PornHub: Alleged Sex Trafficking and Rape Videos

[xerx]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/04/o...afficking.html

Anyone can upload anything to PornHub.

“Pornhub became my trafficker,” a woman named Cali told me. She says she was adopted in the United States from China and then trafficked by her adoptive family and forced to appear in pornographic videos beginning when she was 9. Some videos of her being abused ended up on Pornhub and regularly reappear there, she said.

Yet there’s another side of the company: Its site is infested with rape videos. It monetizes child rapes, revenge pornography, spy cam videos of women showering, racist and misogynist content, and footage of women being asphyxiated in plastic bags. A search for “girls under18” (no space) or “14yo” leads in each case to more than 100,000 videos. Most aren’t of children being assaulted, but too many are.

After a 15-year-old girl went missing in Florida, her mother found her on Pornhub — in 58 sex videos. Sexual assaults on a 14-year-old California girl were posted on Pornhub and were reported to the authorities not by the company but by a classmate who saw the videos. In each case, offenders were arrested for the assaults, but Pornhub escaped responsibility for sharing the videos and profiting from them.

[gone]

Porn is bad, Pornhub is bad, anyone who refuses to see it is just a smelly dumb brain fried dopamine depleted impotent coomer

[ContractedCriminalboy]

The porn industry is full of sexual exploitation and abuse?! Omg how shocking!

[Kiba]

In porn and prostitution you never know if the people are there by their own choice. I've heard tons of testimonies of women and girls being trafficked in the US and in other countries.
People just need to accept this reality.

[Grendel]

cartoon fetish porn is the obvious solution

[FreelancePoliceman]

The problem is, or was, that Pornhub allowed anyone to upload anything, and there was too much content to review it all manually.

Now because payment processors stopped allowing payments to pornhub they only let “verified users” post. I guess that’s good in this case, but it’s symptomatic of what’s happening to the Internet in general. There’s a frequently-expressed opinion that websites are responsible for whatever people post to them. It’s not hard to see how this leads to censorship. After the 2016 elections article after article blamed social media for allowing “fake news” and “Russian propaganda” to influence voters and thus win the election for Trump. This year Facebook and Twitter higherups thought it was their job to win the election for Biden, and so they censored the NYP article about his son. There are countless other examples. Media outlets have removed comment sections from their websites because they don’t want “wrong” opinions being expressed about their “journalism.” Rotten Tomatoes removed the “want to see” score from its movie pages because Captain Marvel’s score went below 25%, apparently because they feared all those negative reviews would hurt the profits of Disney. On the one hand you have this outright censorship, making it more and more difficult to express your opinions at all online, but then you also have potential employers and potential partners searching through everything you do on social media, so you have to self-censor if you want to be considered employable or fuckable (for instance to someone with different political opinions). Eventually I think it’s possible forums like this will be pressured to close because it allows users to post “fake news”, “conspiracy theories”, sexist and racist content, and the like. We’re moving toward a future where you can only post pre-approved content on the Web.

[xerx]

While we're at it, according to a German study, sex trafficking has increased in countries with legal prostitution, like Germany and Switzerland. It has decreased in Sweden and Denmark, both of which have criminalized prostitution.

https://orgs.law.harvard.edu/lids/20...n-trafficking/

Countries with legalized prostitution are associated with higher human trafficking inflows than countries where prostitution is prohibited. The scale effect of legalizing prostitution, i.e. expansion of the market, outweighs the substitution effect, where legal sex workers are favored over illegal workers. On average, countries with legalized prostitution report a greater incidence of human trafficking inflows.

^ This is a direct rebuttal to the argument that legalizing prostitution incentivizes people to seek out the legal option.


.........and here's the trade-off:

While trafficking inflows may be lower where prostitution is criminalized, there may be severe repercussions for those working in the industry. For example, criminalizing prostitution penalizes sex workers rather than the people who earn most of the profits (pimps and traffickers).

[nanashi]

While we're at it, according to a German study, sex trafficking has increased in countries with legal prostitution, like Germany and Switzerland. It has decreased in Sweden and Denmark, both of which have criminalized prostitution.

https://orgs.law.harvard.edu/lids/20...n-trafficking/



^ This is a direct rebuttal to the argument that legalizing prostitution incentivizes people to seek out the legal option.


