They really are losing their edge huh
Yes, I unironically believe a big amount, more than the expected average if you will, of billionaries and not so rich people are pedophiles, and they are all in it together.
Might be a bit of a hot take, but I feel like non-violent pedophiles should be able to get help before they act out and or start sharing/looking at child porn. ofc I'm going to guess this article is just trying to run cover for bourgeois sex pests like Epstein.
The thing is because of the social taboo no one is doing research on pedophilia at all. Except the Germans. So no one really knows why it happens or how "help" would actually look like.
People maybe just don't want to ask questions they kind of already know the answers to. Even "normal" sexuality in this society borders on pedophilia.
Anything I could read about this? It's an interesting subject to me. The current model of just locking up pedophiles, especially non-violent ones, seems pretty counterintuitive. I'd guess it's a mental health issue more than anything else.
I don't have an example at the ready. If you googled for a bit you'll surely find some stuff. The info I have I got from a documentary I saw once so you might even find the same one.
I agree with you on the first count. You're probably right in the second as well.
Followed by an editorial praising the House of Lords, by Sir Reginald Boylove.
Don't fall for the trap of blowing your load on a bad headline. Sometimes it backfires. Like that time a lady wrote a paper where she compares transgenderism and transraceism (the Rachel dolozal thing) and it had a similar title but in substance she was arguing against both things being equal. As expected the online left lost their shit for no reason and put a person's livelyhood in danger for nothing.
good point. however, in this case, rod liddle is a verifiable sicko:
https://old.reddit.com/r/TrueAnon/comments/lxka81/_/gpnglwo/
Although Liddle considered becoming a teacher, he decided against it on the grounds that he "could not remotely conceive of not trying to shag the kids"
I thought it had to be a parody article until I noticed the direct quote.
It transpired that he had cut his honeymoon with Royce short so that he could be with [a 22-year-old receptionist at The Spectator].
:bruh-moment:
Don’t stand so... don’t stand so... don’t stand so close to Liddle.
At newspapers writers often don't write their own headlines, the editorial board makes significant changes based on what they feel will bring in the most readers. Or what will turn readers away from getting details at times (e.g. violence used against left wing protestor or deaths in Palestine often have headlines written in the passive voice).
The passive voice is actually a way to avoid controversy. That choice is ideological.
What's the correct spelling? What's the double meaning for that matter? If I didn't have autocorrect you basically wouldn't be able to read anything I write.
The y should be an i, but spelling rules are fascist anyway. I just thought it was a fun spelling, since when I hear "livelihood" I think flipping burgers, but a "lively hood" is a place where people sell drugs and go to raves (which is indeed also a livelihood for some).
Evacuate all children from the UK and France, then :xi-plz:
If people are going to be this mask off, True Anon are going to lose their jobs.
I spent entirely too long trying to understand the emoji title.
"I....pizza? wtf"
You know that rule about when a headline asks a question?
