecute brewers and distributors if a 16 yr old gets in a wreck.

    Prohibition was the 18th amendment to the Constitution, so it was not like contemporary gun control attempts that seek to go after gun manufacturers. As an amendment to the Constitution, it was more akin to the Second Amendment.

    Not just pornography, but drug production is also done outside the US and smuggled in. During Prohibition, bootleggers brought in alcohol from Canada and elsewhere.

    Pornography is a vice that exploits inherent human qualities like lust. The vast majority of people do not and would not ever produce and distribute pornography just to make money by exploiting these qualities. Restrictions on pornography go after the small minority of people who do exploit them for profit.

    “Cato is a libertarian think tank, and that Cato article makes libertarian arguments to propose that Prohibition was a failure after conceding that consumption of alcohol did in fact decline, which was the entire point of Prohibition. ”

    As much as I hate Reaganism for it’s economic effects and manifest hypocrisy/failures (at shutting down gay bars, preventing the ownership of dangerous dogs, keeping the mentally ill off the streets, etc.), I will concede that The War On Drugs was a necessary (and effective) response to the horrible drug culture that was mainstreamed in the 70’s. Drug use among teenagers was much lower in the late 80’s and early 90’s than it was in the late 70’s/early 80’s peak of mainstream acceptance of drug use. You hear enough about drug dealers being the scum of the Earth, and we put enough of them behind bars by circa 1990, you get the message that drugs….Are bad.

  144. @iffen
    Only political speech should be protected. Written or film pornography is not political speech.

    What if the porn stars debate political issues while they’re banging away?

    • Replies: @iffen
    I'll try to answer this question if you can tell me why all porn actresses are stars while in the regular biz there are 5,000 actresses for every "star."
    , @Known Fact
    @iffen, how about performers or cast members? Stars was just the first term that came to mind, but come to think of it there are not many supporting players or character actors in a typical porn scene, it's usually just the principals, so in effect they are stars at that moment.
  145. @216
    I'm not sure how many celebrities are fans of Bernie, compared to the neoliberal candidates.

    He didn't tag the leading actors, who are more known and marginally more likeable than the rather opaque Bob Iger.

    Maybe we could argue that they'd supposedly pay higher taxes willingly, but if the directors and actors came out in support, the company would be pressure to grant some concession.

    That said, the most this would amount to in practical terms (rather than electioneering) would be a one-time bonus. I don't know the specifics of the business, but are the amusement parks running at a high enough profit margin to sustain "middle-class"?

    But what are the chances of any Republican heavy weights calling out the business owners in the GOP aligned industries (military, energy, agriculture, construction, mining, etc.)? All Republicans ever do is treat business owners like an oppressed minority; hell, even with a Republican dominated government in the early 2010’s, little was done to rein in subsidies (or monopolies) associated with the Left leaning industries/companies.

    Trump’s own regime did nothing to stop further media consolidation, even though it’s creating massively powerful (and Cult-Marx) conglomerates. Disney is one of the worst offenders in the “woke” neo-liberal rogue’s gallery, what with them straw purchasing tickets to Captain Marvel to push a narrative that it was a “hit” (meanwhile, her screen time in Avengers was evidently pared down quite a bit, and executives/handlers are apparently worried that Brie Larson will act vindictively about her character being ignored).

    The establishment Left and Right both stink, but the difference is that Leftists are inherently more anarchic and disdainful of rules/decorum than Rightists are, so with the Left we at least get the occasional reminder that elites don’t necessarily deserve respect. The Right’s foot-soldiers can be rebellious too, but the gentry Right gets really REALLY butt-hurt about calling out the integrity and value of business owners, even the Left-leaning ones (!).

    Plus, even the lower-class Right can drink the kool-aid about “self-reliant” and “tough-minded” business owners fending off annoying unions, gov. regulators, etc. There was some GOP congressional candidate in MN who called out restaurant wait staff for complaining about their pay and their rights. Dumbass. Most people born since the Carter era aren’t naive enough to automatically take the side of shareholders/business owners over the workforce. Get with the program. This isn’t the 60’s or 70’s anymore, when most workers had strong rights and good wages (and therefore had little valid reason to complain).

    • Replies: @216

    Trump’s own regime did nothing to stop further media consolidation, even though it’s creating massively powerful (and Cult-Marx) conglomerates. Disney is one of the worst offenders in the “woke” neo-liberal rogue’s gallery, what with them straw purchasing tickets to Captain Marvel to push a narrative that it was a “hit” (meanwhile, her screen time in Avengers was evidently pared down quite a bit, and executives/handlers are apparently worried that Brie Larson will act vindictively about her character being ignored).
     
    The DOJ filed suit against the AT&T/Time Warner merger, but lost in court. They did nothing about Disney/Fox, thanks to Murdoch personally lobbying Trump.

    But what are the chances of any Republican heavy weights calling out the business owners in the GOP aligned industries (military, energy, agriculture, construction, mining, etc.)?
     
    Sadly, nil.

    It's high risk, but Trump might be well served to consider flipping on the pro-coal policy of 2016.

    On a moral basis, he can regain support by simply admitting that he was wrong (on anything), was humbled, and learned from the experience. His arrogance has thus far prevented that.
  146. Feryl says:
    @Rosie

    Eighteen year-olds from broken homes having all orifices penetrated simultaneously?
     
    On the right, we often take pride in the fact that science usually vindicates our views. One area in which this has not been the case is the science on child development. Adolescence appears to be a real biological thing, and it is actually quite long, so the modern trend of "extended adolescence" is actually more in keeping with our biological nature than the traditional view of early adulthood and responsibility. It is quite absurd to think that 18 year olds can consent to this.

    This chart should set the very minimum age where consent to such things should be valid, i.e, where impulse control begins to exceed sensation-seeking.

    http://www.macmillanhighered.com/BrainHoney/Resource/22292/digital_first_content/trunk/test/pel4e/asset/img_ch3/myerspel4e_fig_3_14.jpg

    Outlawing teenagers from driving appears to be something that would dramatically increase safety in all countries. Car crash rates soared in the 1970’s, when America had an extremely high number of teenagers (Boomers) driving around. In other decades, where our population was older and/or teenagers don’t drive as much (like oh, the 2010’s), car crash rates are much smaller.

    • Agree: Rosie
    • Replies: @216
    The historical reason why we have driving at 16 is because of employment. But teen labor participation has been in a secular decline thanks in part to mass immigration. So there's not much to lose by setting the driving age at 18, and potentially a lot to gain by creating a fact on the ground against voting at 16.
  147. 216 says:
    @Feryl
    But what are the chances of any Republican heavy weights calling out the business owners in the GOP aligned industries (military, energy, agriculture, construction, mining, etc.)? All Republicans ever do is treat business owners like an oppressed minority; hell, even with a Republican dominated government in the early 2010's, little was done to rein in subsidies (or monopolies) associated with the Left leaning industries/companies.

    Trump's own regime did nothing to stop further media consolidation, even though it's creating massively powerful (and Cult-Marx) conglomerates. Disney is one of the worst offenders in the "woke" neo-liberal rogue's gallery, what with them straw purchasing tickets to Captain Marvel to push a narrative that it was a "hit" (meanwhile, her screen time in Avengers was evidently pared down quite a bit, and executives/handlers are apparently worried that Brie Larson will act vindictively about her character being ignored).

    The establishment Left and Right both stink, but the difference is that Leftists are inherently more anarchic and disdainful of rules/decorum than Rightists are, so with the Left we at least get the occasional reminder that elites don't necessarily deserve respect. The Right's foot-soldiers can be rebellious too, but the gentry Right gets really REALLY butt-hurt about calling out the integrity and value of business owners, even the Left-leaning ones (!).

    Plus, even the lower-class Right can drink the kool-aid about "self-reliant" and "tough-minded" business owners fending off annoying unions, gov. regulators, etc. There was some GOP congressional candidate in MN who called out restaurant wait staff for complaining about their pay and their rights. Dumbass. Most people born since the Carter era aren't naive enough to automatically take the side of shareholders/business owners over the workforce. Get with the program. This isn't the 60's or 70's anymore, when most workers had strong rights and good wages (and therefore had little valid reason to complain).

    Trump’s own regime did nothing to stop further media consolidation, even though it’s creating massively powerful (and Cult-Marx) conglomerates. Disney is one of the worst offenders in the “woke” neo-liberal rogue’s gallery, what with them straw purchasing tickets to Captain Marvel to push a narrative that it was a “hit” (meanwhile, her screen time in Avengers was evidently pared down quite a bit, and executives/handlers are apparently worried that Brie Larson will act vindictively about her character being ignored).

    The DOJ filed suit against the AT&T/Time Warner merger, but lost in court. They did nothing about Disney/Fox, thanks to Murdoch personally lobbying Trump.

    But what are the chances of any Republican heavy weights calling out the business owners in the GOP aligned industries (military, energy, agriculture, construction, mining, etc.)?