.........and here's the trade-off: "While trafficking inflows may be lower where prostitution is criminalized, there may be severe repercussions for those working in the industry. For example, criminalizing prostitution penalizes sex workers rather than the people who earn most of the profits (pimps and traffickers)."

That's not the trade-off. EXPLOITERS (buyers, etc) are doing so illegally in Sweden. People whose bodies are traded are NOT fined in Sweden, iirc. So there is NO such trade-off of harsher civic repercussions. It's the people considered most powerful and least vulnerable and who are buying other human beings' bodies who are fined/prosecuted, not the people whose bodies are sold.

[Number 9 large]

That's not the trade-off. EXPLOITERS (buyers, etc) are doing so illegally in Sweden. People whose bodies are traded are NOT fined in Sweden, iirc. So there is NO such trade-off of harsher civic repercussions. It's the people considered most powerful and least vulnerable and who are buying other human beings' bodies who are fined/prosecuted, not the people whose bodies are sold.

The porn isnt gonna go away get a girlfriend dawg

[End]

cartoon fetish porn is the obvious solution

I don't like or support pornography, but at least Hentai/Rule 34 artists aren't harming anyone one could argue. Drawings aren't real people and nobody is forcing you to read doujins and the like. Sadly, whether or not you watch a snuff vid, the fact it exists means someone was killed/died for a perverse nut. Ain't no defending that one in my book.

The problem is, or was, that Pornhub allowed anyone to upload anything, and there was too much content to review it all manually.

Now because payment processors stopped allowing payments to pornhub they only let “verified users” post. I guess that’s good in this case, but it’s symptomatic of what’s happening to the Internet in general. There’s a frequently-expressed opinion that websites are responsible for whatever people post to them. It’s not hard to see how this leads to censorship. After the 2016 elections article after article blamed social media for allowing “fake news” and “Russian propaganda” to influence voters and thus win the election for Trump. This year Facebook and Twitter higherups thought it was their job to win the election for Biden, and so they censored the NYP article about his son. There are countless other examples. Media outlets have removed comment sections from their websites because they don’t want “wrong” opinions being expressed about their “journalism.” Rotten Tomatoes removed the “want to see” score from its movie pages because Captain Marvel’s score went below 25%, apparently because they feared all those negative reviews would hurt the profits of Disney. On the one hand you have this outright censorship, making it more and more difficult to express your opinions at all online, but then you also have potential employers and potential partners searching through everything you do on social media, so you have to self-censor if you want to be considered employable or fuckable (for instance to someone with different political opinions). Eventually I think it’s possible forums like this will be pressured to close because it allows users to post “fake news”, “conspiracy theories”, sexist and racist content, and the like. We’re moving toward a future where you can only post pre-approved content on the Web.

Wish I could say you're wrong, but you're not. That is the future if something doesn't happen to change it. You/we will live in the pod, eat the bugs, own nothing, and be happy. Happiness will be mandatory. Those who aren't happy with the aforementioned state of affairs in any way will be "graciously" allowed to leave the megacity pod complex and live in the wilds where they'll be oh so much happier.

That is, they'll be walked out of LoS of the "happy" pod people with much fanfare and then gruesomely murdered somehow (e.g. dissolved in a vat of acid, slowly). Y'know, because just shooting such "reprobates" in the head is too good for those who dare to question the absolute divinity of the PTB and the truth of their likewise divine pronouncements. What's that? You say the sky is blue when the "gods" themselves declare it is a non-binary all-inclusive shade of rainbow teal? Report to your pod lord for escort to the happy happy fun land beyond the horizon for "unfortunates" such as you. You'll be much happier out there, away from people who believe in the most absolute and certain of truths you defective waste of our glorious and graciously provided divine WM2. O2 was too offensive a term/formula you see so we, your true gods, fixed it. If you're questioning how or why, well, report to your pod lord.

[nanashi]

The porn isnt gonna go away get a girlfriend dawg

You are confusing sexwork with pornography. I know the conversation started with porn, but if you go back and read again, you'd see it shifted to talking about sex slavery and then prostitution/sexwork, which is why I cleared up an issue about the nature of a legal policy in Sweden someone hadn't understood.

Telling someone to get a girlfriend/boyfriend is coercive.

My positions on sexwork and thoughts about pornography haven't disappeared when I've been in relationships. Why would one think my thought-out conclusions would evancesce like that?

