Netflix going full nonce ...

Clarence Worley

leaner than mandy...
Nov 19, 2018
8,170
5,707
Siberia
its my default answer to people who are dumb

like you

dummy


all upset over a movie youve not seen but OK with exterminating jews

yer a piece of work clarence

and yer fuckin dumb
So you’re telling me you witnessed the holocaust?

at no point have I ever said I’m ok with extermination of anyone

god yer dumbbbbb etc
 

steviebruno

CHB NYC Delegate
Jun 5, 2013
16,867
6,765
New York City
I think you can see the differences between that case and 'Cuties'

the Miller Test ALONE means Cuties is protected,as far as I can tell

so,yer comparing apples and oranges and asking a malformed question
Cuties is Miller protected because the sexual scenes are framed around a film that pretends to tell a story with some great lesson behind it.

It would not be if the entire movie was 90 minutes of girls twerking their private parts on camera. There are ways around any system. A pedophile can own actual books with naked children, for instance, so long as the book can be framed as "art".

Young girls participated in a movie that they can't even sit down and watch... because it was too inappropriate.
 
Reactions: Medicine

SwollenGoat

Deicide
May 17, 2013
63,281
22,582
The House that Peterbilt
Cuties is Miller protected because the sexual scenes are framed around a film that pretends to tell a story with some great lesson behind it.

It would not be if the entire movie was 90 minutes of girls twerking their private parts on camera. There are ways around any system. A pedophile can own actual books with naked children, for instance, so long as the book can be framed as "art".
yup

which is what I was referring to as 'more disturbing' than simply admitting its not actually 'porn'

it could have been MORE graphic and yet 'protected'

that was my point,eh?
 

steviebruno

CHB NYC Delegate
Jun 5, 2013
16,867
6,765
New York City
yup

which is what I was referring to as 'more disturbing' than simply admitting its not actually 'porn'

it could have been MORE graphic and yet 'protected'

that was my point,eh?
So why do people need to be involved in a "Satanic panic" conspiracy to be offended? Doesn't really jibe. It's probably better to just make the argument without wrongly characterizing people just for disagreeing with you.
 
Reactions: Medicine

SwollenGoat

Deicide
May 17, 2013
63,281
22,582
The House that Peterbilt
So why do people need to be involved in a "Satanic panic" conspiracy to be offended? Doesn't really jibe. It's probably better to just make the argument without wrongly characterizing people just for disagreeing with you.
again,you fail to understand me

I was referring to the fact that todyas satanic panic is 'pedos'

to the point,as I explained before,utterly innocent pictures and the like are now seen as somehow not OK because some sick shit might get turned on

Ive got news for yall.......................some sick shit might get excited over ANYTHING.................so,instead of curating media with THEM in mind,maybe we should take a step back and worry about more concrete things,eh?
 

Icemmann

Breakin it down.
May 16, 2013
11,927
5,096
41
The tree outside GABBY'S room
I have no issue with anything being explored in film, including the themes of this movie. What I take issue with is the execution and the promotion.

Exploring sexualisation of children, by actually sexualising children is dense. It would be akin to exploring the impact of rape by actually raping someone.

Much of the sexualisation also appears fun and appealing for children, I find this irresponsible, as I would if rape was presented in this way.


The promotional material is also suspect.



The Netflix poster is awful. It sexualises the children and offers no indication the film might be against this.

The original French poster is better, but it still features children in adult underwear and portrays this as fun and uplifting.

Even if the intentions of this film were good, there is no denying they have made a mess of things.
How you figure the French poster is better? It says Meatholes.
 

kf3

Jul 17, 2012
6,978
3,891
South London
90% of the world knows netflix is making money off peados wanking right?

shouldn't have said right, that'll trigger the last guy defending this sick stuff.
 

kf3

Jul 17, 2012
6,978
3,891
South London
regardless of this sick film, imagine how much good could be done to the world if everyone just demanded the government put more resources into combating nonces and child porn.

how is anyone aginst it?

oh yeah, team sports politics and because the nonces are on one the sides, for some reason that has nothing to do with noncing i'm sure.
 
Reactions: Medicine

SwollenGoat

Deicide
May 17, 2013
63,281
22,582
The House that Peterbilt
regardless of this sick film, imagine how much good could be done to the world if everyone just demanded the government put more resources into combating nonces and child porn.

how is anyone aginst it?

oh yeah, team sports politics and because the nonces are on one the sides, for some reason that has nothing to do with noncing i'm sure.
:rofl


ffs,just stop

you sound unwell
 

kf3

Jul 17, 2012
6,978
3,891
South London
being against nonces is a real sickness.

if they made the same script and delivered the same message, just without the softcore child porn, i'm sure the audience and money would have been the same for the corporation promoting it.
 
Last edited:

Haggis

CHB World Championship People's Champion
May 16, 2013
42,088
18,980
Lot of strong opinions on this thread, it looks like.

Is there a headcount for who in the thread has watched the movie under discussion?

:hat
 

Haggis

CHB World Championship People's Champion
May 16, 2013
42,088
18,980
It's more like those things being the start of the slippery slone we're on. All forms of media have certainly changed over the last 30 years but things are continuously moving in that direction, to become more and more open to all these different ideas, some well meaning and some sordid. To give an example of how fast this has taken place, the first lesbian kiss on pre-watershed British TV was only in 1994 and now in 2020, there's lesbian kissing on kids TV.