    Sadly, nil.

    It’s high risk, but Trump might be well served to consider flipping on the pro-coal policy of 2016.

    On a moral basis, he can regain support by simply admitting that he was wrong (on anything), was humbled, and learned from the experience. His arrogance has thus far prevented that.

    • Replies: @216
    One really embarrassing thing Trump has done is in the tax reform law. The excise taxes on alcohol were cut at a time when The White Death is caused by "deaths of despair" including alcoholism.

    The irony is that Trump is a non-drinker, out of a reaction to his brother's death.
  148. @Known Fact
    What if the porn stars debate political issues while they're banging away?

    I’ll try to answer this question if you can tell me why all porn actresses are stars while in the regular biz there are 5,000 actresses for every “star.”

  149. 216 says:
    @Feryl
    Outlawing teenagers from driving appears to be something that would dramatically increase safety in all countries. Car crash rates soared in the 1970's, when America had an extremely high number of teenagers (Boomers) driving around. In other decades, where our population was older and/or teenagers don't drive as much (like oh, the 2010's), car crash rates are much smaller.

    The historical reason why we have driving at 16 is because of employment. But teen labor participation has been in a secular decline thanks in part to mass immigration. So there’s not much to lose by setting the driving age at 18, and potentially a lot to gain by creating a fact on the ground against voting at 16.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Boomers wanted to drive at a young age to get away from their parents, not necessarily because they were working (per Neil Howe, youth employment soared in the 1980's due to X-ers not being able to rely on parents or society as a whole to support them, a vastly different experience than what teen Silents and most teen Boomers had to deal with). Boomer Ronald Defeo (who killed his family in the infamous Amityville house) comes to mind; he had well-off parents who tolerated his drug abuse and volatile behavior, and Defeo eventually snapped.

    Teen Millennials and esp. Gen Z don't have to work, and most choose not to. And unlike Boomers, they don't hate their parents to the point of wanting to drive miles and miles away from them.

    Strauss/Howe made a very convincing argument that "Lost" generations invariably are the generations most likely to work long hours as teenagers; teen (and at times, child) labor soared from 1900-1915 (when the Lost Generation were teenagers), then continued to decline as each wave of GIs (and eventually, Silents) came of age. Similary, teens frequently got employed in the 80's and early 90's, then once the initial wave of Millennials entered high school in the late 90's, teen employment began to decline and has been declining ever since.
  150. I’m hardly against pot or gambling, but it’s hard to take porn restriction seriously when governments are enabling and encouraging legal weed, lotteries and online betting. True, there are age restrictions on these but what’s the overall trend?

    Not to mention the decriminalization of clearly criminal acts that pols, police and DAs just don’t find it expedient to go after — because too many blacks are in prison already, we don’t want to frighten illegals or whatever the excuse might be.

  151. 216 says:
    @216

    Trump’s own regime did nothing to stop further media consolidation, even though it’s creating massively powerful (and Cult-Marx) conglomerates. Disney is one of the worst offenders in the “woke” neo-liberal rogue’s gallery, what with them straw purchasing tickets to Captain Marvel to push a narrative that it was a “hit” (meanwhile, her screen time in Avengers was evidently pared down quite a bit, and executives/handlers are apparently worried that Brie Larson will act vindictively about her character being ignored).
     
    The DOJ filed suit against the AT&T/Time Warner merger, but lost in court. They did nothing about Disney/Fox, thanks to Murdoch personally lobbying Trump.

    But what are the chances of any Republican heavy weights calling out the business owners in the GOP aligned industries (military, energy, agriculture, construction, mining, etc.)?
     
    Sadly, nil.

    It's high risk, but Trump might be well served to consider flipping on the pro-coal policy of 2016.

    On a moral basis, he can regain support by simply admitting that he was wrong (on anything), was humbled, and learned from the experience. His arrogance has thus far prevented that.

    One really embarrassing thing Trump has done is in the tax reform law. The excise taxes on alcohol were cut at a time when The White Death is caused by “deaths of despair” including alcoholism.

    The irony is that Trump is a non-drinker, out of a reaction to his brother’s death.

  152. @Known Fact
    What if the porn stars debate political issues while they're banging away?

    , how about performers or cast members? Stars was just the first term that came to mind, but come to think of it there are not many supporting players or character actors in a typical porn scene, it’s usually just the principals, so in effect they are stars at that moment.

    • Replies: @iffen
    It's not just you that uses the term star, it is ubiquitous. I had never thought about it the way you described it. I guess if one is the only snowflake around then you are truly unique and special.

    Okay, I will uphold my end of the proposal. What if we let them release the audio without the video?
  153. 216 says:

    Marijuana Use Up Among Workers; Opioid Use Down

    More U.S. workers are testing positive for marijuana while the number testing positive for opioids continues to decline, according to the annual Quest Diagnostics Drug Testing Index.
    Based on an analysis of nine million drug tests conducted in 2018, Quest determined that 5.1 percent of the general workforce tested positive for drugs and another 2.7 percent of workers in safety-sensitive positions regulated by federal law did so. Those in safety-sensitive jobs include pilots; rail, bus and truck drivers; and workers in nuclear power plants.
    The combined data from the general and safety-sensitive workforce demographics show that, overall, 4.4 percent of the U.S. workforce had positive drug screens in 2018, the highest such rate since 2004 but a far cry from Quest’s first drug-testing analysis in 1988, when the drug positivity rate was 13.6 percent.

    https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/talent-acquisition/Pages/Marijuana-Use-Up-Among-Workers-Opioid-Use-Down.aspx

    • Replies: @Feryl
    "Hopefully", the dunderheads born in the 50's and 60's with "addictive" personalities (degenerate generations), won't be emulated by later generations.

    The fact that drug testing started to become common in the late 80's ought to tell you something; society didn't want each new generation being as messed up as the people who came of age in the 70's.
  154. Dr. Robert Morgan:

    My apologies for deleting a sizable comment, but no racial slurs here. “utterly without redeeming social importance” is why they get axed while empirically-gathered data on crime statistics, for example, do not.

  155. @anon
    according to some Alt-Right podcasts there are a few groups of lawyers starting to coalesce around these issues and they claim to have some decent plaintiffs

    i'll believe it when i see it

    Those who are able to avoid being categorized as “public figures” are the ones who could really make things happen.

  156. @MikeatMikedotMike
    We are speaking of vices, not violent crime.

    However - building a high trust, homogeneous society based on the values I've mentioned already, then there will be less of both, regardless of the penal consequences.

    Touche, that was a pretty sloppy response on my part.

  157. @Talha
    Iceland seems to have decided so:
    https://www.antarcticajournal.com/iceland-internet-porn-ban/


    Supposed to go into effect this spring, wonder how it’ll go. Will be an interesting and unprecedented case to watch in the West.

    Peace.

    I don’t think Iceland can put a man on the moon, but that’s neither here nor there.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Yeah, the man on the moon thing is overrated. But it will be very interesting to see if the ban works and if it affects things like divorce rates, TFR, etc.

    I don’t think Iceland is allowing much immigration so it’s a nice control nation that can be the used to project for other White populations.

    Peace.
    , @iffen
    Why would you need to go to the moon if 90% of your country's topography is bleaker than a moonscape?
    , @RSDB
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLxpNiF0YKs

    Just give them time...
  158. @Sean
    In his The Inflamed Mind, Bulmore established to my satisfaction that immune activation (being ill) will make you depressed and out of the social mix. Body fat largely consists of consists of “macrophages, the robocops of the immune system, and one of the principal sources of inflammatory cytokines.

    "Overweight or obese people, with a higher body mass index, will generally have higher blood levels of cytokines and CRP than slimmer people. We also know that overweight people are more likely to be depressed.”
     
    According to Hitler, life boils down to the search for food and love. Mark Mattson cites research suggesting cutting your energy intake by fasting will improve mental sharpness and motivation.

    https://youtu.be/NuGefQV1Nxk?t=70

    Within obvious limits, that makes perfect sense because a coalition of genes trying to get into the future is pulling our strings to survive and reproduce as much as possible, which requires eating. But, their wetware vehicle reproducing is more important than anything for the 4base puppetmasters, so I strongly suspect lack of sexual release turns on a similar mechanism to fasting and mentally turbocharges.

    Of course depressed people tend to self medicate with comfort eating and and mastrubation; prisoners do both a lot. Bullmore says stress during early life (and I wonder if that may include your mother getting the flu when she was pregnant with you) means "survivors may enter adult life with their immune system set on a hair-trigger, poised to react to minor infections and social setbacks with a disproportionate inflammatory response that causes depressive symptoms.”

