• MF_COOM [he/him]
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sorry comrade maybe I'm not understanding but that seems like a distinction without a difference?

    • PKMKII [none/use name]
      hexagon
      ·
      1 year ago

      I guess it’s like you said about emphasis, “think of the children!” is designed to get people to emphasize on the debate about what’s appropriate for children, so the debate doesn’t discuss what they’re actually trying to do.

      • MF_COOM [he/him]
        ·
        1 year ago

        Honestly I'm not being a dick I still don't really understand what you're getting at

        • PKMKII [none/use name]
          hexagon
          ·
          1 year ago

          Don’t think you’re being a dick, but I’m also not sure how else to explain myself

          • MF_COOM [he/him]
            ·
            1 year ago

            What exactly do you disagree with about what I said in my original comment?

            • PKMKII [none/use name]
              hexagon
              ·
              1 year ago

              I guess that the discussion shouldn’t be about what sexual material we should or should not be shielding kids from, but rather that the laws are designed to create bread and circuses distractions for cultural conservatives with a dash of neoliberalism.

            • Smeagolicious [they/them]
              ·
              1 year ago

              Can’t speak for PKMKII ofc but it seemed like the difference is that they assert the goal isn’t to shield youth from depictions of sex at all, but rather to use it as a cudgel to exercise power against political & ideological opponents? I don’t know if there’s an actual disagreement per se, rather that it’s a dual purpose attack on opposing literature yknow?