That's an incredibly short space of time for that change in mentality to take place. It's one generation, so there hasn't had chance to be a fallout from it, but even though I don't think things like the Brookside kiss were really damaging, we're now further down the line and things like '13 Reasons Why' are factually damaging, as that show lead to many children dying from suicide.

The problem is that even if you think that TV should be an avenue to educate people on these subjects, the way they do it is fundamentally different to any argument about education because the TV producers rely on shock value. To use '13 Reasons Why' as an example, that show wasn't about highlighting mental health, it showed vulnerable kids how much power they have over their bullies if they do the worst thing imaginable, kill themselves. That's such a dangerous thing to show and that was proven to be true by the suicide rate increasing by 28%.

That said though, there's still an issue with kids being indoctrinated from an early age and I think there are some issues that impressionable kids should be protected from. They're being deprived of that innocent childhood that the vast majority of people on here had. In children, suicide rates are up, porn addiction is up, sensitivity to violence is down, transgender conversion is up...this reckless attitude towards sex, violence and so on is clearly damaging.
Hey moron.


Ever heard of "The Blue Lagoon"?



It was released in 1980.

Brooke Shields was 14 years old when they filmed it.

$60 million box office gross on a $4 million budget.

It's alright, though. They glued her hair to her chest for all her topless scenes.

Have you even seen any media from the 1970s?

Here's 12 year old Jodie Foster playing a teenage prostitute.



But yeah, don't let anything like that stop you from going on yet another multi-paragraph-long, historically-illiterate whine about the Left. :rolleyes

:hat
 
Jul 6, 2019
6,948
7,285
Lot of strong opinions on this thread, it looks like.

Is there a headcount for who in the thread has watched the movie under discussion?

:hat
We've already covered that.

While I agree you need to see a film to judge its quality or message, I don't think you need to see all of it to judge the morality of its production.

For example, if a film killed animals during its production then I could find it morally wrong, even if I haven't seen it. Likewise, I can find this wrong for its sexualisation and exploitation of children.
 
Reactions: Redzer

Haggis

CHB World Championship People's Champion
May 16, 2013
42,088
18,980
We've already covered that.
It's a long assed thread, started by a poster who I have on my ignored list, so I have 17 pages to trawl through to find that. :thumbsup

While I agree you need to see a film to judge its quality or message, I don't think you need to see all of it to judge the morality of its production.
To a certain extent, sure.

A lot of people read an article about something, from their favourite hysterical partisan outlet, and they just lift their stance directly from that without questioning or investigating any further.

For example, if a film killed animals during its production then I could find it morally wrong, even if I haven't seen it. Likewise, I can find this wrong for its sexualisation and exploitation of children.
Sure.

You could make a similar argument for Requiem for a Dream. Exploitative as fuck. Bleak, depressing, for many people, traumatic. You could call a film like that morally wrong. But I finished the movie, and thought "okay, so don't do heroin or any opiates. Not even once." :lol:

:hat
 
Reactions: Bob Weaver

SwollenGoat

Deicide
May 17, 2013
63,281
22,582
The House that Peterbilt
Hey moron.


Ever heard of "The Blue Lagoon"?



It was released in 1980.

Brooke Shields was 14 years old when they filmed it.

$60 million box office gross on a $4 million budget.

It's alright, though. They glued her hair to her chest for all her topless scenes.

Have you even seen any media from the 1970s?

Here's 12 year old Jodie Foster playing a teenage prostitute.



But yeah, don't let anything like that stop you from going on yet another multi-paragraph-long, historically-illiterate whine about the Left. :rolleyes

:hat
fucks sake,I forgot Blue Lagoon :lol:


I think A LOT of this has t do with the same 'victim' mentality thats infected a lot of the left

girls cant be gilrs or IN ANY WAY INTERESTED in sex or even naturally developing like all people do without being somehow 'victims' in todays world

either they are 'exploited' or they are 'pedo bait' and THATS the sick bit.........................we are now ALL forced to look at stuff AS IF WE WERE THE FUCKING PEDOS

its also oddly enough a return to more puritanical 'values' where it seems a bit of a double standard might exist......................girls CANT be sexually developing or interested in it................but I suspect the same attitude doesnt now,like it didnt then,exist for boys......................for THEM its 'natural'

plus,of course,libtards are all pedos so of course its their fault we have to ALL look at a kid in a bathing suit through the eyes of a fucking kiddie fiddler

jesus man,2020 is something..............
 

SwollenGoat

Deicide
May 17, 2013
63,281
22,582
The House that Peterbilt
@Bob Weaver

@Haggis just raised a bit of a brilliant little film history point

is Taxi Driver PROMOTING teen prostitution?

Yeah,they dont have Jodie actually turning tricks but she is dressed and acts like a prostitute which is as far as they can be expected to go..............just like the dancing in Cuties was as far as they might reasonably go to frame the subject............

Is Jodie somehow less offensive because she isnt 'dancing'?

Why is the dancing so much worse ?

Was Jodie exploited?

Should the film be banned?

Is it 'catering to pedos'?