LiberalSocialist wasn’t perfect but they are the harm reduction lesser evil
The origin of this thread was that the D*stiny subreddit had suspected that Hasan Piker had gone on a date with Paris Jackson, Michael Jackson's daughter. LiberalSocialist often reposted threads from the D*stiny subreddit. LiberalSocialist was a very obvious wrecker from the start.
Paris Jackson was 19, almost 20 at the time. Hasan Piker was 26. Paris Jackson was also incredibly wealthy at the time. This was before Hasan had money or fame, it was before he even started his twitch channel. If there was any power dynamic in this situation, it was the multimillionaire heiress who had the power. I don't think a romance was ever even confirmed. Also I think they are still friends who keep in touch.
https://nitter.poast.org/ParisJacksonMX/status/949823837335531522
Oh I remember that shit. I didn't post in that because I've learned to shut the fuck up when the going gets stupid. Probably why I've never caught a ban despite being stupid. Remember folks, you can always choose not to post.
Yeah, I come to Hexbear to get away from the drama and bullshit of the rest of the internet
you're goddamn right comrade. except in the comms i moderate
As I said, heterosexuality is unavoidable and even necessary to an extent. I’m not against it in principle.
based???
I'm a liberal socialist, not a fascist.
man this guy rocks why'd he get banned anyways?
Dating at any age is weird and creepy. Keep your vital essences to yourself at all times.
thank you, comrade alaskaball.
You said you were against "vibe-based politics" or something but that's all I have, currently.
truly putting the "liberal" in "liberal socialist"
I feel like a complete idiot for actually trying to give an honest answer about how you can disagree with something morally, but that doesn't mean that it must be illegal or punished by the state.
For example: cigarettes
I hate them, hate their smell, hate being around people who smoke, will never smoke myself and think they are killing people
I still don’t think they should be banned
Other examples would be interpersonal lying and cheating on your partner. Both are immoral, both should not be enforced by the state.
I think they should be banned. They are quite literally cancer sticks.
So what do we do with the people who deal in black markets for them and continue to smoke? What do we do with the illegal sellers and distributors and dealers of tobacco?
Either you give them ineffectual slaps on the wrist and we have a thriving unregulated black market, or you crack down hard and throw them in jail and we have expanded our carceral prison state with more poor addicts and made more criminals and handed a massive market over to the cartels and gangs.
De-addiction centres? (Although personally I don't think smoking should be banned as long as the smoker does not expose others to the poison.)
prohibiting substances does not have a great track record in terms of either effectiveness or collateral damage
I agree with this in a vacuum but I find this position odd in the specific context of the topic at hand. The way people talk about persons over 25 dating persons under 22, it seems people feel this is tantamount to actual pedophilia. So, you think this is almost as bad as molesting children, but also it should be legal? Why?
I don't really see any downsides to raising the age of consent if this is actually true. The only retort I've heard is that raising the AOC could be weaponized against queer youth, but couldn't that be said of the current AOC? Weaponizing the AOC against queers under 17, acceptable, weaponizing it against early 20s queers crosses a line! Also I think there's ways of preventing that which don't involve NOT having an AOC so we could just raise it and do those things.
Mind you I'm not advocating for raising the AOC here I'm just saying if you think 18-22/3/4 year olds aren't REAL adults and having sex with them is borderline pedophilia, then it's weird not to take the next logical step and make it legally pedophilia.
The answer is that consent isn’t a binary, it’s actually a complex gradient. We all acknowledge this when we talk about power dynamics involved, we are talking about a sort of half-consent.
Marxists also acknowledge consent in things like work and economy is not binary. The Libertarians who are obsessed with contracts and voluntarism believe there is a clear binary of consent, where if you sign a contract you agree to everything. They ignore the complex gradient of coercion that comes into play from desperation for employment, desperation for housing, corporate domination of the legal system, etc.
