Tucker posed this hypothetical: "What if there was a candidate who wanted to put the owners of Mindgeek [Pornhub's parent company] in prison? Would younger Americans support that?" Nick's answer was yes.
Almost everyone here has agreed at this point that age verification laws are meant to be an attack on the freedom of the internet, and that any effect on porn is beside the point. But for people who actually support the stated intent of the laws, it seems like legislating against the porn suppliers may be a way to effectively attack the industry without opening up another avenue of control.
What would this look like? In my opinion, fines and jail time for producers in the US and foreign websites that allow access to the US. As we've seen with social media in Europe, government pressure is enough to make companies change course.
The natural objection is that a VPN is really easy to use. That's true, but it's a barrier that would most likely severely curtail the usage of porn in pubescent children. The effect still might be substantial on adults as well. Also, it would effectively destroy the Onlyfans market since only a few determined women are going to jump through hoops to do illegal amateur porn for some company in Bulgaria.
Another objection I've seen is that women are the root cause of the breakdown of relationships, and that men need an outlet in porn to cope with that. The first part is obviously true but I don't think the second part follows. If massive numbers of young men are coping with the feminization of society through porn, that means it's a control mechanism to prevent them from getting angry enough to revolt. If we're going to make any progress against women's rights, men need to feel an acute sense of what they are missing.
There is also the possibility of knock-on effects on anime, movies, TV, etc. The only thing I really care about there is anime, but I think the collateral damage could be effectively controlled.
America has had anti-obscenity laws since the beginning, until a bunch of activist judges back in the 60s and 70s decreed that obscenity was politically protected speech. Roll all that back and the big producers and distributors can be shut down without any need to ID internet users.
Exactly. Feminism cannot survive without either porn or legalized prostitution. If men have no outlet for sexual frustrations, then men will create an outlet by repealing the 19th and putting women back in kitchens.
The civil rights era really was just a huge regime change post WWII. They opened the immigration floodgates. Prevented whites from organizing. Started really ramping up the indoctrination in education. More women in education, and work. Etc.
Something that a lot of the more lolbert leaning sections of the right are going to have to come to terms with is that the Bohemian-ism of the left in the 20th century was not just morally wrong and not just previously unapproved, but actively destructive to the fabric of a civilized society.
It's the big question, and one we pose to just about everything else when it comes to the sacred cows of the left. Blacks, welfare, simpering foreign policy, service economies, women's rights, urban planning, etc.
The question is "Do you want a society that functions or not?" With the unsaid part being "or do you just want to play around aimlessly until you die?"
Of course that same question is going to be posed towards the firehose of pornography.
You put this into words much more eloquently than I could have. We quibble over left vs right, authoritarianism vs libertarianism, Democrat vs Republican etc when reality dictates that it all eventually boils down to pragmatism vs idealism.
Reality doesn't care about our feelings, so your question is the only one that truly matters.
“Do you want an aspirational society, one where we know our kin, we generally plant trees whose fruit and shade our progeny might enjoy, we build cathedrals and projects and tomorrows generation has selection pressures(jail, death, lack of resources) to promote an even better tomorrow?”
Because that’s the history of civilization and selective pressures in much of Europe. Other lands had other selection pressures.
Age verification laws? Funny way to spell "hang pornography CEOs until the problem stops."
Except that won't stop things because anyone, anywhere who wants to show off still could. Porn is not a singular "professional" issue regarding the source of material, amateur generated content would still exist and if anything explode were "pro" porn simply targeted exclusively and removed. It would also still do absolutely nothing about the completely lackluster parenting approach that leads to many who shouldn't be accessing porn from doing so, instead offloading the burden onto "big daddy gov" who will then spend stupid amounts of money on things that won't work while attempting to curb general freedoms instead.
"Talent" is worthless without distribution, and the vast majority of amateur porn is fueled by hopes of monetization.
edit: I saw your solution to improve parenting is to charge parents with accessory to crimes if their kid looks up porn. Great, so now the kid has to go to a group home while Mindgeek rabbis continue to report billions in revenue. What a horrible idea.
As mentioned in my other comment ITT the web simply means that's always going to be a thing.
But it's not everything, and your own choice of words highlights you know this.
So you don't want ideas or discussion to solve this, you just want to make yet another thread whining about those in control in perpetuity because otherwise you would have nothing to complain about, just like most grifters "on our side" who want the whole shitshow to continue as just as much as the rest.
Please explain how the continual threat of death and the constant siezing of all property involved would not make this a trivial social issue in one year's time.
