PPEcel
cope and seethe
-
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2018
- Posts
- 29,096
Original thread:
On that thread, I presented a New York Times article which described the problem of child pornography on Pornhub. The article prominently featured a femoid who, at the age of 14, had sent videos of herself to a Chad classmate who then shared it with his friends. Before long, it was being shared online; for the foid, this resulted in a cycle of anxiety, suicide attempts, drug addiction, and homelessness.
That thread received more heated responses on and off this forum than I expected. Indeed, one of our members' comments managed to trigger dozens of entertaining responses from our biggest fans over at Reddit. Here's a sampling:
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelTear/comments/kad2mv/the_pedocels_are_at_it_again/gfacgl2?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelTear/comments/kad2mv/the_pedocels_are_at_it_again/gfcaw8y?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelTear/comments/kad2mv/the_pedocels_are_at_it_again/gfa5b2x?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
An update on the foid
Some of you will no doubt be infuriated to learn that a GoFundMe has been set up for the person featured in the NYTimes article, and that she is no longer homeless and is putting the pieces of her life back together. I look forward to reading your commentary.
View: https://twitter.com/NickKristof/status/1335774327682297856
Potential changes to U.S. law
Within days of Nick Kristof's article, Visa and Mastercard joined PayPal and blocked their services from being used on Pornhub, and Mindgeek (Pornhub's parent company) capitulated and implemented much of Kristof's suggestions.
But more importantly is the U.S. Senate bill, the Survivors of Human Trafficking Fight Back Act, that is being sponsored by Senators Hawley, Ernst, Hassan, and Tillis, as a result of this NYTimes article.
While it is already illegal in the U.S. to possess and distribute any visual depictions of sex activity involving minors, the bill would further criminalize:
1) the distribution, or possession with intent to distribute, visual depictions of nonconsensual sexual activity (i.e. rape videos)
2) the distribution, or possession with intent to distribute, visual depictions of sexual activity where the participants do not consent to said distribution
Either would be punishable by a minimum sentence of 5 years. (Jeez, what is up with Americans and their love of insanely harsh criminal sentencing guidelines?)
The bill would also force operators of pornographic websites to provide a "takedown" process for said videos; failure to comply would result in a fine or a maximum of 3 years' imprisonment. It also exposes them to federal civil liability (i.e. foids can sue Pornhub executives in federal court).
Now, bills usually look pretty different after they've gone through the committee process and all that, but I think that this will probably make it through the legislative process fairly quickly, since this allows cuckservatives to trumpet their "law and order" credentials, and progressives to go about their usual business of simping for m'lady.
In my opinion, this bill will not substantially affect low SMV males as much as it will affect mid/high-tier normies (after all, we are not the ones receiving nudes). Chads, however, will have to think twice before sharing Stacy's nudes with his classmates, because five years of fed time is not a great thing for a high schooler to put on his resume. But depending on how onerous these regulations will be on the porn business, this may adversely impact Mindgeek's "free porn" business model. Coomercels may, in the future, have to pay more to get their fix, to financially support the increased content moderation that governments will require of the sex industry.
Agenda-setting theories
I think this is an interesting opportunity for those of you who are invested in politics to examine policymaking in action, with this (i.e. regulation of pornography) as a test case. Most of you who have studied political science in an academic setting may have encountered some variation of this graph at one point or another.
This is the policy cycle.
What we've seen in the past week so far are the first two stages in action: agenda-setting and policy formulation. 1) The New York Times placed Pornhub in the public spotlight, and 2) members of Congress introduced legislation in response. I have no doubt that other governments will soon follow-up with similar laws.
For a deeper look into agenda-setting, I highly suggest the work of Frank R. Baumgartner and Bryan D. Jones, who initially applied "punctuated equilibrium theory" (PET) to explain American policymaking. As opposed to incrementalist theories of social change, punctuated equilibrium, at its core level, suggests that social change usually occurs in short bursts of rapid change, followed by long stretches of stability.
PET operates under the assumptions of bounded rationality: politicians and bureaucrats do not have time to consider and develop responses to every single issue, so instead, they only consider issues which are on top of the agenda. Under PET, the status quo is maintained when a small circle of policy stakeholders build up trust. However, a "focusing event" occurs where an issue gains rapid attention from the general public, and the issue floats to the top of the agenda (which the mass media plays a role in), enlarging the policy community, increasing the likelihood of social change. After said change occurs, the policy community will be generally be pacified, their attention brought to other issues, until another focusing event reinvigorates the debate.
This is all somewhat of a crude simplification but this post is already too long.
But I'm hoping some of you can notice the parallels between agenda-setting theory, this particular case involving regulation of the pornographic industry, and indeed, anti-crime legislation in the past and present -- especially those named after a specific victim. It doesn't take a genius to see that young, photogenic victims of crime (usually white, female, middle-class) are more likely to attract "focusing events" and consequently drive social change. Or, as I personally like to call it, simping in the policy process.