[gone]

That's not the trade-off. EXPLOITERS (buyers, etc) are doing so illegally in Sweden. People whose bodies are traded are NOT fined in Sweden, iirc. So there is NO such trade-off of harsher civic repercussions. It's the people considered most powerful and least vulnerable and who are buying other human beings' bodies who are fined/prosecuted, not the people whose bodies are sold.

Yeah i'm swedish and can confirm it's illegal to buy sex but it isn't illegal to sell it, we made it like that to protect sex workers, usually women in vulnerable positions

[Aramas]

"Regularly reappear there"

So they do delete those videos. It's just that people re-uploaded them from their own hard drives.

Probably need something like an AI that will screen for blacklisted videos that have already been reported and taken down. Not sure what kind of resources that would take though.

I think it's worth saying that they are removed when they're found, so it's not like someone isn't making an effort

[FreelancePoliceman]

Telling someone to get a girlfriend/boyfriend is coercive.

Why do you take every opportunity you can to take offense?

[nanashi]

"Regularly reappear there"

So they do delete those videos. It's just that people re-uploaded them from their own hard drives.

Probably need something like an AI that will screen for blacklisted videos that have already been reported and taken down. Not sure what kind of resources that would take though.

I think it's worth saying that they are removed when they're found, so it's not like someone isn't making an effort

NO.


"Rose Kalemba was 14 when she was brutally raped by two men for 12 hours while a 3rd man filmed the incident. A few months later as she was scrolling online she found herself tagged in a link. When she clicked on it she was taken to Pornhub, to a video of her rape. She contacted Pornhub for 6 months telling them that it was not consensual and that she was underage. Pornhub refused to take it down. So finally she posed as a lawyer and threatened to sue them. Only then did they take it down.2"https://exoduscry.com/blog/shiftingc...q33J5.facebook



They are absolutely complicit in the likely tens of thousands of sex crimes constituted by each time the child's body was watched being raped by the mostly men and boys who sought out watching it (yes, each viewing is a sex crime).

[xerx]

That's not the trade-off. EXPLOITERS (buyers, etc) are doing so illegally in Sweden. People whose bodies are traded are NOT fined in Sweden, iirc. So there is NO such trade-off of harsher civic repercussions. It's the people considered most powerful and least vulnerable and who are buying other human beings' bodies who are fined/prosecuted, not the people whose bodies are sold.

The trade-off is that the working conditions of legal prostitutes is better where sex work is legal. It's not just about criminal prosecution.

[nanashi]

Why do you take every opportunity you can to take offense?

I don't.


Why are you presuming I am instead of trusting me?

[FreelancePoliceman]

I don't.


Why are you presuming I am instead of trusting me?

Because you described half-serious advice as “coercion.”

[nanashi]

Because you described half-serious advice as “coercion.”

'Get a girlfriend' is a red herring. How exactly would getting one change what we're talking about ?

Secondly, it takes for granted the person is single and that that is a bad thing.

[nanashi]

The trade-off is that the working conditions of legal prostitutes is better where sex work is legal. It's not just about criminal prosecution.

That conclusion was based on societies where sex workers are CHARGED WITH A CRIME AND SOCIALLY OSTRACIZED. In Sweden, with what's known as the Nordic Model, sex workers are considered persons exploited based on their financial vulnerability and usually their biological sex, afaik, and are NOT charged with any crime. AFAIK, they are also connected with social services to support them.

[mu4]

That conclusion was based on societies where sex workers are CHARGED WITH A CRIME AND SOCIALLY OSTRACIZED. In Sweden, with what's known as the Nordic Model, sex workers are considered persons exploited based on their financial vulnerability and usually their biological sex, afaik, and are NOT charged with any crime. AFAIK, they are also connected with social services to support them.

The only way to deal with it is to criminalize the buying of sex and decriminalize the selling of it. Even if there are people who are willing to sell sex, the demand for it is always greater than the supply, thus sex trafficking. So the nordic model is pretty much the only solution that works currently.

[Number 9 large]

You are confusing sexwork with pornography. I know the conversation started with porn, but if you go back and read again, you'd see it shifted to talking about sex slavery and then prostitution/sexwork, which is why I cleared up an issue about the nature of a legal policy in Sweden someone hadn't understood.

Telling someone to get a girlfriend/boyfriend is coercive.

