The founders did not exclude religion from government by accident. This Christo-fascist loon is a good example of why they made their decision. Few people disgust me more than those who claim their religion entitles them to a say in other people's personal choices. What is the state's interests here? Why invent a law just to create criminals who aren't hurting anyone?
Nothing creeps me out more than a Rethuglican peeking up my skirts.
The Christo-fascists prove, time and again, THEY are the perverts, cheating with their churches, their wives, minors . . . They canβt control themselves! Mike Johnson spies on his kid, yet claims to have NO bank account or mortgage--it that doesnβt scream Dirty Fraud and Pornster, I donβt know what does! They are ruled by a rapist; they count the likes of Jism Jordan and Matt Gaetz-minors as one of their own. GIVE ME A BREAK!!!
βPuritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.β
β H.L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy
Yes, Puritanism is alive and well, and metastasising through the entirety of the GOP.
Since we repeatedly see that the most censorious prigs and prudes so often turn out to be among the most licentious libertines, Mr. Deevers' fellow Republican pretenders of piety will realize that they would be among the first victims of his insane laws, so they'll nod and say "Yes, yes, so true," but his bills will die in committee. But still we can all wait in gleeful anticipation of his own personal "Ted Haggard moment," when he's caught with his pants actually down.
As deplorable as this legislation is, as bad as the promotion of his personal religious nonsense is, as ignorant and misguided (way too polite for this crap) as this is, I guarantee you they will find a way to make exceptions for unsolicited dΓ―ck pics like they do for all sorts of other sexual harassment of women.
Pornography isnβt the problem. People seeking pleasure through visual means is not a problem. The problem is the people (mainly, but not limited to men) who take advantage of vulnerable people for their own gain. Some porn is problematic because the women involved were not consenting to much of what they were forced to do, Debbie didnβt do Dallas, Dallas raped Debbie. There are more and more pornography producers that are on the up and up, including the women in decisions regarding what theyβre going to do, paying them well for their contributions and just being reasonable. Onlyfans has decent policies protecting the artists, for now.
Then thereβs the perverts who push for more racy content, that arenβt satisfied with consensual encounters or adult actors, and thatβs where the big money is. So there will always be the producers of immoral content and policies, because we will always have the sickos looking at actual infants as targets, or folks like Andrew Taint who tells us openly that he prefers his partners to be unwilling. Deevers cannot legislate that away. Thereβs things that we can make illegal to protect the victims, but outlawing porn or even intimate images is not it.
So, to come back around, this doesnβt do anything to address the real issues surrounding porn, rape culture, child molestation, sexual harassment, or any other criminal behavior it only criminalizes benign normal activities. Which only enables and encourages the bad shit.
That 'bounty law' out of Texas is going to come back to haunt us many, many more times I think.
Seems to me that Deevers is trying to address something only he truly considers to be a problem. I really don't think he's thought this one through, either, because he's going after an industry that has enough money to fight for years this if they truly feel the need, and without doubt the state will run out of money first. Considering who usually views porn, I strongly suspect this bill has less support than Deevers might at first think, as well.* To my thinking, if Deevers actually wanted a solution to pornography he'd be looking to create helpful materials that direct those feeling they need help to resources they can use, but this? This appears to be little more than a showboat attempt to claim "hey, I tried" later on; I'm not sure Deevers has any expectation this bill of his will pass, and it works for him if it doesn't. This sort of behavior is one of the biggest issues I currently have with the Republican party, too: they're not in government to actually create, interpret, or enforce good laws, they're in it for the attention. Color me unimpressed.
To the US Constitution, which you swore an oath to support and defend? You failed that epically. But then again, most Christian politicos on the red side of the aisle do.
This isn't a serious law. He's just doing the tiktok challenge of "Tell me that you have batshit crazy dick picks floating around the internet, without telling that you have batshit crazy dick picks floating around the internet.
It's only a matter of time before his browsing history is revealed.
"πΌ ππ ππ’π π‘ π‘ππ¦πππ π‘π ππ ππππ‘βππ’π"
Faithful to what?
Turn the other cheek? Nope.
Forgiveness for all sins? Nope.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Nope.
Small government? Nope.
Personal freedom? Nope.
Dude clearly believes in none of those things.
The founders did not exclude religion from government by accident. This Christo-fascist loon is a good example of why they made their decision. Few people disgust me more than those who claim their religion entitles them to a say in other people's personal choices. What is the state's interests here? Why invent a law just to create criminals who aren't hurting anyone?
"...the relevant portions define βunlawful pornographyβ as any visual depiction or image of sex..."
Visual depictions are what's prohibited? Sounds like a really good way to get horny teenagers reading erotica.
Nothing creeps me out more than a Rethuglican peeking up my skirts.
The Christo-fascists prove, time and again, THEY are the perverts, cheating with their churches, their wives, minors . . . They canβt control themselves! Mike Johnson spies on his kid, yet claims to have NO bank account or mortgage--it that doesnβt scream Dirty Fraud and Pornster, I donβt know what does! They are ruled by a rapist; they count the likes of Jism Jordan and Matt Gaetz-minors as one of their own. GIVE ME A BREAK!!!