    The porn tube sites now mean hours of surfing free 24/7 unlimited porn stolen from the production companies, who in many cases are now capitulating and allowing free quarter hour condensed versions in the hope of selling the full thing . That must result in more mastrubation. The women performers hate the porntube sites because they know they would be getting paid several times more if the pirate porntube sites were shut down. It would make porn far more difficult and > 100 times more expensive and difficult to get if the pirates were closed down and from the point of view of men consuming they would not be short circuiting their instincts so much.

    However, the porn starlets would be like real stars in remuneration and it would become a much more accepted and prestigious occupation with unbroken girls good looking enough to be mainstream models and actresses considering it. Only one appeared in a sex tape but the Kardashian sisters are worth around a billion and they are influencers. So banning the pirate sites would lead to porn invading the culture in a new way.

    According to Hitler does night also follow day, or is it day that follows night? Good grief.

    • Replies: @Sean
    I think his sexual abstinence and powers were cause and effect because there is no evidence of Hitler having had sex until he was well into his thirties, and his powers declined precipitously from then. Ernst Hanfstaengl, who knew the younger Hitler well, said no one who heard him speak in his latter years could have any idea of his true gifts.
  159. Talha says:
    @Audacious Epigone
    I don't think Iceland can put a man on the moon, but that's neither here nor there.

    Yeah, the man on the moon thing is overrated. But it will be very interesting to see if the ban works and if it affects things like divorce rates, TFR, etc.

    I don’t think Iceland is allowing much immigration so it’s a nice control nation that can be the used to project for other White populations.

    Peace.

  160. Dumbo says:
    @Liberty Mike
    The market is always superior to the fatal conceit of those who would do the restraining, comrade.

    If you don't like pornography, don't partake.

    If you don't like pornography and you hypothesize that is not good for the soul of men, you are free to express the same. Just don't use force to impose your fetish upon the rest of us.

    The problem of libertardians is that they only see the individual, but seem unable to see society as a whole.

    The “market” is not superior to anything, it certainly should not be seen as more important than other elements, and it certainly does not take precedence over the well-being of a community or a society

    Pornography is not good for individuals, and is even worse for society as a whole. There are several studies about it, you can google them. I don’t think I need also to show that meth and crack are generally bad for individuals and for society as a whole, but libertarians will blabber on about “victimless crime”.

    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    Problems are best solved by voluntary and consensual means.

    What commie / proggie / statists always overlook is that their means of resolving problems always require coercion, force, rape, robbery, and war.
  161. Audacious Epigone: “My apologies for deleting a sizable comment, but no racial slurs here.”

    No problem. Your deletion proved my point.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Right, and I get it. But a certain amount of pragmatism is required. Internet domains themselves are no longer even safe anymore.
  162. Sean says:
    @Anonymous

    Within obvious limits, that makes perfect sense because a coalition of genes trying to get into the future is pulling our strings to survive and reproduce as much as possible, which requires eating. But, their wetware vehicle reproducing is more important than anything for the 4base puppetmasters, so I strongly suspect lack of sexual release turns on a similar mechanism to fasting and mentally turbocharges.
     
    I remember reading Art De Vany say that fasting signals to those genes that there are fewer calories in the environment and thus makes them focus on maintenance, repair, and preservation of their "vehicle" into the future i.e. the body. While gorging on food signals an environment of abundance and caloric surplus, and the genes consequently care less about the long term maintenance of their vehicle and more about jumping ship to another vehicle via sexual reproduction.

    In non seasonal breeder humans that is more of a tweak than a real shift, I think, as with the bodyfat being tapped into in winter and availability of fructose in summer making for a slightly different emphasis. On the other hand, eating a lot of sugar to create the extra drive and practicing sexual abstinence to dam it up (as someone better left unmentioned did) may be a recipe for the willpower that enables great exploits; the decline of middle age would come sooner though. I suspect there would be a real risk of suicide for white men. Mississippi introduced conjugal visits for black prisoners only in 1915.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The brain runs mainly on glucose, and is the most energetically expensive organ, so I wonder why fasting and starving the brain of glucose would improve mental sharpness.

    Why do you suppose the decline of middle age would come sooner? Don't monks and the like tend to live longer?
  163. @iffen
    Should we not take care to avoid even the mere appearance of concession to the Cult-Marx Language Commissars?

    Yes, I am all in on the fight against that nebulous amoeba, Cultural Marxism. For instance, I will forever use B. C. and A. D. It was just the careless use of conversational grammar.

    Where would you draw the line? Where do you stand on softcore porn, such as that of the Playboy/Penthouse type variety?

    I would axe them. The visual line would be fairly steep. The written word would get more slack.

    Where the line would be drawn does not give me as much trouble as reconciling the unfairness of prohibiting a collection of photographs of nudes for the low culture proles while giving the high culture art collection of nudes painted by masters a pass.

    (I had asked iffen Where would you draw the line? Where do you stand on softcore porn, such as that of the Playboy/Penthouse type variety? iffen replied,)

    I would axe them. The visual line would be fairly steep. The written word would get more slack.

    As I expect is the case for many other men who came-of-age during the pre-Internet era, Playboy and the like hold a certain nostalgia for me. Contrasted against the abyss of utter depravity and rank degradation that has supplanted the aforesaid iconic publication, it appears charmingly innocent.

    But I realize that this, alas, is but a mirage; an illusion. And one that may be quite pernicious. For the reality, sobering and even hideous as it may be, is that Playboy, Penthouse, Gallery and any number of other similar publications of their era all played a critical role, in their time, of lowering public standards of morality. Only through such progressive, gradual, incremental breaches, could we find ourselves inundated in the deluge of bilgewater that we presently do. It didn’t happen overnight.

    Where the line would be drawn does not give me as much trouble as reconciling the unfairness of prohibiting a collection of photographs of nudes for the low culture proles while giving the high culture art collection of nudes painted by masters a pass.

    I appreciate that concern.

    What’s the difference between pornography and erotica?

    The answer I’m thinking of here is similar to that to the question ‘What’s the difference between a terrorist and freedom fighter?’ Point is, the distinctions are highly subjective.

    Just curious, would you take a more lenient position toward drawn or computer-generated imagery that is clearly distinguishable from any realistic human likeness?

    Thanks for an interesting reply.

    • Replies: @iffen
    What’s the difference between pornography and erotica?

    Very good question and I don’t have a ready answer. Your excellent comment makes several good points.

    I appreciate that concern.

    My main objection to porn is the degradation of the the participants. I stopped viewing porn regularly (and I give myself credit that it was before I aged out of the market, ha) when I stopped and considered it from the point of view of the people involved. My reasoning was that I wouldn’t want my daughter participating in that sort of stuff, therefore it would be hypocritical of me to watch someone else’s daughter degrading herself.

    I’m not afraid of slippery slopes. I think most everything is a continuum of one sort or another.

    Initially, I was not going to get deeply involved in the porn thread because I am unsure of the exact relationship between sexual acts and morality. Also, I don’t have a lot of confidence in our ability to “extract” the data that indicate the actual effects.

  164. @anon

    Picketing a porn shop would be legal under freedom of speech.
     
    i'm surprised its apparently almost never done, for whatever reason

    seems like a local church here and there would be serious about removing it from their community

  165. @Known Fact
    @iffen, how about performers or cast members? Stars was just the first term that came to mind, but come to think of it there are not many supporting players or character actors in a typical porn scene, it's usually just the principals, so in effect they are stars at that moment.

    It’s not just you that uses the term star, it is ubiquitous. I had never thought about it the way you described it. I guess if one is the only snowflake around then you are truly unique and special.

    Okay, I will uphold my end of the proposal. What if we let them release the audio without the video?

    • LOL: Talha
    • Replies: @RSDB
    How will we see the graphs?!?
  166. @Dissident
    (I had asked iffen Where would you draw the line? Where do you stand on softcore porn, such as that of the Playboy/Penthouse type variety? iffen replied,)

    I would axe them. The visual line would be fairly steep. The written word would get more slack.
     
    As I expect is the case for many other men who came-of-age during the pre-Internet era, Playboy and the like hold a certain nostalgia for me. Contrasted against the abyss of utter depravity and rank degradation that has supplanted the aforesaid iconic publication, it appears charmingly innocent.

    But I realize that this, alas, is but a mirage; an illusion. And one that may be quite pernicious. For the reality, sobering and even hideous as it may be, is that Playboy, Penthouse, Gallery and any number of other similar publications of their era all played a critical role, in their time, of lowering public standards of morality. Only through such progressive, gradual, incremental breaches, could we find ourselves inundated in the deluge of bilgewater that we presently do. It didn't happen overnight.


    Where the line would be drawn does not give me as much trouble as reconciling the unfairness of prohibiting a collection of photographs of nudes for the low culture proles while giving the high culture art collection of nudes painted by masters a pass.
     
    I appreciate that concern.

    What's the difference between pornography and erotica?

    The answer I'm thinking of here is similar to that to the question 'What's the difference between a terrorist and freedom fighter?' Point is, the distinctions are highly subjective.

