you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Porn existed before the Internet, before magazines, and before the printing press. It's as natural as making babies. Be a prude and deny it if you like. Porn helped drive technology and the Internet. You are using this Internet. Does that mean you support it?

Demonizing someone for being involved in porn is hyperjudgemental exceptionalism bullshit.

Demonize them for exploiting people, young or old, against their will.

Porn is a double edged sword, for "social decay" and for freedom from censorship.

Focus on warmongering instead - including Zionists.

Also, guilt by association is very unfair. SaidIt is a hive of villainy so you must be a...

I worked on commercials and movies etc with some ad agencies, directors, exploiters, and shills, yet I'm not one.

Ultimately, IMO, Wales is Zionist scum, but Sanger may not be.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Demonizing someone for being involved in porn is hyperjudgemental exceptionalism bullshit.

I think the point about questioning his intentions and character due to the involvement in porn is valid. First of all, if he is so interested in the free flow of information, why not give away the porn for free? The guy has a degree in finance, he knows how to make money and he has an agenda. Him peddling porn is an important dot among the many dots to connect here and it is worth pointing out, particularly when it won't be pointed out anywhere else. We get enough of the "acceptance" angle for sex workers and porn in our day to day lives, politeness is great and all but not when it erodes honesty. Your point about porn being a double edged sword hits the nail on the head though.

Ultimately, IMO, Wales is Zionist scum, but Sanger may not be.

I checked out Sanger's Twitter feed after reading this thread. There are a few red flags about Sanger himself, I don't trust him even though he is right about the Epstein thing. It rubbed me the wrong way that he was recently interviewed by Breitbart, a company founded in Jerusalem to be an agent provocateur which has since repeatedly provoked civil unrest in America. Of course, both Breitbart and Sanger wouldn't dare say anything about the many people Israel pays to alter Wikipedia but they complain about leftist bias everywhere, which is just a little too convenient. It is all circumstantial and guilt by association though. I wouldn't ignore what he says but I can't take it seriously either. He is clearly just controlled opposition and a limited hangout but that is just my opinion.