My positions on sexwork and thoughts about pornography haven't disappeared when I've been in relationships. Why would one think my thought-out conclusions would evancesce like that?

yeah my bad i quoted the wrong thing

[xerx]

That conclusion was based on societies where sex workers are CHARGED WITH A CRIME AND SOCIALLY OSTRACIZED. In Sweden, with what's known as the Nordic Model, sex workers are considered persons exploited based on their financial vulnerability and usually their biological sex, afaik, and are NOT charged with any crime. AFAIK, they are also connected with social services to support them.

I could be wrong; but, from reading the author's comments, I got the impression that "better working conditions" means a professional, properly regulated environment. I was picturing a clean, well-lit brothel with security guards at the entrance and mandatory customer id'ing. That's a less disadvantageous arrangement than visiting the purchaser's seedy apartment alone.

[End]

Yeah i'm swedish and can confirm it's illegal to buy sex but it isn't illegal to sell it, we made it like that to protect sex workers, usually women in vulnerable positions

Ok, how the fuck does that make any form of sense? If it is illegal for me to buy a thing you're selling (and thus, by logical extension, it ought be illegal for me to seek it out) than how the fuck can that not result in both of us risking a prison sentence? That's basically the legal enunciation of the the BS claim of "Tails I win, heads you lose." I'd be wrong for buying what a ho was selling, but the ho was somehow not at fault for initiating the offer? If I go to the deli and order some salami, I'm somehow in the wrong for asking for some salami when the manager is screaming "Get your salami here?"

I have no doubt that Europe is currently insane enough as to think that's somehow logical. My American ancestors, and the descendants that can trace their line back to your beloved Sweden, fled your shithole of a continent/nation for damn good reason and still feel a bit tilted that you're daring to try to re-enslave us serfs to your empires through your globalist/truly imperialistic Bullshit!

Empires fall, as they damn well ought. To mourn that fact is to side with the devil. Prime reason number one: They spout the same illogical BS in their dying days as you are. There's a good reason your nation is a rather insulting meme. To think that you used to produce Viking Kings or spawned the subject of a rather badass and enjoyable Heavy Metal song...

I'm actually doubting your ability to get my references. Prove me wrong will you? As I've said before, I actually relish the prospect of others failing to live down to my predictions .

[End]

Telling someone to get a girlfriend/boyfriend is coercive.

Y'know, for a person who derides my belief of how r/K selection might be on to something, you're kinda proving my point. I assert you are r-selected and you are certainly living up to my expectations of such an entity by the by. How and why is, once more, up to you to find out. I find it better to rely upon the subject's willingness to research claims contrary to their own belief as an indicator as to whether or not they're in a "conversion" state.

Like I've recently realized, I cannot force you to convert to anything. I can only hope you become open to such an event and by the grace of God accurately identify that exact moment and then provide you with the stimuli you need that gets you to finally accept the truth. I doubt I can/will be provided with such an opportunity, but a man can dream.

[xerx]

Y'know, for a person who derides my belief of how r/K selection might be on to something, you're kinda proving my point. I assert you are r-selected and you are certainly living up to my expectations of such an entity by the by. How and why is, once more, up to you to find out. I find it better to rely upon the subject's willingness to research claims contrary to their own belief as an indicator as to whether or not they're in a "conversion" state.

End, it's not nice to use r/K selection theory to make character assassinations.

[Grendel]

"Regularly reappear there"

So they do delete those videos. It's just that people re-uploaded them from their own hard drives.

Probably need something like an AI that will screen for blacklisted videos that have already been reported and taken down. Not sure what kind of resources that would take though.

I think it's worth saying that they are removed when they're found, so it's not like someone isn't making an effort

The problem with this is that said device could just as easily be repurposed to do the same with copyrighted content, and as we all know, the Internet is supposed to be for copyright infringement.

[Aramas]

The problem with this is that said device could just as easily be repurposed to do the same with copyrighted content, and as we all know, the Internet is supposed to be for copyright infringement.

Huh?

[Grendel]

Huh?

The AI.

[Aramas]

The AI.

YouTube already does this. They just demonetize the content or take it down if asked to.

[End]

End, it's not nice to use r/K selection theory to make character assassinations.

I ain't assassinating anyone here. The theory makes morally neutral statements. That doesn't mean I have to assume such neutrality in how I employ it. Socionics is much the same. It's by and large a non-moral field, but it can provide insight into matters that may be moral in some form. It is, for example, quite predictable that an r-selected individual would sneer upon the virtue of chastity or find the notion of being disgusted upon learning your newest romantic prospect had banged over 100 other people of both sexes as being some form of wrongthinker.