    Just curious, would you take a more lenient position toward drawn or computer-generated imagery that is clearly distinguishable from any realistic human likeness?

    Thanks for an interesting reply.

    What’s the difference between pornography and erotica?

    Very good question and I don’t have a ready answer. Your excellent comment makes several good points.

    I appreciate that concern.

    My main objection to porn is the degradation of the the participants. I stopped viewing porn regularly (and I give myself credit that it was before I aged out of the market, ha) when I stopped and considered it from the point of view of the people involved. My reasoning was that I wouldn’t want my daughter participating in that sort of stuff, therefore it would be hypocritical of me to watch someone else’s daughter degrading herself.

    I’m not afraid of slippery slopes. I think most everything is a continuum of one sort or another.

    Initially, I was not going to get deeply involved in the porn thread because I am unsure of the exact relationship between sexual acts and morality. Also, I don’t have a lot of confidence in our ability to “extract” the data that indicate the actual effects.

    • Replies: @Dissident

    Your excellent comment makes several good points.
     
    Thanks.

    The answer I had alluded-to, to the question What's the difference between erotica and pornography? was:
    Erotica is the high-brow artistic and literary works that I appreciate. Porn is the sleazy smut that you get off to.

    Same idea as the answer, It depends which side you're on, to the question, What's the difference between a terorist and a freedom-fighter? In other words, these distinctions tend to be more subjective than anything else.

    I understand the basic definition of pornography-- as much as there really is any real definition-- to be material produced for the sole purpose of raw erotic titillation/ prurient interest, devoid of any artistic or literary merit or any other redeeming value. I am far from the first one to find such criteria inevitably subjective.


    My reasoning was that I wouldn’t want my daughter participating in that sort of stuff, therefore it would be hypocritical of me to watch someone else’s daughter degrading herself.
     
    I respect you for that.

    One could make the argument that in those cases where one's viewing of the material-in-question would neither support its production nor contribute to demand for it, that no further harm to the performers or models would result from merely viewing it. Examples of such cases could include media already in one's possesion as well as digital piracy in cases where there is no party that profits from it. But that would still leave plenty of other problems with porn.

    (*In the case of acquiring porn through piracy or even outright theft of physical media, one could perhaps even go so far as to argue that to do so --and thereby potentially cause financial loss to the producers, distributors and sellers of such material-- could be considered a societal good. Of course, that raises the question of possibly helping to ultimately bring about a situation where the performers could suffer as well.)


    Initially, I was not going to get deeply involved in the porn thread because I am unsure of the exact relationship between sexual acts and morality.
     
    Note that the question with pornography is not one of sexual acts, per se but rather the recording or depiction of said acts and the distribution and marketing of the material produced. This critical distinction seems to often not be made, though. Opponents of pornography are often absurdly characterized and attacked as opponents of sex, etc.

    Also, I don’t have a lot of confidence in our ability to “extract” the data that indicate the actual effects.
     
    I believe you are correct to be healthily skeptical; to scrutinize claims; to demand evidence. But the general conclusion that porn creates serious problems and, on balance, is a harmful influence, seems pretty intuitively self-evident to me. When it comes to the question of how best the Law should handle the matter, however, I am uncertain and at least somewhat conflicted.
  167. @Dumbo
    The problem of libertardians is that they only see the individual, but seem unable to see society as a whole.

    The "market" is not superior to anything, it certainly should not be seen as more important than other elements, and it certainly does not take precedence over the well-being of a community or a society

    Pornography is not good for individuals, and is even worse for society as a whole. There are several studies about it, you can google them. I don't think I need also to show that meth and crack are generally bad for individuals and for society as a whole, but libertarians will blabber on about "victimless crime".

    Problems are best solved by voluntary and consensual means.

    What commie / proggie / statists always overlook is that their means of resolving problems always require coercion, force, rape, robbery, and war.

  168. @Audacious Epigone
    I don't think Iceland can put a man on the moon, but that's neither here nor there.

    Why would you need to go to the moon if 90% of your country’s topography is bleaker than a moonscape?

  169. @Feryl
    Gay teens are usually alienated from their family and community, and will rush into the (all too open) arms of older gay men. That what got Milo in trouble, remember. He said that it's natural for underage gay males to seek "mentors".

    To the extent that sixteen is a "magic" number, well that is usually the age where males become more assertive and aggressive. So it's not as if these "poor kids" needed much of a push to dabble in the "gay lifestyle.

    When do people "grow up"? We'll never have a consensus on that. Men stop being as aggressive once they are....27. Men's voices don't fully mature until they are about....32. And that's just the averages, of course there are younger and older exceptions to this.

    Men age much more slowly than women do; although society usually wants to be more protective of women, truth be told women reach psychological maturity much faster than men do.

    Men age much more slowly than women do; although society usually wants to be more protective of women, truth be told women reach psychological maturity much faster than men do.

    Bit of a non-sequitor— society behaves the way it does towards young males precisely because it hopes to knock them out of the running while they’re still vulnerable.

  170. Talha says:

    Just in on prawn (pr0n):
    “Scientists found cocaine in freshwater shrimps when testing rivers for chemicals, a study said.
    Researchers at King’s College London, in collaboration with the University of Suffolk, tested 15 different locations across Suffolk.
    Their report said cocaine was found in all samples tested. Other illicit drugs, such as ketamine, were also widespread in the shrimp.”
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-suffolk-48117678

    “That’s some good shrimp there, boys” (said in Chief Wiggum voice)

    Peace.

    • Replies: @RSDB
    Fish suffer from high-IQ dysgenism, apparently, too.

    https://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Birth-control-may-be-harming-state-s-salmon-1116254.php
  171. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean
    In non seasonal breeder humans that is more of a tweak than a real shift, I think, as with the bodyfat being tapped into in winter and availability of fructose in summer making for a slightly different emphasis. On the other hand, eating a lot of sugar to create the extra drive and practicing sexual abstinence to dam it up (as someone better left unmentioned did) may be a recipe for the willpower that enables great exploits; the decline of middle age would come sooner though. I suspect there would be a real risk of suicide for white men. Mississippi introduced conjugal visits for black prisoners only in 1915.

    The brain runs mainly on glucose, and is the most energetically expensive organ, so I wonder why fasting and starving the brain of glucose would improve mental sharpness.

    Why do you suppose the decline of middle age would come sooner? Don’t monks and the like tend to live longer?

    • Replies: @Sean
    The feeling of power and self control might be stronger in sugar and sex abstinent hermits and they would last longer, but they are not getting anything done in the real world.


    Lots of fructose/ sugar (mimicking nature's late summer rutting season) plus abstinence would amp you up in my opinion. It would not so much make smarter, but rather make one driven and aggressive. The willpower that pulverises all obstacles, but wears out the man who welds it, according to Clausewitz. Anyway, it would cause insulin resistance and accelerated aging.
    , @anon

    The brain runs mainly on glucose, and is the most energetically expensive organ, so I wonder why fasting and starving the brain of glucose would improve mental sharpness.
     
    what happens to people who go on the low-carb paleo diet to the point of ketosis?

    isn't that a diet very low in sugars?
  172. RSDB says:
    @Talha
    Iceland seems to have decided so:
    https://www.antarcticajournal.com/iceland-internet-porn-ban/


    Supposed to go into effect this spring, wonder how it’ll go. Will be an interesting and unprecedented case to watch in the West.

    Peace.

    What exactly is the Antarctica Journal? I remember poking around it when you first posted this and it seemed a little odd; then I did a quick search for the story and it seemed there was a very similar story floating around news sites but dating to 2013. I’m not sure which dots I’m failing to connect, but it would be sad if the story was wrong and this was just brought up and not tried.

    Anyway the Israeli story is interesting.

    Remember, we stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel.

    Right on, brothers!

    • Replies: @Talha
    Don't know - it's honestly not worth my time to research it all. If it is fake news, that's fine, I retract it - viva porn in Iceland.

    Peace.
  173. @Talha
    Just in on prawn (pr0n):
    "Scientists found cocaine in freshwater shrimps when testing rivers for chemicals, a study said.
    Researchers at King's College London, in collaboration with the University of Suffolk, tested 15 different locations across Suffolk.
    Their report said cocaine was found in all samples tested. Other illicit drugs, such as ketamine, were also widespread in the shrimp."
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-suffolk-48117678

    "That's some good shrimp there, boys" (said in Chief Wiggum voice)

    Peace.
  174. @Audacious Epigone
    I don't think Iceland can put a man on the moon, but that's neither here nor there.

    Just give them time…

  175. Sean says:
    @Audacious Epigone
    According to Hitler does night also follow day, or is it day that follows night? Good grief.

    I think his sexual abstinence and powers were cause and effect because there is no evidence of Hitler having had sex until he was well into his thirties, and his powers declined precipitously from then. Ernst Hanfstaengl, who knew the younger Hitler well, said no one who heard him speak in his latter years could have any idea of his true gifts.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Well he was certainly an excellent shot with a pistol at very close range.