Did you really say anything with these comments? The market for amateur porn would be a fraction of its current size without monetization and distribution, possibly almost nonexistent. Pornhub allowing amateur porn grew the market and Onlyfans exploded it.
Whining? I proposed a solution and answered your objections. When I pointed out your idea has retarded knock-on effects your response is to cry about it.
So called amateur generated content often really isn't; all those whores on reddit and onlyfans are trying to make money from it. Shut down the profitable websites it's distributed on and it'll go from the current deluge to the comparatively tiny trickle we had back before it was easy to sell nudes online.
“Oy vey, you can’t hang us! It won’t change anything!”
No one said anything about this. Your strawman is meaningless.
“Stop letting the government imprison criminals! You should be forced to handle them yourselves!”
No one said anything about anything you are inventing out of thin air. He said “hang the people responsible for creating and distributing porn.” Your assumptions belie your terror.
This exactly. I was precise with what my solution was for a reason. I think the Bukele approach is correct.
"You can't stamp out porn CEOs because amateur porn will still get created!" Just lmfao
I guess we should just allow murder and abortion too, since they're just done anyway!!!!
What’s extremely telling is that when the jews demanded the repeal of all laws prohibiting certain sexual acts in the 1920s, they claimed “everyone is doing them already anyway” as their justification.
Guess they never change their spots.
Weirdly enough he actually wants the government to make parents into criminals and imprison them, which I guess would allow the kid to get groomed by a local OF pimp.
Oy very, that's an antisemitic hate crime that is! Oy veeeeyyyyyy!
Nick missed the chance to use that line
Porn and prostitution have existed for as long as humanity created civilisations. We have cave drawings of erotic art and there's a reason prostitution is called the oldest profession.
The issue is the INDULGENCE amount of it. We live in a world of excess from sex, food and positive reinforcement even when your ideas are shit.
Best method is to at least price the use of real people in porn out and target those makers as knowing that industry, you can easily get them on something illegal. But to really get a handle on it, you'd need the return of faith and the concept that sin is bad after decades of being repeatedly told sin isn't bad, you're justified seeking your own gratification no matter what, even if it's harmful to you.
Never going to happen unless you severely compromise the entire web to prevent people sharing things, and that will come at the cost of everything else that isn't porn being affected. Doing something about parents who do fuck all about stopping their kids accessing things needs looked at. If parents can be charged with accessory to crime they can also be charged with negligence if and when the kids access things they shouldn't be.
i mean, alcohol being illegal to give to minors has probably prevented a lot of early addictions/problems even though it can't stop someone sharing a beer bottle with a minor. if you plug a bleeding wound and some still leaks out between your fingers you don't go "well, looks like i'm not stopping it, may as well not try" you just accept that you can only help things 90% instead of 100%. and 90% is a fuck of a lot more than 10%.
that being said, for porn, this just means getting the satanic mindgeek types who literally do it as a form of societal destruction in prison or in shallow graves. there is no reason not to criminalize people outright admitting they want to harm society.
Just because they have existed, and i would argue against porn existing because cave drawings have little in common with modern porn, still doesn't mean we have to accept them.
Murder existed since forever too.
Ok, and without a draconian, soulless hell hold, how do you stop ALL murder?
This is the risk we see with porn, if approached in the wrong way to reduce and stop it's influence, you may give up something you CAN'T get back without even worse sacrifice.
You're being utterly obtuse. In the world as it is, to use your murder metaphor, murder isn't even fucking illegal.
"WE cAnT sToP aLL pORn" fuck off. Start by making it actually a crime to be a digital pimp. Push the fucking switch
Actually your being obtuse as my point was being about the APPROACH to lessen it's influence and pull.
Murder, you employ wide range self defence excuses and harsh penalties depending on how premeditated it was (which as we see thanks to some activist judges ISN'T being done based on ideology).
With porn, best going after the industry makers as they usually have SOME kind of illegal activity on the side, maybe add some more hoops to monetise porn whether done as a studio or amateur if it involves real people and increasing the age you can do porn to 25 at least so they can't do this 'I'm now legal!' Crap with people WAITING for them to turn 18.
Just criminalising it will be COMPLETELY ineffective, as much as the UK's online safety act as THAT was touted to help stop kids seeing adult material...
Never understood that - how can you trade money or goods for sex unless there is an older profession that created those goods?
Because the spoils of hunting and gathering can be traded for sex, so there is no need for money or goods to be involved.