Actually reviewing every single sexual relationship to determine all of the factors involved including age, relation, wealth, traumatic pasts, cognitive abilities, sobriety level, etc. is an insanely monumental task for any government. One that would involve massive invasions of privacy as well.
So to function, we have to sort of have a line we draw in the sand where we say consent in binary. Otherwise the state could not function and would be overwhelmed by this complexity and scale (hundreds of millions of relationships to review).
Okay you make some good points here. I still think an argument could be made that the "line in the sand" should be moved upwards a bit could be made and I find it weird more aren't making it in this whole age gap discourse.
Actually reviewing every single sexual relationship to determine all of the factors involved including age, relation, wealth, traumatic pasts, cognitive abilities, sobriety level, etc. is an insanely monumental task for any government. One that would involve massive invasions of privacy as well.
Bit idea: SciFi future where and AI tells you who you can and can't bone based on a complex algorithm to assess power dynamics.
Yes, to be clear to my point so it’s understood where I am coming from, a Marxist feminist critique of the concept of consent, I believe in cases of doubt we should round down, not round up, so to speak. If consent in dubious, we should err on the safe side I believe and discourage such relationships. Whereas a Libertarian-minded person with a binary concept of consent would believe in assuming consent is present unless explicit non-consent was stated.
The most truly correct thing to do would be to have less severe punishments for more minor issues, and more severe punishments for more severe issues, taking into account all these factors. Unfortunately, that’s not really feasible for a legal system of a government to do.
The AIs are being made by fascist and right wing libertarian (so, fascist but too delusional to realize that's what they are) tech-bros like
so the AI will say that only pedo shit is allowed :vomit:
The way people talk about persons over 25 dating persons under 22, it seems people feel this is tantamount to actual pedophilia. So, you think this is almost as bad as molesting children, but also it should be legal? Why?
Because I obviously don't think that, and I was trying to explain it to them from their perspective.
Applying to the bureau for a dating license after they analyze our current relationship parameters.
Wasn't that also the poster who said Picasso should have been a coal miner?
They were also the reason why the news com added a new rule.
The "-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--"
god i miss him, he nuked the platform like no one else
Honestly he at least behaved himself during movie nights from what I remember but maybe something happened when I wasn't around
He definitely made me laugh, still not sure if anything he said was intended to be funny
That was like that persons least bad take why does everyone focus on it so much?
They always spam the same phrases on every thread though it was their thing
Yeah it's really cringe behavior and I don't blame people for dunking on it
Because they would get one hundred hexbears responding to their troll comments and they didn’t want to let them have the last word, but also didn’t want to take the time to write a response to each
I know how to solve the debate once and for all. Just go through the thread and tally up everyone who is banned vs everyone who is still here. Whichever side has more people remaining on the site must have been correct.
Seriously though this is one of the few "struggle sessions" you can find my comments in because obviously this take is correct, if everyone involved is above like 25 and mature enough then fine date whoever you want, idc if the gap is 30 and 95. But if you're above the age of 25 and dating a teenager that is a child and you belong in the
I have always maintained that the "am I definitely a fucking paedo if I am dating this person?" measurement is
ROUNDUP( [YOURAGE] / 2 + 7 )At least until everybody is 25 or older—then age matters a lot less than other power dynamics (wealth, social connections, etc.).
Honest question, let's say you're a 29M who has never dated before or anything remotely close to it, and rather suddenly you have a 18F going around asking other people about you and generally sending the vibe that they want to date you, what should you do?
I'm asking because that actually happened to me, and I decided to just go along with it because partly why not and my dating life wasn't going to get any better doing with me nothing anyways.
Well, I'll do ya one better. If I, right now, at 24 years old, suddenly attracted the attention / infatuation of an 18 year old child, I would maybe be flattered and find it amusing and let her down gently, assuring her that she can certainly find a suitable partner among her peers. An 18 year old child is either in high school or freshly out of high school, almost certainly still living with their parents, most likely has never worked full time or had to worry about supporting themselves, does not have the life skills or experience to be an appropriate partner for me. We are in different stages of our lives.