    Peace.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    But surely he's not the only to have ever done this, right? Sui generis on the whole, maybe, but there are other 40 yo virgins out there who are neither superheroes or in this case supervillains!
    , @anon

    I think his sexual abstinence and powers were cause and effect because there is no evidence of Hitler having had sex until he was well into his thirties
     
    where would you get this evidence?

    its very creepy the way historian types think they can find out everything about a man that lived a century ago, probably this is more disinfo/slander spread by jews - "Hitler was a failure as an artist, had one testicle, screwed his niece, was a homosexual, was a drug addict" blah blah blah
  176. @RSDB
    What exactly is the Antarctica Journal? I remember poking around it when you first posted this and it seemed a little odd; then I did a quick search for the story and it seemed there was a very similar story floating around news sites but dating to 2013. I'm not sure which dots I'm failing to connect, but it would be sad if the story was wrong and this was just brought up and not tried.

    Anyway the Israeli story is interesting.

    Remember, we stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel.
     
    Right on, brothers!

    Don’t know – it’s honestly not worth my time to research it all. If it is fake news, that’s fine, I retract it – viva porn in Iceland.

    Peace.

  177. @Sean
    I think his sexual abstinence and powers were cause and effect because there is no evidence of Hitler having had sex until he was well into his thirties, and his powers declined precipitously from then. Ernst Hanfstaengl, who knew the younger Hitler well, said no one who heard him speak in his latter years could have any idea of his true gifts.

    Well he was certainly an excellent shot with a pistol at very close range.

    Peace.

  178. Sean says:
    @Anonymous
    The brain runs mainly on glucose, and is the most energetically expensive organ, so I wonder why fasting and starving the brain of glucose would improve mental sharpness.

    Why do you suppose the decline of middle age would come sooner? Don't monks and the like tend to live longer?

    The feeling of power and self control might be stronger in sugar and sex abstinent hermits and they would last longer, but they are not getting anything done in the real world.

    Lots of fructose/ sugar (mimicking nature’s late summer rutting season) plus abstinence would amp you up in my opinion. It would not so much make smarter, but rather make one driven and aggressive. The willpower that pulverises all obstacles, but wears out the man who welds it, according to Clausewitz. Anyway, it would cause insulin resistance and accelerated aging.

  179. @iffen
    It's not just you that uses the term star, it is ubiquitous. I had never thought about it the way you described it. I guess if one is the only snowflake around then you are truly unique and special.

    Okay, I will uphold my end of the proposal. What if we let them release the audio without the video?

    How will we see the graphs?!?

    • Replies: @iffen
    How will we see the graphs?!?

    Beastality is double banned.
  180. @RSDB
    How will we see the graphs?!?

    How will we see the graphs?!?

    Beastality is double banned.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Talha
    LOL - I saw what you did there! You cheeky monkey!

    Peace.
  181. @Rosie
    18 is way too young to kick kids out of foster care. A well-adjusted 18 year old from a good home could scarcely manage in this economy.

    What’s your opinion on foster care as opposed to the orphanage system?

  182. @iffen
    How will we see the graphs?!?

    Beastality is double banned.

    LOL – I saw what you did there! You cheeky monkey!

    Peace.

  183. Feryl says:
    @216

    Marijuana Use Up Among Workers; Opioid Use Down

    More U.S. workers are testing positive for marijuana while the number testing positive for opioids continues to decline, according to the annual Quest Diagnostics Drug Testing Index.
    Based on an analysis of nine million drug tests conducted in 2018, Quest determined that 5.1 percent of the general workforce tested positive for drugs and another 2.7 percent of workers in safety-sensitive positions regulated by federal law did so. Those in safety-sensitive jobs include pilots; rail, bus and truck drivers; and workers in nuclear power plants.
    The combined data from the general and safety-sensitive workforce demographics show that, overall, 4.4 percent of the U.S. workforce had positive drug screens in 2018, the highest such rate since 2004 but a far cry from Quest's first drug-testing analysis in 1988, when the drug positivity rate was 13.6 percent.
     
    https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/talent-acquisition/Pages/Marijuana-Use-Up-Among-Workers-Opioid-Use-Down.aspx

    “Hopefully”, the dunderheads born in the 50’s and 60’s with “addictive” personalities (degenerate generations), won’t be emulated by later generations.

    The fact that drug testing started to become common in the late 80’s ought to tell you something; society didn’t want each new generation being as messed up as the people who came of age in the 70’s.

  184. Feryl says:
    @216
    The historical reason why we have driving at 16 is because of employment. But teen labor participation has been in a secular decline thanks in part to mass immigration. So there's not much to lose by setting the driving age at 18, and potentially a lot to gain by creating a fact on the ground against voting at 16.

    Boomers wanted to drive at a young age to get away from their parents, not necessarily because they were working (per Neil Howe, youth employment soared in the 1980’s due to X-ers not being able to rely on parents or society as a whole to support them, a vastly different experience than what teen Silents and most teen Boomers had to deal with). Boomer Ronald Defeo (who killed his family in the infamous Amityville house) comes to mind; he had well-off parents who tolerated his drug abuse and volatile behavior, and Defeo eventually snapped.

    Teen Millennials and esp. Gen Z don’t have to work, and most choose not to. And unlike Boomers, they don’t hate their parents to the point of wanting to drive miles and miles away from them.

    Strauss/Howe made a very convincing argument that “Lost” generations invariably are the generations most likely to work long hours as teenagers; teen (and at times, child) labor soared from 1900-1915 (when the Lost Generation were teenagers), then continued to decline as each wave of GIs (and eventually, Silents) came of age. Similary, teens frequently got employed in the 80’s and early 90’s, then once the initial wave of Millennials entered high school in the late 90’s, teen employment began to decline and has been declining ever since.

  185. @Dr. Robert Morgan
    Audacious Epigone: "My apologies for deleting a sizable comment, but no racial slurs here."

    No problem. Your deletion proved my point.

    Right, and I get it. But a certain amount of pragmatism is required. Internet domains themselves are no longer even safe anymore.

  186. @Sean
    I think his sexual abstinence and powers were cause and effect because there is no evidence of Hitler having had sex until he was well into his thirties, and his powers declined precipitously from then. Ernst Hanfstaengl, who knew the younger Hitler well, said no one who heard him speak in his latter years could have any idea of his true gifts.

    But surely he’s not the only to have ever done this, right? Sui generis on the whole, maybe, but there are other 40 yo virgins out there who are neither superheroes or in this case supervillains!

    • Replies: @Sean
    I don't think he gained a decisive advantage in intelligence, memory or concentration from his overindulgence in sugar and abstinence from releasing his fructose--intensified desires. However, he was one of the very few private soldiers of WW1 that was awarded the Iron Cross first class, and I do think his repeated willingness to take extreme real world risks in a cause greater than himself, (discharging his duties in war and then in furthering the outlandish objective of remaking Germany) stemmed in no small measure from an inner pressure his habits had created.

    His culture supported him in not mastrubating, perhaps because countries that have to fight understand that sexual repression creates a fighting spirit. Denis Diderot unsuccessfully tried to interest Catherine the Great in sex education for Russian girls. Bella Kun's communist government in Hungary introduced sex education for schoolchildren and the people would not fight for it against a Romanian invasion. Lenin was opposed Alexandra Kollontai's family kibitzing and sexual liberation ideas. Lenin said the youth should be doing Pioneer type activities. Putin has got a youth movement that campaigns against thongs. I think pornography and mastubation would be promoted by a ruling group to weaken a domestic enemy, but in strengthening the regieme there is also an effect in weakening the country against foreign enemies.
  187. @Sean
    The drive to restrict access to porn is being led by people who are worried about the effect it has on boys in regards what they think can be expected of a girlfriend, specifically in normalising peculiar sex among the young, as shown by a remarkable increase in anal sex among teens. As for stopping 21 year olds working in the adult industry I have heard a woman performer (Asa Akira) say that 18 is too young and it should be 21 , but there is still hooking--which the girls all do-- so those 18 year olds who head for LA, would just do that for a couple of years. They escort with Hollywood studio people and others in the orbit of mainstream LA celebrity, which seems to be the main attraction. As was being said when California was threatening to make condoms compulsory for porn, if the industry moved to Illinois their supply of fresh meat would dry up.

    Being a white advocate is probabally a lot more devastating to one's life chances than appearing in pornography. That Duke student who appeared in porn has since got taken on at a law firm, which I dare say would not have happened if she had been outed as saying it is all right to be white. A girl going into porn at 18 has at least a chance of becoming a multi millionaire by the time she is 21 years' old. Sasha Grey did it. If you are worried about 18 year olds flushing their life down the crapper before they are old enough to really understand what they are doing, then then publicly expressing pride or even lack of guilt about being white is what you should say they are too young to do before turning 21.

