I'm pretty sure they've re-defined "safe" to "not dying that very moment." It doesn't matter that these kids might all grow up to kill themselves, because holy shit are they so safe from all the sentient guns that roam our schools.
By that metric I will say that even school shootings aside, the kid is probably safer in that room from sex predators than they would be at a public school. That's not saying much though, and I'm sure that's not what the idiot meant.
And how are they less safe alone in a catholic church? Is there fewer tripping hazards? They're alone. (yeah, yeah, I know what they mean, but linguistics matters!)
The only reason the kid is "safer" there is cameras are rolling. And even then, that's only with your definition of immediate risk. Take away the camera element, and I'd much prefer my kid be... pretty much anywhere else that is "approved" by society to exist.
Gonna predict that when I go to this tweet, half the replies are going to be random "I agree" gifs or non-committal agreement like "go off king" and "this", which is a sure sign of having paid for engagement. I will edit this post with my findings when I'm done.
Edit: This tweet is actually a few days old and I don't know how to sort replies by date (I'm sure you can't) so I don't know what the original replies were like. Wherever he did it worked, because all the new ones are bona fide NPCs who approve of sexualizing children to own the rethuglikkkans.
This guy is trying to make "NPCing" an extreme sport or something. What a retarded take. It's completely wrong, but lines up with the Narrative, so is virtuous to say.
Public schools are way worse than churches ever were. The only reason you think they are comperable is because the subverted media takes every opportunity to bash churchs and actively buries school abuse stories.
Wait, you mean the media might have blown up a relatively small number of stories to create a narrative of widespread horror to try and subvert/destroy an institution they didn't like?!
Wow, they would never do that. People here talk about those things all the time, so they'd certainly not fall for such easy bait.
You mean those churches where the pastor is dancing like a fruit and advocating for this garbage on tiktok? Sure bud. "IT'S NOT GONNA SUCK ITSELF" is literally written on the walls. Everything there pertains to you getting your rocks off.
I guarantee you every kid in that group was inappropriately solicited at some point of that trip.
I'm pretty sure they've re-defined "safe" to "not dying that very moment." It doesn't matter that these kids might all grow up to kill themselves, because holy shit are they so safe from all the sentient guns that roam our schools.
By that metric I will say that even school shootings aside, the kid is probably safer in that room from sex predators than they would be at a public school. That's not saying much though, and I'm sure that's not what the idiot meant.
I mean ... 0.00000001% safer ... is safer.
When it's your kids, safe means not in mortal peril.
When it's them, safe means completely immune to all criticism or difficulty.
And how are they less safe alone in a catholic church? Is there fewer tripping hazards? They're alone. (yeah, yeah, I know what they mean, but linguistics matters!)
The only reason the kid is "safer" there is cameras are rolling. And even then, that's only with your definition of immediate risk. Take away the camera element, and I'd much prefer my kid be... pretty much anywhere else that is "approved" by society to exist.
Twitter is filled with so many bots who knows how many of those are actually real.
Gonna predict that when I go to this tweet, half the replies are going to be random "I agree" gifs or non-committal agreement like "go off king" and "this", which is a sure sign of having paid for engagement. I will edit this post with my findings when I'm done.
Edit: This tweet is actually a few days old and I don't know how to sort replies by date (I'm sure you can't) so I don't know what the original replies were like. Wherever he did it worked, because all the new ones are bona fide NPCs who approve of sexualizing children to own the rethuglikkkans.
Of course the groomer defends itself
This guy is trying to make "NPCing" an extreme sport or something. What a retarded take. It's completely wrong, but lines up with the Narrative, so is virtuous to say.
I bet that drag show had more armed guards than any elementary school.
You misunderstand.
The guards are there to protect the groomers, not the kids.
Disgusting
Public schools are way worse than churches ever were. The only reason you think they are comperable is because the subverted media takes every opportunity to bash churchs and actively buries school abuse stories.
Wait, you mean the media might have blown up a relatively small number of stories to create a narrative of widespread horror to try and subvert/destroy an institution they didn't like?!
Wow, they would never do that. People here talk about those things all the time, so they'd certainly not fall for such easy bait.
~20K upvotes was a magic number on Reddit which usually indicated a post's promotion was not organic. It was being promoted by bots, or click farms.
You mean those churches where the pastor is dancing like a fruit and advocating for this garbage on tiktok? Sure bud. "IT'S NOT GONNA SUCK ITSELF" is literally written on the walls. Everything there pertains to you getting your rocks off.
I guarantee you every kid in that group was inappropriately solicited at some point of that trip.
Funny because the Catholic Church, even during its sex abuse crises, had levels of sex abuse far below the rest of society at the time.