Again I say, such things I would have spelled out in minute detail in the past in the hope that the sheer force of logic as defined within the bounds of our arguments were absolute. That I could "force" someone else to admit they were wrong as if I was teaching a child how and why 2+2=4. That I could somehow make a deductive argument in regards to morality to a person who, at this current point in time, will never listen exactly because they cannot accept the prospect of the existence of True/real evil or the possibility of their salvation if such a thing exists even if they participated in it. I was once a fool...

[xerx]

I ain't assassinating anyone here. The theory makes morally neutral statements. That doesn't mean I have to assume such neutrality in how I employ it. Socionics is much the same. It's by and large a non-moral field, but it can provide insight into matters that may be moral in some form. It is, for example, quite predictable that an r-selected individual would sneer upon the virtue of chastity or find the notion of being disgusted upon learning your newest romantic prospect had banged over 100 other people of both sexes as being some form of wrongthinker.

Again I say, such things I would have spelled out in minute detail in the past in the hope that the sheer force of logic as defined within the bounds of our arguments were absolute. That I could "force" someone else to admit they were wrong as if I was teaching a child how and why 2+2=4. That I could somehow make a deductive argument in regards to morality to a person who, at this current point in time, will never listen exactly because they cannot accept the prospect of the existence of True/real evil or the possibility of their salvation if such a thing exists even if they participated in it. I was once a fool...

I mean, you do employ the term "r-selected" as a pejorative. The theory itself may be neutral, but your usage of it is clearly meant to be derogatory.

[Grendel]

Y'know, for a person who derides my belief of how r/K selection might be on to something, you're kinda proving my point. I assert you are r-selected and you are certainly living up to my expectations of such an entity by the by. How and why is, once more, up to you to find out. I find it better to rely upon the subject's willingness to research claims contrary to their own belief as an indicator as to whether or not they're in a "conversion" state.

Like I've recently realized, I cannot force you to convert to anything. I can only hope you become open to such an event and by the grace of God accurately identify that exact moment and then provide you with the stimuli you need that gets you to finally accept the truth. I doubt I can/will be provided with such an opportunity, but a man can dream.

Pro-life is r-strategy.

[nanashi]

I could be wrong; but, from reading the author's comments, I got the impression that "better working conditions" means a professional, properly regulated environment. I was picturing a clean, well-lit brothel with security guards at the entrance and mandatory customer id'ing. That's a less disadvantageous arrangement than visiting the purchaser's seedy apartment alone.

it's an economics problem. but the description you're talking about is only ONE model that improperly fits the problem and isn't a solution. There are other options (hence my bringing up the Nordic model)

[nanashi]

Ok, how the fuck does that make any form of sense? If it is illegal for me to buy a thing you're selling (and thus, by logical extension, it ought be illegal for me to seek it out) than how the fuck can that not result in both of us risking a prison sentence? That's basically the legal enunciation of the the BS claim of "Tails I win, heads you lose." I'd be wrong for buying what a ho was selling, but the ho was somehow not at fault for initiating the offer? If I go to the deli and order some salami, I'm somehow in the wrong for asking for some salami when the manager is screaming "Get your salami here?"

There's legal precedent for that. It's not some illogical, newfangled thing. You're arrested for trying to buy other people's organs.
You aren't arrested for desperately trying to sell your own organs, why would you be arrested for trying to rent out your organ (mouth is an organ. vagina, an organ. )?



As for the rest of your vain, dismissive post:

I can trace my relatives back to Europe, including a 1500s prodigy. So? Why should we care?


I make it a point not to denigrate and sneer at people. It's an exercise in strength to recognize how weak it is to tear others down.


you. really. look. like. you. are. neglecting. your. mental. health. when. you. continue.END,to. try. to. prop. yourself. up. pathetically. at. the. expense. of. other. people. No. one. thinks. you're. more. qualified. stronger. or. cooler. when. you. do. this. You. just. come. off. as. shockingly. weak. and. emotionally. un-self-regulated.

You're fine just as yourself without all these weird, backfiring self-protection mechanisms.

People are actually worried about you.

Take the note.

[End]

I mean, you do employ the term "r-selected" as a pejorative. The theory itself may be neutral, but your usage of it is clearly meant to be derogatory.

You're probably right, but I can at least try to explain. It came from my days as a philosophy major in college. I asked the question "Is an eternal orgasm an ultimate good/good ending for humanity"? From several angles I answered no, but too many of my piers thought that prospective fate was awesome and a thing worth sacrificing for. Hence, my disdain for the r-selected.

To their credit, my professors shared my concerns at the time with such a future. I am unsure as to whether or not they'd voice their agreement with me now. Back then, it was OK to be to the right of Mao, Stalin, or some other commie dictator. Now? Calling them out as commie dictators runs the risk of you being labeled the N-word (the one that's not a racial slur).

As we now live in a world where the mere association with a thought criminal in any scintilla of a way makes you just as bad if not worse than them... Well, I do hope this site takes privacy seriously because by merely responding to me in any form of good faith you're just as bad if not worse than myself in the moral codex of the current system. You, like me, are "far right" now. At least it seems the IQ barrier and the seeming dedication towards freedom of thought on this site has inoculated it from full on convergence. Whether or not that trend holds remains to be seen...

[End]

Pro-life is r-strategy.

Not really. Keeping the results of your promiscuity around/alive by bothering to spend resources upon them is the exact opposite of the r-selection strategy. As I've said before, look upon the common rabbit. What do those parents do for the baby rabbit exactly? Dug it a burrow, huddled with it in the cold a bit perhaps. After it got big enough to hop about on its own after that snow melted away? Fuck em'! Why invest more resources/time into it? It's hopping about on its own now, why care further? Why would you draw off a pack of wolves to defend it now? They certainly don't do that by the way. Mommy rabbit will not and does not jump into the jaws of a big bad wolf to save her offspring.

Human babies require a great deal more than that if you expect them to survive to the point they'll be able to survive independent of their parents. It requires a great deal of sacrifice from both parents if they hope to produce one (let alone multiple) "well-adjusted" examples of the species. The r-selected simply don't want to deal with that. That's why abortion is their modus operandi. If given the choice between sacrificing for the future of the result of a random fuck, or just continuing to indulge in pleasure, they'll pick the later every single time even if it means the murder of their progeny. Thus, pro-life is anything but an r-strategy.

You're fine just as yourself without all these weird, backfiring self-protection mechanisms.

People are actually worried about you.

Take the note.

Aww, I didn't think you'd care about little old me. I am flattered, but I'm still actually more concerned about you. That you show care and empathy towards one you ostensibly ought to see as a mortal enemy means you aren't so forgone as to be beyond potential redemption. I won't force it (again, a painful lesson I won't soon forget). Yet I see there is a non-zero percent chance you may be brought back into the light. I shall hope and pray for that future...

[Grendel]

Not really. Keeping the results of your promiscuity around/alive by bothering to spend resources upon them is the exact opposite of the r-selection strategy. As I've said before, look upon the common rabbit. What do those parents do for the baby rabbit exactly? Dug it a burrow, huddled with it in the cold a bit perhaps. After it got big enough to hop about on its own after that snow melted away? Fuck em'! Why invest more resources/time into it? It's hopping about on its own now, why care further? Why would you draw off a pack of wolves to defend it now? They certainly don't do that by the way. Mommy rabbit will not and does not jump into the jaws of a big bad wolf to save her offspring.

Human babies require a great deal more than that if you expect them to survive to the point they'll be able to survive independent of their parents. It requires a great deal of sacrifice from both parents if they hope to produce one (let alone multiple) "well-adjusted" examples of the species. The r-selected simply don't want to deal with that. That's why abortion is their modus operandi. If given the choice between sacrificing for the future of the result of a random fuck, or just continuing to indulge in pleasure, they'll pick the later every single time even if it means the murder of their progeny. Thus, pro-life is anything but an r-strategy.



Aww, I didn't think you'd care about little old me. I am flattered, but I'm still actually more concerned about you. That you show care and empathy towards one you ostensibly ought to see as a mortal enemy means you aren't so forgone as to be beyond potential redemption. I won't force it (again, a painful lesson I won't soon forget). Yet I see there is a non-zero percent chance you may be brought back into the light. I shall hope and pray for that future...

Real K-selection would be saving more civic energies for raising only high-quality parents' genetic offspring by letting the unwanted babies of poor parents die so that they consume less of a society's resources. On a societal scale, the effect of pro-life is forbidding this economic selection by preserving all lives, and creating a larger pool of offspring in the process. Relative to the already K-selected reference frame of human biology, if they're greater in number and lower in quality, that's basically more r-strategic than the alternative.

K-strategists pick their battles cautiously. Also they have all the good condoms and birth control, since they're higher genetic quality, therefore richer, and can afford these measures.

[nanashi]

Not really. Keeping the results of your promiscuity around/alive by bothering to spend resources upon them is the exact opposite of the r-selection strategy. As I've said before, look upon the common rabbit. What do those parents do for the baby rabbit exactly? Dug it a burrow, huddled with it in the cold a bit perhaps. After it got big enough to hop about on its own after that snow melted away? Fuck em'! Why invest more resources/time into it? It's hopping about on its own now, why care further? Why would you draw off a pack of wolves to defend it now? They certainly don't do that by the way. Mommy rabbit will not and does not jump into the jaws of a big bad wolf to save her offspring.

Human babies require a great deal more than that if you expect them to survive to the point they'll be able to survive independent of their parents. It requires a great deal of sacrifice from both parents if they hope to produce one (let alone multiple) "well-adjusted" examples of the species. The r-selected simply don't want to deal with that. That's why abortion is their modus operandi. If given the choice between sacrificing for the future of the result of a random fuck, or just continuing to indulge in pleasure, they'll pick the later every single time even if it means the murder of their progeny. Thus, pro-life is anything but an r-strategy.



Aww, I didn't think you'd care about little old me. I am flattered, but I'm still actually more concerned about you. That you show care and empathy towards one you ostensibly ought to see as a mortal enemy means you aren't so forgone as to be beyond potential redemption. I won't force it (again, a painful lesson I won't soon forget). Yet I see there is a non-zero percent chance you may be brought back into the light. I shall hope and pray for that future...

Your behaviors are consistently among the most cruel and least en-light-ened, here, End.

I'll take love over your miserly, self-aggrandizing, misanthropic misperception of good A.N.Y.D.A.Y.

[xerx]

You're probably right, but I can at least try to explain. It came from my days as a philosophy major in college. I asked the question "Is an eternal orgasm an ultimate good/good ending for humanity"? From several angles I answered no, but too many of my piers thought that prospective fate was awesome and a thing worth sacrificing for. Hence, my disdain for the r-selected.

To their credit, my professors shared my concerns at the time with such a future. I am unsure as to whether or not they'd voice their agreement with me now. Back then, it was OK to be to the right of Mao, Stalin, or some other commie dictator. Now? Calling them out as commie dictators runs the risk of you being labeled the N-word (the one that's not a racial slur).

As we now live in a world where the mere association with a thought criminal in any scintilla of a way makes you just as bad if not worse than them... Well, I do hope this site takes privacy seriously because by merely responding to me in any form of good faith you're just as bad if not worse than myself in the moral codex of the current system. You, like me, are "far right" now. At least it seems the IQ barrier and the seeming dedication towards freedom of thought on this site has inoculated it from full on convergence. Whether or not that trend holds remains to be seen...

Not really. It's still very much OK to be to the right of Mao and Stalin. The idea that you're not "allowed" to express conservative opinions doesn't seem very credible. Ben Shapiro still has a Youtube channel, Fox news hasn't been taken off the airwaves by "big government", and right wing memes are still allowed to circulate on Facebook.

WRT. to the alt. right: it is a truism that social media—which is less restricted than corporate television—has made it more common to express extremist views. Calling someone a "Nazi" used to be a bland joke two decades ago, because only fringe wackos were believed to espouse these ideas. At least within living memory, our culture has never been as politically incorrect as it is now.

University arts and humanities departments are arguably more to the left, as is much of popular entertainment, but it's not clear that this is the result of coordinated censorship. It could simply be the case that this type of profession attracts more liberal-minded people who gravitate towards self-expression. Cops and military brass tend to be more conservative on average, and the simplest explanation is the authority-driven nature of this type of work.

Economics departments and business schools are very much ultra-capitalist. It's arguable whether capitalism represents a more conservative or liberal philosophy; but, in the current zeitgeist, the concept has been heavily appropriated by conservatives. There are openly Christian universities, like liberty university, with its own safe spaces, which unashamedly bans speakers that it doesn't like, including Christian speakers that are critical of Donald Trump.