    The drive to restrict access to porn is being led by people who are worried about the effect it has on boys in regards what they think can be expected of a girlfriend, specifically in normalising peculiar sex among the young, as shown by a remarkable increase in anal sex among teens.

    On the topic of an increase in heterosexual buggery (anal coitus), I have no doubt that the influence of porn is at least a major contributing factor.

    But what about the normalizing of homosexuality? How much of a role has it played in the normalization of heterosexual buggery? Remember, an essential compononent of the nomralization of homosexuality is the whitewashing, promotion and normalization of the specific practice of anal penetration, a.k.a. buggery.

    How many teenage boys, I wonder, have played the homophobia card on a reluctant girl in order to intimdate her into subjecting to this vile, unhygenic act? What’s the matter, Susie? You’re not homophobic now, are you?!

  188. @iffen
    What’s the difference between pornography and erotica?

    Very good question and I don’t have a ready answer. Your excellent comment makes several good points.

    I appreciate that concern.

    My main objection to porn is the degradation of the the participants. I stopped viewing porn regularly (and I give myself credit that it was before I aged out of the market, ha) when I stopped and considered it from the point of view of the people involved. My reasoning was that I wouldn’t want my daughter participating in that sort of stuff, therefore it would be hypocritical of me to watch someone else’s daughter degrading herself.

    I’m not afraid of slippery slopes. I think most everything is a continuum of one sort or another.

    Initially, I was not going to get deeply involved in the porn thread because I am unsure of the exact relationship between sexual acts and morality. Also, I don’t have a lot of confidence in our ability to “extract” the data that indicate the actual effects.

    Your excellent comment makes several good points.

    Thanks.

    The answer I had alluded-to, to the question What’s the difference between erotica and pornography? was:
    Erotica is the high-brow artistic and literary works that I appreciate. Porn is the sleazy smut that you get off to.

    Same idea as the answer, It depends which side you’re on, to the question, What’s the difference between a terorist and a freedom-fighter? In other words, these distinctions tend to be more subjective than anything else.

    I understand the basic definition of pornography– as much as there really is any real definition– to be material produced for the sole purpose of raw erotic titillation/ prurient interest, devoid of any artistic or literary merit or any other redeeming value. I am far from the first one to find such criteria inevitably subjective.

    My reasoning was that I wouldn’t want my daughter participating in that sort of stuff, therefore it would be hypocritical of me to watch someone else’s daughter degrading herself.

    I respect you for that.

    One could make the argument that in those cases where one’s viewing of the material-in-question would neither support its production nor contribute to demand for it, that no further harm to the performers or models would result from merely viewing it. Examples of such cases could include media already in one’s possesion as well as digital piracy in cases where there is no party that profits from it. But that would still leave plenty of other problems with porn.

    (*In the case of acquiring porn through piracy or even outright theft of physical media, one could perhaps even go so far as to argue that to do so –and thereby potentially cause financial loss to the producers, distributors and sellers of such material– could be considered a societal good. Of course, that raises the question of possibly helping to ultimately bring about a situation where the performers could suffer as well.)

    Initially, I was not going to get deeply involved in the porn thread because I am unsure of the exact relationship between sexual acts and morality.

    Note that the question with pornography is not one of sexual acts, per se but rather the recording or depiction of said acts and the distribution and marketing of the material produced. This critical distinction seems to often not be made, though. Opponents of pornography are often absurdly characterized and attacked as opponents of sex, etc.

    Also, I don’t have a lot of confidence in our ability to “extract” the data that indicate the actual effects.

    I believe you are correct to be healthily skeptical; to scrutinize claims; to demand evidence. But the general conclusion that porn creates serious problems and, on balance, is a harmful influence, seems pretty intuitively self-evident to me. When it comes to the question of how best the Law should handle the matter, however, I am uncertain and at least somewhat conflicted.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  189. @Sean
    Re, -Jewish conspiracy.For encouraging mastrubation (he had done nothing else to merit it) Hugh Hefner was given the ADL's freedom award in 1980. Joseph Paul Franklin (who Pierce dedicated Hunter* to) shot Larry Flynt.

    Nietzsche wrote:


    “The reabsorption of semen by the blood is the strongest nourishment and, perhaps more than any other factor, it prompts the stimulus of power, the unrest of all forces toward the overcoming of resistances, the thirst for contradiction and resistance. The feeling of power has so far mounted highest in abstinent priests and hermits (for example, among the Brahmans).”
     
    Fun fact: even as a youth, Adolph Hitler never mastrubated (ref The Psychopathic God). I don't know whether abstaining is more likely to make you believe in a Jewish conspiracy, but I am certain leaving yourself alone is more likely to make you do something very serious about any putative conspiracy you might believe in.

    Hunter ...asks the question, "How should an honorable man confront evil ?"Should he ignore it, with the excuse that it is not his responsibility/ Should he ally himself with the evil, because that’s where the "smart money" is ? Or should he take up arms against it and fight it with all his strength and without regard for the personal consequences, even though he must fight alone ?
     

    Fun fact: even as a youth, Adolph Hitler never mastrubated (ref The Psychopathic God).

    Isn’t that a rather absurd claim, if only because how could anyone ever verify it?

    • Replies: @Sean
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Kubizek said in his book that Hitler did not masturbate.

    He was a close friend and roommate when Hitler was 19, so he was in a position to know a lot about what Hitler did. As a good listener got to hear all the young Hitler's ideas including the one of an "Eternal Flame" which was about the pure love that special people practiced, and his contempt for everything else. Kubizek seems to had verifiable genuine inside information about Hitler's Wagner obsession.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rienzi#Rienzi_and_Adolf_Hitler

    Hitler's first girlfriend was a 16 year old, when he was in his thirties and after he became nationally known figure. I think the evidence suggests he was pretty normal in sexual instincts but completely restrained them for a long time. Throughout his life Hitler loved sugar. Nietzsche ate massive amounts of fruit by the way.
  190. Sean says:
    @Audacious Epigone
    But surely he's not the only to have ever done this, right? Sui generis on the whole, maybe, but there are other 40 yo virgins out there who are neither superheroes or in this case supervillains!

    I don’t think he gained a decisive advantage in intelligence, memory or concentration from his overindulgence in sugar and abstinence from releasing his fructose–intensified desires. However, he was one of the very few private soldiers of WW1 that was awarded the Iron Cross first class, and I do think his repeated willingness to take extreme real world risks in a cause greater than himself, (discharging his duties in war and then in furthering the outlandish objective of remaking Germany) stemmed in no small measure from an inner pressure his habits had created.

    His culture supported him in not mastrubating, perhaps because countries that have to fight understand that sexual repression creates a fighting spirit. Denis Diderot unsuccessfully tried to interest Catherine the Great in sex education for Russian girls. Bella Kun’s communist government in Hungary introduced sex education for schoolchildren and the people would not fight for it against a Romanian invasion. Lenin was opposed Alexandra Kollontai’s family kibitzing and sexual liberation ideas. Lenin said the youth should be doing Pioneer type activities. Putin has got a youth movement that campaigns against thongs. I think pornography and mastubation would be promoted by a ruling group to weaken a domestic enemy, but in strengthening the regieme there is also an effect in weakening the country against foreign enemies.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    There is a view that his advantages derived from his practice of "abductive logic":

    https://salo-forum.com/index.php?threads/hitler%E2%80%99s-psionic-supertechnology-esoteric.4110/

    Adolf Hitler is the greatest mystery of the 20th century, and the mystery surrounding him consists of two unanswered questions that have baffled biographers and historians. First, how did he ever rise to power? Second, who was he really?

    Ben Novak spent fourteen years searching for the secret of Hitler's political success and his power as a speaker. Hitler's most astute contemporary observer, Konrad Heiden, who wrote the first objective books on Hitler warning that this man was "the greatest massdisturber in world history," suggested that Hitler's secret lay in his use of "eine eigentiimliche art von Logik," or a "peculiar form of logic." Beginning with this clue, Novak finds that there is a new form of logic in accordance with Heiden's description and examples that can explain Hitler's phenomenal political success. This new form of logic, called "abduction," was discovered by an American philosopher, Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914), who is rapidly becoming America's most well-known philosopher and logician.

    Abduction is a third form of logic, in addition to deduction and induction. Unlike the other forms of logic, abduction is based on instinct and has a power over emotions. Novak argues that Hitler was the first politician to apply the logic of abduction to politics. This book provides the first coherent account of Hitler's youth that ties together all the known facts, clearly showing the genesis of the strangest and most terrible man of the twentieth century while identifying the power he discovered that allowed him to break out into the world in such a terrifying way.
     
  191. anon[157] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean
    I think his sexual abstinence and powers were cause and effect because there is no evidence of Hitler having had sex until he was well into his thirties, and his powers declined precipitously from then. Ernst Hanfstaengl, who knew the younger Hitler well, said no one who heard him speak in his latter years could have any idea of his true gifts.