Should I come and show my browser history to the senator in the hopes he have a cardiac arrest ?
"But itβs a very convenient way to make sure reading the Bible, with its incest and sex crimes, isnβt criminalized.)"
The solution is simple. Sext each others by quoting bible verses or historical art pieces. Bonus point if it's a christian painting or sculpture like this one https://www.google.com/search?q=sainte+therese+d%27avila+statue&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwie8aeEpoWEAxUvUKQEHUKIBsgQ2-cCegQIABAC&oq=sainte+therese+d%27avila+statue&gs_lcp=ChJtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1pbWcQAzIECAAQHjIICAAQgAQQogQ6BAgjECc6BggAEAcQHlCeBljhEWDpFGgAcAB4AIABV4gB6gSSAQE4mAEAoAEBwAEB&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-img&ei=NgS5ZZ7-I6-gkdUPwpCawAw&bih=610&biw=360&client=ms-android-bouygues-fr-rvc3&prmd=ivnbz#imgrc=VqawliWgyngI6M
MAGA really is obsessed with other peopleβs sex lives. Itβs really sick!π€’
βPuritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.β
β H.L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy
Yes, Puritanism is alive and well, and metastasising through the entirety of the GOP.
Since we repeatedly see that the most censorious prigs and prudes so often turn out to be among the most licentious libertines, Mr. Deevers' fellow Republican pretenders of piety will realize that they would be among the first victims of his insane laws, so they'll nod and say "Yes, yes, so true," but his bills will die in committee. But still we can all wait in gleeful anticipation of his own personal "Ted Haggard moment," when he's caught with his pants actually down.
As deplorable as this legislation is, as bad as the promotion of his personal religious nonsense is, as ignorant and misguided (way too polite for this crap) as this is, I guarantee you they will find a way to make exceptions for unsolicited dΓ―ck pics like they do for all sorts of other sexual harassment of women.
Pornography isnβt the problem. People seeking pleasure through visual means is not a problem. The problem is the people (mainly, but not limited to men) who take advantage of vulnerable people for their own gain. Some porn is problematic because the women involved were not consenting to much of what they were forced to do, Debbie didnβt do Dallas, Dallas raped Debbie. There are more and more pornography producers that are on the up and up, including the women in decisions regarding what theyβre going to do, paying them well for their contributions and just being reasonable. Onlyfans has decent policies protecting the artists, for now.
Then thereβs the perverts who push for more racy content, that arenβt satisfied with consensual encounters or adult actors, and thatβs where the big money is. So there will always be the producers of immoral content and policies, because we will always have the sickos looking at actual infants as targets, or folks like Andrew Taint who tells us openly that he prefers his partners to be unwilling. Deevers cannot legislate that away. Thereβs things that we can make illegal to protect the victims, but outlawing porn or even intimate images is not it.
So, to come back around, this doesnβt do anything to address the real issues surrounding porn, rape culture, child molestation, sexual harassment, or any other criminal behavior it only criminalizes benign normal activities. Which only enables and encourages the bad shit.
"define βunlawful pornographyβ as any visual depiction or image of sex"
That's just for humans, right? Other animals doing it is still ok? (Asking for a friend.)
Why don't they just come out and say "We want to ban fun!"
Rethuglikkkans, Forever falsely accusing others of cancel culture while simultaneously practicing cancel culture.
That 'bounty law' out of Texas is going to come back to haunt us many, many more times I think.
Seems to me that Deevers is trying to address something only he truly considers to be a problem. I really don't think he's thought this one through, either, because he's going after an industry that has enough money to fight for years this if they truly feel the need, and without doubt the state will run out of money first. Considering who usually views porn, I strongly suspect this bill has less support than Deevers might at first think, as well.* To my thinking, if Deevers actually wanted a solution to pornography he'd be looking to create helpful materials that direct those feeling they need help to resources they can use, but this? This appears to be little more than a showboat attempt to claim "hey, I tried" later on; I'm not sure Deevers has any expectation this bill of his will pass, and it works for him if it doesn't. This sort of behavior is one of the biggest issues I currently have with the Republican party, too: they're not in government to actually create, interpret, or enforce good laws, they're in it for the attention. Color me unimpressed.
*According to Psychology Today, it's mostly men still: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/everyone-on-top/202309/how-much-porn-do-americans-really-watch
"I'm just trying to be faithful."
To the US Constitution, which you swore an oath to support and defend? You failed that epically. But then again, most Christian politicos on the red side of the aisle do.
Meanwhile, 43rd ranked Oklahoma has REAL issues that need addressing.
They're 48th in both Education and Health Care, for example. Seems to me that's a tad more pressing.
This isn't a serious law. He's just doing the tiktok challenge of "Tell me that you have batshit crazy dick picks floating around the internet, without telling that you have batshit crazy dick picks floating around the internet.