Then 'hunter' and 'gatherer' aren't occupations? It relies on a very narrow definition of the world 'occupation', being a wage slave and all.
Are animals "professionals" for managing to keep themselves alive then?
Not clear on the nuances, but occupation does not imply professional.
So this logic suggests that hunting and gathering are not occupations, but it is an occupation if a woman stays alive by asking for produce in exchange for sex?
It's all a bit weird.
If you read the phrase that you are being pedantic about again, "occupation" is not there, but "profession" is.
Hunting and gathering is the same thing that every animal on the planet does to survive, so it would be a stretch to call it a profession. A woman spreading her legs in exchange for something she wants, however, is a different thing.
At the risk of being pedantic, because English isn't my first language, it is my impression that having a profession is not being a 'professional'. In the latter case I think of lawyers and similar jobs of people who in the modern work basically work for themselves.
I believe female praying mantises have been known to do that.
In the sense that prostitution is a "paid" occupation. Prostitutes don't produce anything, they just exchange "services" for goods.
So in that reading, a shoemaker doesn't have a profession, because he does make actual goods, but a prostitute does?
English is weird.
No?
Occupation: activity someone does to earn a living
Profession: paid occupation.
Professions are occupations, occupations aren't always professions.
A shoemaker makes a living by selling the shoes, not just by making them. A hunter can live just by eating what he hunts.
You are overthinking it tho, the point of the phrase is to highlight its prevalence and transactional nature, singling out from, let's say tool making and tailoring, which are actual older professions in a literal sense.
You need a culture shift, not legal solutions. That's what makes this such a difficult issue to address. Any policy or legal prescription is just going to be a blatant power grab and fail to accomplish anything beyond making our society more of a dystopia.
Correct.
The zeitgeist much change; and right now it's advocating for degeneracy across the board.
You can either have a country that puts men on the moon or a country that has free HD extreme porn, vape shops, and slot machines in gas stations.
Ending porn is not a solution to the current problems. The fact anyone thinks this is an underlying issue (and especially a major one) speaks to just how disconnected people are from the real issues.
Men want hot women to worship their cock but women don't want to. That's it. That's the problem. Banning porn isn't going to make women worship men's cock nor will it force men into accepting not hot women that don't worship their cock. Banning porn won't solve shit.
Reducing taxes by 80% and cutting social programs on the other hand will have a much more significant impact on fixing the issues people think banning porn will fix.
I don't see banning porn as solving relationship/birthrate issues because you're right, it's not a major cause. But I do see banning it as a precursor to the actual solution of the problems you mentioned, because at the moment it's one of the most effective opiates of the masses.
The Onlyfans problem is actually doing severe damage to women just by itself, meaning damaging their capacity for relationships and motherhood. The estimate is 14% of American women 18-24 on the platform. That's 14% of young women that are automatically damaged goods. Any loss is unacceptable, let alone 14% because we let a subversive company rampage through our culture.
Disagree completely. Why? I am friends with pronstars and a porn producer. I am going to a private party with a bunch of pornstars for Halloween. I know the women in this industry. Most of them were already broken by 12-14yo, long before they were ever on OFs. It almost always stems from the mother too and a part of their nature. We've always had whores. They aren't going away. You ban all the outlets for whores and all you're doing is making them hide themselves but they're still there. You can't make a whore a housewife, it's not in their nature and no amount of banning outlets for whores is going to solve this. Also, this may blow your mind but I see far more children among OF girls than I do among educated women.
The real reason you see less mothers is because of taxes and government spending. Men want children more than women do. Women are the access to children but men ultimately provide the resources. That has always been the exchange and it always will be, that's our nature. To get more kids you need to significantly lower taxes and cut all social programs. Right now, men are being taxed more than women and women are benefiting from the taxes more than men so we're reducing men's natural advantage and giving it to women thus reducing women's need of men but this makes children less likely because it's men who want women to produce children in exchange for resources. If you reduce women's access to resources except in the case of them marrying a man and providing children for him then women will do exactly that (get married and have kids) so they get access to resources. If you want more kids this is how you get them:
If you do the above, you will see a far larger increase in birth rates than banning porn ever would.
Yeah, I'm surprised, but I could see that. A few thoughts:
Re: prostitution, legalized European prostitution makes for a good case study. Legalization increased demand, but the supply of natural whores was not enough, so organized crime forces a lot of women into the business and there aren't any better protections for them now. Legalization grows the cancer, bans reduce it.