    I think his sexual abstinence and powers were cause and effect because there is no evidence of Hitler having had sex until he was well into his thirties

    where would you get this evidence?

    its very creepy the way historian types think they can find out everything about a man that lived a century ago, probably this is more disinfo/slander spread by jews – “Hitler was a failure as an artist, had one testicle, screwed his niece, was a homosexual, was a drug addict” blah blah blah

  192. anon[157] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    The brain runs mainly on glucose, and is the most energetically expensive organ, so I wonder why fasting and starving the brain of glucose would improve mental sharpness.

    Why do you suppose the decline of middle age would come sooner? Don't monks and the like tend to live longer?

    The brain runs mainly on glucose, and is the most energetically expensive organ, so I wonder why fasting and starving the brain of glucose would improve mental sharpness.

    what happens to people who go on the low-carb paleo diet to the point of ketosis?

    isn’t that a diet very low in sugars?

  193. Sean says:
    @Dissident

    Fun fact: even as a youth, Adolph Hitler never mastrubated (ref The Psychopathic God).
     
    Isn't that a rather absurd claim, if only because how could anyone ever verify it?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Kubizek said in his book that Hitler did not masturbate.

    He was a close friend and roommate when Hitler was 19, so he was in a position to know a lot about what Hitler did. As a good listener got to hear all the young Hitler’s ideas including the one of an “Eternal Flame” which was about the pure love that special people practiced, and his contempt for everything else. Kubizek seems to had verifiable genuine inside information about Hitler’s Wagner obsession.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rienzi#Rienzi_and_Adolf_Hitler

    Hitler’s first girlfriend was a 16 year old, when he was in his thirties and after he became nationally known figure. I think the evidence suggests he was pretty normal in sexual instincts but completely restrained them for a long time. Throughout his life Hitler loved sugar. Nietzsche ate massive amounts of fruit by the way.

  194. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean
    I don't think he gained a decisive advantage in intelligence, memory or concentration from his overindulgence in sugar and abstinence from releasing his fructose--intensified desires. However, he was one of the very few private soldiers of WW1 that was awarded the Iron Cross first class, and I do think his repeated willingness to take extreme real world risks in a cause greater than himself, (discharging his duties in war and then in furthering the outlandish objective of remaking Germany) stemmed in no small measure from an inner pressure his habits had created.

    His culture supported him in not mastrubating, perhaps because countries that have to fight understand that sexual repression creates a fighting spirit. Denis Diderot unsuccessfully tried to interest Catherine the Great in sex education for Russian girls. Bella Kun's communist government in Hungary introduced sex education for schoolchildren and the people would not fight for it against a Romanian invasion. Lenin was opposed Alexandra Kollontai's family kibitzing and sexual liberation ideas. Lenin said the youth should be doing Pioneer type activities. Putin has got a youth movement that campaigns against thongs. I think pornography and mastubation would be promoted by a ruling group to weaken a domestic enemy, but in strengthening the regieme there is also an effect in weakening the country against foreign enemies.

    There is a view that his advantages derived from his practice of “abductive logic”:

    https://salo-forum.com/index.php?threads/hitler%E2%80%99s-psionic-supertechnology-esoteric.4110/

    Adolf Hitler is the greatest mystery of the 20th century, and the mystery surrounding him consists of two unanswered questions that have baffled biographers and historians. First, how did he ever rise to power? Second, who was he really?

    Ben Novak spent fourteen years searching for the secret of Hitler’s political success and his power as a speaker. Hitler’s most astute contemporary observer, Konrad Heiden, who wrote the first objective books on Hitler warning that this man was “the greatest massdisturber in world history,” suggested that Hitler’s secret lay in his use of “eine eigentiimliche art von Logik,” or a “peculiar form of logic.” Beginning with this clue, Novak finds that there is a new form of logic in accordance with Heiden’s description and examples that can explain Hitler’s phenomenal political success. This new form of logic, called “abduction,” was discovered by an American philosopher, Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914), who is rapidly becoming America’s most well-known philosopher and logician.

    Abduction is a third form of logic, in addition to deduction and induction. Unlike the other forms of logic, abduction is based on instinct and has a power over emotions. Novak argues that Hitler was the first politician to apply the logic of abduction to politics. This book provides the first coherent account of Hitler’s youth that ties together all the known facts, clearly showing the genesis of the strangest and most terrible man of the twentieth century while identifying the power he discovered that allowed him to break out into the world in such a terrifying way.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Wait, is this what they mean by "third position"?!
  195. @Anonymous
    There is a view that his advantages derived from his practice of "abductive logic":

    https://salo-forum.com/index.php?threads/hitler%E2%80%99s-psionic-supertechnology-esoteric.4110/

    Adolf Hitler is the greatest mystery of the 20th century, and the mystery surrounding him consists of two unanswered questions that have baffled biographers and historians. First, how did he ever rise to power? Second, who was he really?

    Ben Novak spent fourteen years searching for the secret of Hitler's political success and his power as a speaker. Hitler's most astute contemporary observer, Konrad Heiden, who wrote the first objective books on Hitler warning that this man was "the greatest massdisturber in world history," suggested that Hitler's secret lay in his use of "eine eigentiimliche art von Logik," or a "peculiar form of logic." Beginning with this clue, Novak finds that there is a new form of logic in accordance with Heiden's description and examples that can explain Hitler's phenomenal political success. This new form of logic, called "abduction," was discovered by an American philosopher, Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914), who is rapidly becoming America's most well-known philosopher and logician.

    Abduction is a third form of logic, in addition to deduction and induction. Unlike the other forms of logic, abduction is based on instinct and has a power over emotions. Novak argues that Hitler was the first politician to apply the logic of abduction to politics. This book provides the first coherent account of Hitler's youth that ties together all the known facts, clearly showing the genesis of the strangest and most terrible man of the twentieth century while identifying the power he discovered that allowed him to break out into the world in such a terrifying way.
     

    Wait, is this what they mean by “third position”?!

  196. @Anonymous
    I don't think it's a good argument against Prohibition, just as pointing out drug cartels and human trafficking are not good arguments for drug legalization and lax borders. The criminal element should not have veto power over legislation. If they do, you effectively have a failed state.

    I never said Prohibition was in the Bill of Rights. The fact that it was a Constitutional amendment means that it fulfilled much stricter procedures than ordinary legislation.

    Upon what basis is it not a good argument. You are engaging in tautology.

    Prohibitionists tend to overlook or be oblivious to second and third order effects of their prohibitionist schemes.

    The creation and solidification of black market criminal syndicates who use violence to maintain and enhance their position is a substantive argument militating against any scheme to prohibit any activity that, in and of itself, is not a crime, per se.

    Prohibition inevitably leads to massive corruption as public sector types, be they beat cops, detectives, federal agents, commissars, politicians, and judges, are far more apt to be corrupted than people who are in the private sector actually making and producing wealth. Bribes, payoffs, and unequal administration of the law thrives under prohibition regimes. Stated otherwise, the rule of law breaks down and that cost is far greater than the costs of alcohol abuse.

    Dissident rightists suffer from the same fatal conceit as that of all commie / proggie / socialists and statists: they think they they are far more capable of managing life, the economy, and the administration of justice than anybody else. In short, they think that their central planning schemes will carry the day.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Ya know, smartypants, that the main problem is the demand for vice, which rises and falls regularly according to several things, some of which we can control and some of which we can't. The War On Drugs had to happen because Boomers were responsible for a 2,000 fold increase in drug consumption in the late 60's-early 80's. It's not the government's fault a particular generation would show absolutely no discretion about what it was putting into the body. You don't want a war on drugs? Don't do drugs in the first place.

    Nowadays it's easier to be cavalier about how "stupid" the war on drugs is, because Millennials aren't frying their brains on LSD, Acid, Cocaine etc. like Boomers were doing 40 years ago.

    The government's decision to essentially enforce heavy punishments on drunk driving has, without a doubt, greatly diminished the amount of drunk driving.

    When vice rages out of control (as it did in the 70's and 80's), what are we supposed to do? Do you have any memory of the Crack Wars that lasted from about 1985-1995? Did you think everybody was gonna sit idly by as huge swaths of urban America turned into war zones?

    Perhaps you libertarian types propose that we just let these things "burn out" on their own, run their course, instead of actually doing something to protect communities.

    Also, did you live through the decadence of the early 20th century? Do you have any idea how many people felt besieged by gamblers, drunks, criminals, etc., and were demanding that something be done about it by the authorities?

    It's funny too how libertarians act as if things are always "getting worse", when in reality drinking and overall drug use declined from 1981-1994 (with crack addled blacks being an outlier). But then, saying that vice interdiction is always a gubmint boondogle is predicated on ignoring social and material reality. Putting lots of people behind bars, and media/political elites saying with certainty that drug use was wrong, was effective at diminishing the appeal of drugs.
  197. @Liberty Mike
    Upon what basis is it not a good argument. You are engaging in tautology.

