If she got pregnant it's probably her fault. The number of sexy, sexy nine years olds I've seen walking around dressed provocatively...
/s but please let it be obvious that was sarcasm
this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2025
1162 points (100.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
8096 readers
3015 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The horrifying thing is that I have actually seen 9 year olds dressed pretty provocatively, and that just makes me feel more sick to think of gross perverts who find that sexy.
I feel even more sick when I remember being 11 years old and how I perceived the world; a friend (also 11) had a 16 year old boyfriend and I remember we all thought this was the coolest thing, and I wondered whether dressing more provocatively would help me to get a boyfriend. Normalising this shit is like societal level grooming
Or when the parents dress kids that way. Child beauty pageants have always seemed gross to me. Parents dressing their young kids in ways that would be too much even for adults...
That's not the only sick part. The abuse those kids get from their stage parents to perform in those pageants with what the parents view as perfection is just disgusting. And, of course, the kids get nothing out of it. It's all so mom and dad can brag about their pageant winner.
I'm still temped to downvote this anyway because it disgusted me so much.
Down with the white taliban.
Y'all-Qaeda
You don't need to use the "scary brown people" word to describe conservatives, you know? Call them retrogrades, fascists, misogynist, or the whole plethora of accurate terms instead of invoking mild racism
Forgot to add that children can get married and work in dangerous jobs.
The divorced part and the link was about child marriages, but you are correct that I did not mention dangerous jobs. I was thinking more about domestic life.
If you don't see the point it is because you don't hate women enough.
You have to think from the perspective of a J.D. Vance who women (and men but especially women) react with repulsion and disgust towards because thankfully women have better options to get laid than loser bigots (what is the point? just get yourself off at home if you are horny, JD is gonna just blow his load in 10 seconds and fall asleep leaving you there to finish the job yourself anyways), and being rich or powerful doesn't really solve the problem for pathetic, feminism hating incel types like JD because like, even if you are a woman who desperately wants to have access to money and power you still have to know on some level that having sex with JD Vance would be crushingly boring and unfulfilling.
People like JD know this on some level too, they were the kids in school that when popular kids made fun of them for being weird the other kids would look on not with a pity or a blank neutral gaze but with a recognition dawning on their faces that though bullying is bad, this JD Vance type incel being bullied is dangerous and slimey.
They just want to hurt women for laughing in their face when they try to lecture them about how they are objects, it truly is that dumb and pathetic.
I think that a more likely explanation is that a lot of people believe that human life begins at conception, therefore, consider abortion to be murder.
I think you meant *a more palatable explanation.
While centrists might have difficulty differentiating the two concepts, nobody else does.
No, I really don't think that ~50% of the population is "pro-life" because they hate women and want to force young girls to raise babies. If that was the case, why would they be ok with girls giving up their kids for adoption? Surely they'd want that delegalized too. Besides, if you hate women and want to see them suffer, there's got to be an easier, more efficient way that will result in even greater harm.
Your comment is a "pro-choice" equivalent of a "pro-lifer" saying that everyone "pro-choice" is a satanic pedophile who wants to murder babies for their own amusement.
I know exactly what your comment is supposed to be. A moral superiority circle jerk based on an illogical, unsubstantiated, unrealistic premise. You're not supposed to question it or push back against it, you're supposed to just go along with it so that everyone can nod along and feel good about themselves.
Let's be honest now, everyone knows what the whole "pro-life" and "pro-choice" debate is about. Both sides think that taking away a part of a woman's bodily autonomy is bad and that killing the life developing inside her isn't as meaningless as killing a fruit fly or getting your tonsils removed. But from the "pro-lifers" point of view, banning abortion is the lesser of two evils because the alternative is killing something that they believe to be a baby, while from the "pro-choicers" point of view, allowing abortion is the right choice because it's kinda sorta not really a baby yet, so forcing a girl to do something she doesn't want to do just to save this maybe baby isn't the right call.
This is a 100% accurate representation of each point of view, and any notion that any significant part of either movement supports it for any other reason is absolutely batshit fucking insane. (I almost never make categorical statements like this, but I really mean it here.)
The only reason why I engaged with not just your comment but this post at all is to push back against this "the more radical and extremist, the better and ideologically superior" emperor's new clothes style no true Scotsman crap. I hope that the people reading this will be able to find some sense in themselves and admit, if not publicly, at least internally where the truth lies in this situation.
Is that Bartleby's great great, etc, grandson?
He's not Wayne The Scrivener.
Or at least he didn't give his middle name.
Front Desk Person: Your middle name, please? Our Guy Wayne: The
I'd prefer not to.
It's in your contract, your job description, even your name; is it time for you to restart your counseling / therapy sessions? Mental health care is health care, after all.