I largely agree with those prescriptions, but my point is that men being able to (somewhat) satiate their need for women with porn is sapping the political will to make such drastic anti-female overhauls of the system.
Here's another issue to consider. If you ban your women from engaging in whoring/prostitution in the age of the digital world, you're reducing foreign capital flowing into your country and likely leading to the flow of capital to other countries.
Why not have White women be the greatest whores in the world and use this to extract as many resources from non-White simps worldwide? Get all the rich Chinese, Indians, Saudi guys to simp for White women on OF. The OF girls get the money domestically and then spend it here in the country, thus improving our total resources by extracting resources from non-White simps? Because if we ban our women from doing it, you can bet our men will still find a way to give money to Asian/jewish whores online and someone else will benefit from it.
Since whores always exist, we shouldn't be trying to have a 1:1 ratio of monogamy for all men and women with everyone having kids. That's not ideal. Many men and women shouldn't be having kids and maybe that's 15% of the population (what your estimate is at for these girls, which seems about right to me). The 80/20 general rule probably holds here.
Anyway, I think at the end of the day we have a lot of average men and women who are frustrated at their outcomes for the opposite sex and blame porn as the reason why they aren't getting what they want. I don't think porn is really the issue...
But you may be right about porn needing to be banned simply so the scapegoat can go away and people will be forced to realize the reason they don't have a hot man or woman chasing after them has nothing to do with porn.
The idea that if we didn't have porn, men would be forced to lower their expectations for women is absurd. We still have the internet. Men know what women are capable of and how they treat men they're into. Average guys are tired of being treated like shit by average women and want to be treated the same way these women treat hot men. Banning porn won't lead to men becoming horny desperate simps looking to marry a bitch just so he can have sex because he's so desperate. Guys will just use their imagination or grab a fashion magazine like they used to do. Guys aren't going to put up with women's shit anymore in the future just because porn is banned. That shipped sailed long ago and not because of porn but because dating apps and information exchange grew thanks to the internet. Men have observed the truth and aren't confined to their small town and unrealistic civialrous standards to shame men into doing his "duty" to support bitchy/ugly women. Banning porn won't change a thing.
That's a pretty funny thought, but it's kind of what's happening already, and it sucks. I could see a scenario where it might even be favorable for Onlyfans to be a majority Chinese/Korean/Israeli operation (it's already fundamentally Israeli). The 80/20 rule is also for the most desirable men, not the most damaged women.
It is an absurd idea, and to be very clear about what I mean, the problem is not male expectations. Almost 100% of the current situation is that men can't fulfill female expectations to be both stable providers and roguish werewolf rapists at the same time, or compete with hundreds of guaranteed matches on dating apps. Or that the current dating app culture is basically the same thing as a job interview, complete with sterile HR language, and has explicitly been compared as such by women who have convinced themselves they are the new masters of the universe because the government mandated that they get useless high-paying jobs to accomplish basically nothing.
Basically women have irrational standards that men cannot meet, but they're women so they won't understand that without an intervention.
Banning porn is not to recalibrate male expectations. It's to take away the substitute for getting a woman, which is porn. With no women and no porn there will be a large class of angry, seething men that will want to overthrow the system. Pretty chaotic, but historically speaking the actions of angry young men is the consequence for society treating them like garbage, and the longer that is prevented with basically free heroin (porn) the worse it will get.
The problem would be legally defining what counts as "porn" and "supplier" and I can't see that ending well.
Reminder Visa and MC pressured Onlyfans to get rid of NSFW content but they backed down at the last minute. Who knows why
Because even the most pernicious and ubiquitous cartel in the world still bows to the tribe.
We seem to have done a decent job in the past, before 1950 when hardcore porn appeared out of "nowhere."
It would never be a perfect standard, but there are always fuzzy lines and edge cases with any standard. Yellow is different than red even though orange exists.
Maybe if we limit the scope to: sexually explicit (shows genitals), lacks artistic merit (not speech) and made/distributed by relatively big companies (Pornhub, Onlyfans).
I think the actual problem is that anything beyond that would be virtually unenforceable without some kind of intrusive system, I think It'd be worse than trying to get rid of piracy. In countries that banned porn, the producers go for the next best thing, ie. In South Korea camgirls are the market.
Don't get me wrong tho. De-incentivizing monetary gain from porn companies would still benefitial, since even them use psychological manipulation tactics to keep engagement, it's a deliberate distortion of sexuality
That seems like an acceptable scope. We'd have to accept camgirls because attempting to ban them would basically turn into the age verification scandal all over again. A better way to attack the industry would be heavy regulation and taxation, because there's no way an organization where the CEO is literally doing dance routines and dropping girls on the floor is run with any semblance of due diligence.
The thing with Twitch thots, though, is that porn is legal in America and we still have a massive e-girl market. So it's not really a case of picking one or the other.
It's literally just prostitution which is already illegal, so yes they should be jailed and people should stop pretending it's different if you take a video of it. If you want to draw or animated it fine, because that doesn't involve an actual person, but anything involving a direct person is prostitution.
This is backed by the reports of severe drops in traffic for porn sites in states with age verification laws.
That genie is out of the bottle! Digital p0rn is here to stay, nothing short of North Korea-style government control will restrict it to a meaningful degree.
Knock-on effects are a danger. The slippery slope of definitions is always a race to the bottom. Banning "child p0rn" is perfectly reasonable, but down the road will a perfectly wholesome anime like Happy Sugar Life get banned because two girls (16 and 7 years old) are playing house together? As in married to each other & sharing an apartment.
NOTE: Happy Sugar Life is NOT wholesome! It's grim, violent and dark in the extreme. It's a running joke to say it's sweet and innocent when it is the opposite.
Idk tucker had nick on his show. That basically proves nick is a fed.
Incidentally, they both have a moment in the show where they apologize for calling each other Feds, and explain their reasons why they thought so.
What's your reasoning for why tucker lied about not knowing his dads role with the CIA despite on camera talking about it extensively before the documented lie?
Perhaps he was a stupid old man who, like many Olds, forget that their lives are recorded and accessible by the public, and thought he could get away with it. I generally like Tucker, and find him useful for agitating people against Leftists. I don't subscribe to his channels, but will watch interviews he does on his youtube channel if the interviewee catches my attention.
I don't know specifically what he could be doing in his capacity as a Fed, or related to Feds, to help them, but I feel like I'd recognize something obvious.
Oh you hate Tucker now?
He lied about not knowing his dads involvement with the CIA.
Tucker is pretty weird on that subject. I don't know exactly what kind of federal role he would have, though.
By fed I mean associated with the deep state machine. Being a federal employee officially is rare for these CIA/zog spooks
Right, a fed asset is the most likely option. I mean I'm not sure what his purpose would be, or is.
Eh, it's weird, but people misspeak and make rhetorical points.
Now no one is more critical of the CIA than Tucker. He is a treasure.
He didn't misspeak. He was clear in multiple interviews about his family's history at length and then clearly talked about how surprised he was to know his father was CIA later. Fuentes himself excoriated tucker for this whole line of dialogue. Tuckers YouTube interviews and news appearances are still even on YouTube, feel free to watch.
I've seen it. It's weird, but I don't think it invalidates all the good that Tucker has done.
Hmm, that seems like a very savvy political angle.
Why? It didn't stop them before. It made them even bigger simps.
What period are you referring to?
Before what we have now with the internet. Also still haven't heard a good reason against porn which isn't these companies trying to manipulate peoples.
I'm confused. You think men were bigger simps before the internet? That's backwards.
If I could wave a magic wand and make it all disappear, I'd do it. But I think the genie is out of the bottle and putting some porn producers into jail (on what grounds?) wouldn't even make a dent.
This is what I want. Drone strike and hang porn companies and employees after repealing the pro porn rulings by commie judges in the 60s/70s. Make companies operating in the US illegal, and fine them and any employees in the country until they regionblock the US. No need for draconian age laws, as VPN usage will filter out the youngest and most vulnerable.
The problem is not that making certain laws would be bad, but that we cannot trust our lawmakers do so with that intent. Any such laws would inherently infringe on certain freedoms or privacy in order to function, while the people we have in power would instead ignore all that because their real purpose would be those freedoms and they could care less about the porn.
Porn for Men is what social media is too Women.
They could just investigate the companies themselves for underage content and propagating it, there's already undercover Veritas style footage of them admitting to know trans stuff is available to minors and talking about how it's a good thing.
The worst part of the current dynamic is that it has people framing things as men vs women (or left vs right, or red vs blue...), which was absolutely not the case even 20 years ago. You can argue about what other people are doing til you're blue in the face, but the only real solution that exists for those who are fed up with porn is to seek actual relationships.
Let those who actually have the tools to understand the total dynamics of the issue, seek the solutions. Feel free to contact them with your concerns, but try to stay away from demanding specific resolutions, the way activist cultures tend to do.
Tucker got Fuentes on? this will be interesting.