    Prohibitionists tend to overlook or be oblivious to second and third order effects of their prohibitionist schemes.

    The creation and solidification of black market criminal syndicates who use violence to maintain and enhance their position is a substantive argument militating against any scheme to prohibit any activity that, in and of itself, is not a crime, per se.

    Prohibition inevitably leads to massive corruption as public sector types, be they beat cops, detectives, federal agents, commissars, politicians, and judges, are far more apt to be corrupted than people who are in the private sector actually making and producing wealth. Bribes, payoffs, and unequal administration of the law thrives under prohibition regimes. Stated otherwise, the rule of law breaks down and that cost is far greater than the costs of alcohol abuse.

    Dissident rightists suffer from the same fatal conceit as that of all commie / proggie / socialists and statists: they think they they are far more capable of managing life, the economy, and the administration of justice than anybody else. In short, they think that their central planning schemes will carry the day.

    Ya know, smartypants, that the main problem is the demand for vice, which rises and falls regularly according to several things, some of which we can control and some of which we can’t. The War On Drugs had to happen because Boomers were responsible for a 2,000 fold increase in drug consumption in the late 60’s-early 80’s. It’s not the government’s fault a particular generation would show absolutely no discretion about what it was putting into the body. You don’t want a war on drugs? Don’t do drugs in the first place.

    Nowadays it’s easier to be cavalier about how “stupid” the war on drugs is, because Millennials aren’t frying their brains on LSD, Acid, Cocaine etc. like Boomers were doing 40 years ago.

    The government’s decision to essentially enforce heavy punishments on drunk driving has, without a doubt, greatly diminished the amount of drunk driving.

    When vice rages out of control (as it did in the 70’s and 80’s), what are we supposed to do? Do you have any memory of the Crack Wars that lasted from about 1985-1995? Did you think everybody was gonna sit idly by as huge swaths of urban America turned into war zones?

    Perhaps you libertarian types propose that we just let these things “burn out” on their own, run their course, instead of actually doing something to protect communities.

    Also, did you live through the decadence of the early 20th century? Do you have any idea how many people felt besieged by gamblers, drunks, criminals, etc., and were demanding that something be done about it by the authorities?

    It’s funny too how libertarians act as if things are always “getting worse”, when in reality drinking and overall drug use declined from 1981-1994 (with crack addled blacks being an outlier). But then, saying that vice interdiction is always a gubmint boondogle is predicated on ignoring social and material reality. Putting lots of people behind bars, and media/political elites saying with certainty that drug use was wrong, was effective at diminishing the appeal of drugs.

    • Replies: @Sean

    Putting lots of people behind bars, and media/political elites saying with certainty that drug use was wrong, was effective at diminishing the appeal of drugs.
     
    Illegal drugs; yes, but you have to factor in the opioid crisis. Things change tectonically and although concentrating against specific areas enables showy local success, you cannot really prevent countervailing reverses across the broad front. Arthur Jones said in his memoirs that, apart from a very few women giving men blow jobs, oral sex was almost unheard of until the mid 1950s, and no man would would admit that he performed it. The movie Deep Throat only really took off when Johnny Carson started talking about it on TV. As for the law and animadversion of societal leaders in relation to porn, child pornography was being openly sold in American cities during the mid seventies and while that is now ended, the evidence of surveys and doctors who have to treat the injuries, suggests anal sex is increasingly part of normal dating for young teen girls.

    Laws might stop explicit racist speech, but it will not stop the slow but sure formation of a related consensus among the majority of people. During the Weimar republic there were all sorts of laws brought in to stop the Nazis, but it did not work.

    https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/angrif02.htm
    And You Really Want to Vote for Me?
    by Joseph Goebbels (May 1928)

    A citizen second class, with four convictions and eight pending cases? What a dreamer! In an essay I wrote that each National Socialist should obey the states attorney “when there isn’t any way around it,” regardless of whether it was right or wrong. For that a court in Elberfeld fined me a hundred marks for inciting resistance against the states attorney.

    When Hans Hustert, in jail for trying to kill Scheidemann [Chancellor in 1922], had his teeth ruined by lousy prison food, I started a collection so that this fiend could get his teeth fixed. A court in Munich fined me 50 marks for an illegal collection. [...] He didn’t sue, but I got six weeks in prison anyway because of “incitement to violence without result.” A case is pending against me because I am supposed to have called police chief Dr. Weiss “Isidor,” though his name is Bernhard. [...]
    Under the conditions existing since 1918, I therefore have no chance of getting anything done.

    And you really want to vote for me?
     
    Male orangutans in the wild have quite a thing for anal sex with females. Although they preferentially eat fruit when they can get it, in the rainforest they are in ketosis for much of the year. I expect the rough stuff is mainly in summer among the Sumatran species, in which the females consent to sex all year long to keep the hulking males close as protection from the Clouded Leopard.
  198. Sean says:
    @Feryl
    Ya know, smartypants, that the main problem is the demand for vice, which rises and falls regularly according to several things, some of which we can control and some of which we can't. The War On Drugs had to happen because Boomers were responsible for a 2,000 fold increase in drug consumption in the late 60's-early 80's. It's not the government's fault a particular generation would show absolutely no discretion about what it was putting into the body. You don't want a war on drugs? Don't do drugs in the first place.

    Nowadays it's easier to be cavalier about how "stupid" the war on drugs is, because Millennials aren't frying their brains on LSD, Acid, Cocaine etc. like Boomers were doing 40 years ago.

    The government's decision to essentially enforce heavy punishments on drunk driving has, without a doubt, greatly diminished the amount of drunk driving.

    When vice rages out of control (as it did in the 70's and 80's), what are we supposed to do? Do you have any memory of the Crack Wars that lasted from about 1985-1995? Did you think everybody was gonna sit idly by as huge swaths of urban America turned into war zones?

    Perhaps you libertarian types propose that we just let these things "burn out" on their own, run their course, instead of actually doing something to protect communities.

    Also, did you live through the decadence of the early 20th century? Do you have any idea how many people felt besieged by gamblers, drunks, criminals, etc., and were demanding that something be done about it by the authorities?

    It's funny too how libertarians act as if things are always "getting worse", when in reality drinking and overall drug use declined from 1981-1994 (with crack addled blacks being an outlier). But then, saying that vice interdiction is always a gubmint boondogle is predicated on ignoring social and material reality. Putting lots of people behind bars, and media/political elites saying with certainty that drug use was wrong, was effective at diminishing the appeal of drugs.

    Putting lots of people behind bars, and media/political elites saying with certainty that drug use was wrong, was effective at diminishing the appeal of drugs.

    Illegal drugs; yes, but you have to factor in the opioid crisis. Things change tectonically and although concentrating against specific areas enables showy local success, you cannot really prevent countervailing reverses across the broad front. Arthur Jones said in his memoirs that, apart from a very few women giving men blow jobs, oral sex was almost unheard of until the mid 1950s, and no man would would admit that he performed it. The movie Deep Throat only really took off when Johnny Carson started talking about it on TV. As for the law and animadversion of societal leaders in relation to porn, child pornography was being openly sold in American cities during the mid seventies and while that is now ended, the evidence of surveys and doctors who have to treat the injuries, suggests anal sex is increasingly part of normal dating for young teen girls.

    Laws might stop explicit racist speech, but it will not stop the slow but sure formation of a related consensus among the majority of people. During the Weimar republic there were all sorts of laws brought in to stop the Nazis, but it did not work.

    https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/angrif02.htm
    And You Really Want to Vote for Me?
    by Joseph Goebbels (May 1928)

    A citizen second class, with four convictions and eight pending cases? What a dreamer! In an essay I wrote that each National Socialist should obey the states attorney “when there isn’t any way around it,” regardless of whether it was right or wrong. For that a court in Elberfeld fined me a hundred marks for inciting resistance against the states attorney.

    When Hans Hustert, in jail for trying to kill Scheidemann [Chancellor in 1922], had his teeth ruined by lousy prison food, I started a collection so that this fiend could get his teeth fixed. A court in Munich fined me 50 marks for an illegal collection. […] He didn’t sue, but I got six weeks in prison anyway because of “incitement to violence without result.” A case is pending against me because I am supposed to have called police chief Dr. Weiss “Isidor,” though his name is Bernhard. […]
    Under the conditions existing since 1918, I therefore have no chance of getting anything done.

    And you really want to vote for me?

    Male orangutans in the wild have quite a thing for anal sex with females. Although they preferentially eat fruit when they can get it, in the rainforest they are in ketosis for much of the year. I expect the rough stuff is mainly in summer among the Sumatran species, in which the females consent to sex all year long to keep the hulking males close as protection from the Clouded Leopard.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS