OpenStars

I remember those videos by mothers who killed their children by refusing to allow them to receive vaccinations. They were heart-rending stories told by those who KNEW, whereas before they only THOUGHT that they knew. Before it happened, they were obstinate and ignored all medical advice and did the exact opposite. After it happened... then they REALLY knew that they had screwed up. And they begged, pleading with other mothers not to do the same. They were ofc ignored, by those who similarly KNOW better, despite literally all of the evidence to the contrary.

Or you can go to old graveyards, and see grave after grave of infants who died young, from what are today easily-preventable diseases. Something like 4 out of 5 children died prior to 5 years of age iirc (or even if that is wrong, still more than half?), so much so that religious ceremonies still practiced today make that age a cutoff - like before that the child doesn't even have a name, but after that it suddenly is considered a likely candidate to grow up into a full person, thus is finally worthy of being officially given a name.

I do have empathy for people with mental illnesses who cannot handle processing in the real world, but I also have empathy for all the people who have DIED b/c of those dumb-shit behaviors. Especially when they push further and refuse to allow OTHERS to have the kind of care that they want. Like, choose for yourself sure, but you do not have the right to choose for someone else. That is not only merely unintelligent, but childish on their parts. At least, that is true in the best-case scenario, while the worst is that it is linked to authoritarianism, which sadly is the most likely one in many cases - e.g. these people would turn you in to the government, if that was asking, just exactly like if we were real, actual Nazis. Like, "hey, lookie here, this person took the vaccine!!" (or had an abortion, or even a miscarriage) Even they do not want to have to live in that kind of world - e.g. having to call someone by their preferred pronouns - but they will absolutely heap that burden upon you if they think that they themselves will be exempt, leopards-ate-my-face style.

Real (enough) to someone, I suppose.

Right up until they aren't anymore. e.g. when someone chooses not to take the vaccine, somehow MANY of those (I wonder if perhaps nearly all?) end up in hospitals, spreading their diseases to others and putting stress on the already-overworked system.

I legit would not judge someone who for whatever reasons decided to withdraw from society, like Amish, and not take the vaccine, but DO social distance for the sake of others, and then die but like... fully by their own, informed & rational choices according to their own valuation of priorities in their life. I fully respect that.

It is the hypocritical nature of those who are not informed, yet act to block others' access from knowledge and benefits of society, that I am against. These people will judge themselves later on, once they finally cannot escape into their fantasies quite so comfortably, except by then they have already dragged others along with them. In short: they are shocked, Shocked I tell you, SHOCKED to find that actions have consequences. But... they should not have been so shocked?! An ounce of preparation is worth a pound of cure, as the saying goes.

TLDR: it is irresponsible, childish behavior, from adults who should know better.

Thanks. I have no time lately but perhaps I should research them directly and actively then, e.g. to find out things like if the COVID response was used to bring population numbers down as a means of control and possibly thought to be beneficial for the sake of mitigation of the effects of climate change. But probably I am giving too much credit for even that much level of strategic thought towards climate change effects for the survival of humanity and perhaps it is solely "we do not need the masses anymore so let's kill them off, or at least not help at all with saving them", i.e. think of myself first, only, and always, and nothing else.

A fascinating series, I cannot agree more. His other works too like protagony/agency. I really hope he can find a way to do more like that, but as a more personal video from him mentioned (not on the channel iirc, search for his name instead) that depends on funding support.

To sum up: it is far easier to tear down than to build up. :-| Also, truth is often stranger than fiction, and much harder to pin down and truly understand.

Really I guess these are not merely two opposing sides of the same argument, but literally represent opposing worldviews.

"I speak alternative facts, making others do the work of figuring out what I meant."

vs.

"I have researched in-depth and know what I am talking about and why."

Tbf there are probably far-right people who are more like the latter. Just b/c I do not recall ever hearing those arguments does not mean that they don't exist!

If you find it, let us all here on Lemmy know - it looks like people are very interested (I know I would be to see a refresher). The sad part is how this stuff has been known for decades, but people just ignore it - e.g. "just grab 'em by the p$#&y". There are some, like John Oliver and Innuendo Studios, who are doing fantastic work to spread awareness of matters that need attention (and Jon Stewart is back, sort of:-), but ofc that won't reach the ears of people who refuse to listen, and instead choose to highly regard those who spread fear and chaos, most likely purely for profit reasons.

That's... not just a Texas thing, and yeah, bc saturation may have long been passed on that one, so this is newer territory to expand authoritarianism into.

As in, it was dangerous, but a look at its next door neighbor Mississippi should convince anyone that it can always become more so.

There might be a misunderstanding. I was talking about a correlation between areas where where porn is blocked i.e. repressive regimes and rape. Not necessarily a casual effect from one directly to the other, although that might not be able to be ruled out either.

Either way it is a question of fact, so not up to either of our mere opinions. Though I find that it is darn near impossible to find such things these days using Google - it refuses to show "relevant" results and instead tries to show only "recent" ones that it wants to promote, and DuckDuckGo is far too narrow to make that easy. So finding the full unvarnished truth is a research project that I do not want to undertake, though in case it helps to share my remembrance of having read such a thing once I thought I would offer. This is nowhere near my area of expertise so was only a comment not an authoritative statement of definitive fact.

Also there could be other factors involved - e.g. higher incidents of rape in neighborhoods that tend towards being poorer and more heavily religious in nature, e.g. within the United States that would be Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Texas, etc. I don't recall if the study checked for similar levels of poverty but with different religious leanings - if suitably comparable places could even be found.

So my statement was saying how sad it is that Texas is choosing to become more like e.g. Florida rather than more like e.g. California, or to remain more of its own separate thing as it has done in the past. Becoming "repressive" does not sound conducive to good health (especially women's health).

If you do not want something - an abortion, a vaccine, porn, to own a gun, etc. - then the solution is simply: do not take it. Beyond that, why heap heavy burdens upon other people, rather than offering to help?

I am saying that "children watching people having sex" is not the issue here. Some few sickos aside, I think MOST people are agreement on that point. The issues are all the other issues surrounding that topic - e.g. who should be the ones held responsible for stopping that.

Like, why not the parents? It is exceedingly easy to block websites from a home router, and from devices such as ipads, so why should the website be the one upon whom all of the blame and burden should go to? Will Amazon be next, b/c it is possible to find sex toys on it? What about Wal-Mart, b/c you can purchase dangerous ammunition there? For that matter, any child can go into a gun show and see rifles and ammunition on display - why are those not banned? Children have even been known to be able to purchase those weapons, which are literally lethal - which is far worse than merely seeing some skin!!!!

Fwiw I think you mean well, but are missing the nuances of this discussion. Children will end up seeing porn - someway, somehow, I guarantee you that it is possible, b/c that is simply how the internet works. It is like playing whack-a-mole and you can't stop them all, especially like 90% of all domain names are already registered to porn and pirate websites. This law will not have the effect that it is intended to stop - and there is a goodly chance that it will make things worse actually, bc when people go off the well-trodden pathways, they will find themselves in the... darker corners of the internet.

Then again, I am not a lawmaker, so what do I know. I was just sharing my thoughts, in case they would be of interest to you.

So long as the libterds get pwnd. Which they definitely did. By blocking my porn. You see the way it works is uh...

Studies have shown that in places where porn is blocked, rape occurs at higher frequencies than in places where that is not the case, possibly due to higher levels of feelings of frustration and repression. This may be only one website now, but if others likewise follow the trend out of fear of litigation... then Texas may become a much more dangerous state to live in in the very near future, even compared to what it already is now.