Tagging
@ThoughtfulCel
@Heartless
@Caesercel
@VindalooCell
@your personality
@Incellectual
@Unsaveable
@slavcel11
@Ineedassitance
@shii410
@happiless
@solblue
@FinnCel
New York Times: A 14-year-old femoid sent her nudes to a Chad, and it ended up on Pornhub (Coomers GTFIH)
At 14, Serena K. Fleites was an A student in Bakersfield, Calif., who had never made out with a boy. But in the eighth grade she developed a crush on a boy a year older, and he asked her to take a naked video of herself. She sent it to him, and this changed her life. He asked for another, then...
incels.is
On that thread, I presented a New York Times article which described the problem of child pornography on Pornhub. The article prominently featured a femoid who, at the age of 14, had sent videos of herself to a Chad classmate who then shared it with his friends. Before long, it was being shared online; for the foid, this resulted in a cycle of anxiety, suicide attempts, drug addiction, and homelessness.
That thread received more heated responses on and off this forum than I expected. Indeed, one of our members' comments managed to trigger dozens of entertaining responses from our biggest fans over at Reddit. Here's a sampling:
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelTear/comments/kad2mv/the_pedocels_are_at_it_again/gfacgl2?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelTear/comments/kad2mv/the_pedocels_are_at_it_again/gfcaw8y?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelTear/comments/kad2mv/the_pedocels_are_at_it_again/gfa5b2x?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
An update on the foid
Some of you will no doubt be infuriated to learn that a GoFundMe has been set up for the person featured in the NYTimes article, and that she is no longer homeless and is putting the pieces of her life back together. I look forward to reading your commentary.
View: https://twitter.com/NickKristof/status/1335774327682297856
Potential changes to U.S. law
Within days of Nick Kristof's article, Visa and Mastercard joined PayPal and blocked their services from being used on Pornhub, and Mindgeek (Pornhub's parent company) capitulated and implemented much of Kristof's suggestions.
But more importantly is the U.S. Senate bill, the Survivors of Human Trafficking Fight Back Act, that is being sponsored by Senators Hawley, Ernst, Hassan, and Tillis, as a result of this NYTimes article.
While it is already illegal in the U.S. to possess and distribute any visual depictions of sex activity involving minors, the bill would further criminalize:
1) the distribution, or possession with intent to distribute, visual depictions of nonconsensual sexual activity (i.e. rape videos)
2) the distribution, or possession with intent to distribute, visual depictions of sexual activity where the participants do not consent to said distribution
Either would be punishable by a minimum sentence of 5 years. (Jeez, what is up with Americans and their love of insanely harsh criminal sentencing guidelines?)
The bill would also force operators of pornographic websites to provide a "takedown" process for said videos; failure to comply would result in a fine or a maximum of 3 years' imprisonment. It also exposes them to federal civil liability (i.e. foids can sue Pornhub executives in federal court).
Now, bills usually look pretty different after they've gone through the committee process and all that, but I think that this will probably make it through the legislative process fairly quickly, since this allows cuckservatives to trumpet their "law and order" credentials, and progressives to go about their usual business of simping for m'lady.
In my opinion, this bill will not substantially affect low SMV males as much as it will affect mid/high-tier normies (after all, we are not the ones receiving nudes). Chads, however, will have to think twice before sharing Stacy's nudes with his classmates, because five years of fed time is not a great thing for a high schooler to put on his resume. But depending on how onerous these regulations will be on the porn business, this may adversely impact Mindgeek's "free porn" business model. Coomercels may, in the future, have to pay more to get their fix, to financially support the increased content moderation that governments will require of the sex industry.
Agenda-setting theories
I think this is an interesting opportunity for those of you who are invested in politics to examine policymaking in action, with this (i.e. regulation of pornography) as a test case. Most of you who have studied political science in an academic setting may have encountered some variation of this graph at one point or another.
This is the policy cycle.
What we've seen in the past week so far are the first two stages in action: agenda-setting and policy formulation. 1) The New York Times placed Pornhub in the public spotlight, and 2) members of Congress introduced legislation in response. I have no doubt that other governments will soon follow-up with similar laws.
For a deeper look into agenda-setting, I highly suggest the work of Frank R. Baumgartner and Bryan D. Jones, who initially applied "punctuated equilibrium theory" (PET) to explain American policymaking. As opposed to incrementalist theories of social change, punctuated equilibrium, at its core level, suggests that social change usually occurs in short bursts of rapid change, followed by long stretches of stability.
PET operates under the assumptions of bounded rationality: politicians and bureaucrats do not have time to consider and develop responses to every single issue, so instead, they only consider issues which are on top of the agenda. Under PET, the status quo is maintained when a small circle of policy stakeholders build up trust. However, a "focusing event" occurs where an issue gains rapid attention from the general public, and the issue floats to the top of the agenda (which the mass media plays a role in), enlarging the policy community, increasing the likelihood of social change. After said change occurs, the policy community will be generally be pacified, their attention brought to other issues, until another focusing event reinvigorates the debate.
This is all somewhat of a crude simplification but this post is already too long.
But I'm hoping some of you can notice the parallels between agenda-setting theory, this particular case involving regulation of the pornographic industry, and indeed, anti-crime legislation in the past and present -- especially those named after a specific victim. It doesn't take a genius to see that young, photogenic victims of crime (usually white, female, middle-class) are more likely to attract "focusing events" and consequently drive social change. Or, as I personally like to call it, simping in the policy process.
Tagging
@ThoughtfulCel
@Heartless
@Caesercel
@VindalooCell
@your personality
@Incellectual
@Unsaveable
@slavcel11
@Ineedassitance
@shii410
@happiless
@solblue
@FinnCel