The difference is if she gets pregnant, it was her fault.
- the rapist, arguing against abortion rights.
this guy obviously got a lot of downvotes, so i don’t want to associate myself with that, or even stick my own neck out... because what's the benefit? maybe i also get a bunch of downvotes? it makes me feel very sketched out. especially as someone who has had to mask their whole life, i have a hard time doing this in public.
but, i think he was joking/sarcastic. i could be wrong, because i am bad at reading social cues... but i've also spent a bunch of time practicing at it, and we people have a hard time detecting sarcasm... but i think this was it.
happy to hear evidence either way.
It was meant to be sarcastic. I guess the /s was needed after all.
I won't use /s and just eat the downvotes most of the time, but yeah, if you don't want to do that, you gotta use it. Even if you think it's ridiculous.
You’ll have to make the sarcasm more obvious if that is the intentional effect unfortunately.
Look at the Za’Niyah Harris case, and how many comments there are about how “fast” she was. (14 year old girl, impregnated by an adult in his 40’s who had previously given a 4 year an STI. he gave her an abortion, she is dead and no one knows where the body is)
Yeah, it was meant to be sarcastic.
The problem with that as sarcasm is that is genuinely what many people will believe and say. I heard similar in response to my own experiences of sexual assault as a teenager, and am the product of a pregnant teenager who should have got an abortion.
Sorry you had to go through that. My OP was because people are so quick to blame the female for getting pregnant, saying things like it was how she dressed or how she acted. Basically victim blaming.
It happens to all victims of sexual assault. You liked it, you wanted it, we could see by the way you dressed/acted/didn’t fight back.
The problem is that someone like Nick Fuentes would unironically post and intend your OP, and this being the internet, folks are going to assume that you are the goblin troll without clear markers of sarcasm.
You need a /s on that
TIL the adoption process is an unfortunate accident that happens to unsuspecting people through no fault of their own.
Fault, not choice
It looks like 18 people don't see the obvious sarcasm
Well, one of those involves killing a baby/something that will become a baby, so that's probably the differentiating factor in legislators' eyes.
We can't "kill something that will become a baby"?
Whelp, time to start legislating male ejaculations. Each one has millions of sperm that could each become a baby, so men are murderers on a scale that could never be matched by women.
I guess there's quite a difference between will and could.
I know, right? Almost like the pregnant person should be in charge of if they WILL carry it to term or rather if they only COULD carry it to term, but won't. Glad you agree!
That slash you used implies that the things before and after it are somehow equivalent when they absolutely aren't.
I put it there because people have different opinions on when a human life begins, some think it begins at conception, some after 1st trimester, some at birth... However you define the "thing" growing in the womb as, abortion involves killing it and that's probably(obviously) why it's treated differently than adoption.
We can agree on that (that this is the legislators' reasoning). Whether it's good or even valid reasoning remains to be seen. For one thing, the alternative to an adoption is one more parentless orphan - which is often also the alternative to an abortion. Oversimplifying the issue helps nobody. I'm not accusing you specifically of oversimplifying, as you made it clear that you were pointing out an oversimplification made by others.
Still human (and I'm pro choice)
That depends on how you define a human, and there's the entirely separate issue of whether it being human or not should be the deciding factor. For example, a braindead human is still human but killing them is quite different from killing a healthy human. Oversimplifying the issue helps nobody.
I agree with your view, I'm not trying to simplify, I think most pro choice people don't want to think of the moral dilemma that abortion is, whether you're in favor or against its legalization it is a complex matter and pretending the other side of this debate is evil or dumb helps no one, each side has it's points and both opinions are completely logical and acceptable imo.
It's like this with any controversial issue: most people adopt a manicheist stance, regardless of which side they're on. This is why I think it's important to always remember that if these issues weren't nuanced, they wouldn't be so controversial among so many different sectors of society.
Ahh you spilt the beans, you shouldnt have. Something that would become a child. Isnt.
https://discuss.tchncs.de/comment/15749980
Btw, is there a better way of posting the same response to multiple comments?
Um no we dont downvote straight up logical clarification you idiots
Helps up and dusts off qwerty*
An eighteen year old woman dating a thirty year old man is considered a victim of grooming. An eighteen year old woman entering a sugar baby arrangement with a fifty year old man is considered an empowered feminist. However if said man provides her with a glass of wine before the deed, that's a class three misdemeanor.
Gender politics in the US is cracked. A huge part of the reason why is the entire discourse is dominated by super reductive hot takes.
The foundation of the common subculture is knowing who it's ok to hate.
You just belong to the wrong subculture. Otherwise it would make sense.
view more: next ›