Spoken on behalf of the Government on BBC Radio 4's Any Questions, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury wants pornography gone from the UK on the basis of protecting women's and girls safety and fighting misogyny in society.
Bear in mind, this is separate from the Online Safety Act about to be enacted and the age verification plan any website not "suitable for children". Also bear in mind VPN's operating in the UK are also required to comply with the law.
The UK Government is about to go to war on pornography and appease both the feminists who believe it is exploitative and harmful to women while turning men into misogynists and the traditional conservatives who also believe it is harming masculinity, encouraging bachelorhood and contributing to the decline in birth rates.
"Do this or we will do it" is a pretty retarded threat. It means it would be tricky for them to pull it off, and they want the internet companies to do their work for them.
Also, you have to love the selective logic.
But, remember, if you ban abortion women will literally kill themselves in back alleys with coat hangers! If the logic was consistent, banning porn would just make it more exploitative.
Also, gotta love how everything is about "women and girls." Despite them not being able to define either of those, but that's a separate issue. No matter the issue, it's always, always, always "women most effected."
And, hey, at least this time the government is presumably threatening national companies, not international like they tried with Rumble.
I guess it's a good test case, if nothing else. I fully, fully expect it to backfire though. This will just be more anti-men nonsense, no matter how you feel about porn and its effects, they'll manage to blow this back onto the evil white men.
It's the government doing something, so it will likewise accomplish the opposite; more exploitation, more misogyny, more bachelorhood, more harming of masculinity. Worst of all worlds, they'll manage it somehow.
MRAs have been very good at spotting this mentality, it doesn't matter what it is, it's very pervasive in the west. Even down to the detail of how the media does victim reporting. They never mention that men can be victims as well and simply write it as 'X number of victims as well as X number of women and children' don't believe me? Check the articles and how these journalists write.
The language gets even creepier when you start investigating female paedophiles. I don't think I see a single journalist now that will call it rape when a woman does it. They call it disgusting shit like 'a romp' and and even when they're really stretching to defend women who do it with outright children who aren't teenagers they always call it "Have sex with" that's another experiment you can do. If you put in the search engines "Jailed for having sex with" versus "jailed for underage rape" I guarantee that the rapists will be men and the people having sex with underage boys will be women.
In case you couldn't tell this is one of those topics I could rant about for hours and it's why I really can't stand hanging out with normie crowds anymore. The virtue signal mentality towards women is real, another experiment MRAs did which was very effective was they would write up fake scenarios of abuse situations for mainstream/feminist subreddits. Even in the mainstream ones, the responses were predictable, the women in the situations who were being abusive were instantly defended and users would go out of their way to excuse the behaviour, the men were ruthlessly attacked.
I once thought about the idea of how easy it would be to manipulate the entire UK court system with a fake accusation. Obviously this was very morally questionable and I wrote that in the sub, but the fact is if you had a very trustworthy partner or something and she did a fake accusation against you both of you could probably manipulate the fuck out of the courts and they would immediately trip over themselves to 'defend the woman' even if she came out and said after that everything had been faked and there was video to prove it. Even with that though, they'd probably try and claim she's got Stockholm syndrome and do everything they can do go after the guy in that situation just because it's a guy.
I don't know if you saw a debate recently on the Minister for Men being suggested by an MP who then got mocked by feminists. A male contributor on BBC Politics Live was defending the MP and was talking about male suicide as a serious social issue that needs to be tackled by Government. What did the other panellists do? Immediately change the subject to "what about the wage gap", "what about sexual harassment" and "what about women". In less than two minutes the issue of male suicide was completely derailed and the original male contributor was left to just agree to everything that was being said by everyone else.
Yep, I saw clips of that and the whole Laurence Fox thing that resulted. GBNews and all of the men including people who should know better fell for the tactic hook line and sinker. They didn't just want to cancel GBNews and get it taken off the air through bullshit ofcom regulation part of it will be they never wanted the discussion about male suicide and a minister for men being discussed in the first place.
It's all pointless anyway that kind of discussion, because if it does happen because of what feminists are like they're going to inevitably turn it into some ultra cucked position and the 'minister for men' will inevitably be some weasel male feminist conservative type who constantly apologises to women on behalf of men and talks about how men need to stop abusing women and that men should express themselves more to prevent suicide. That is the only narrative in the mainstream that is allowed about male suicide and depression anymore.