I agree it was ridiculous, but why would the woman validate the question by giving the most obviously abhorrent response? That just made the question no longer ridiculous, because she answered in the affirmative.
In other words, “can a mother murder her toddler?” is only a ridiculous question if everyone in the room agrees on the obvious answer. This time, not everyone did… somehow.
Don’t worry, guys. I’ve been assured that this system is perfectly meritocratic.
If Reddit had been any indication, the debate around Roiland’s culpability seems to polarize around the idea that since the charges were dropped he evidently must not have been guilty, and the idea that even though the charges were dropped, we have, through sheer coincidence, just now decided that his various past behaviors warrant immediate cancellation anyway (and that he’s totally guilty no matter what, either way).
I feel like the justice system needs to evolve in a way that protects people against social ostracism of this sort, should they turn out innocent. Even if Roiland himself is truly guilty, the fact that we live in a system where someone else who is innocent could feasibly end up in similar circumstances is unacceptable in a society as connected as ours.
This is your world on late-stage capitalism.
I hope this is what the reboot is about.
I believe it is demonstrable that social science as a field has been a victim of intense ideological capture, considering that publishing anything that goes against that distinction is a good way to lose your job. When arguments against it aren’t allowed, you can’t rightly point to the lack of arguments against it.
To make a long story short, the idea of gender as distinct from sex results in a lot of circular reasoning, or contradiction if you try to work around that circular reasoning.
I mean, let’s not pretend that everyone in that group thinks the same way about this issue.
Plus, we’d do better to stop equating people finding gender ideology to be incoherent with “intolerance.”
Regulate the market? What are you, some kind of communist?
When not even the companies take these massive documents seriously, it’s clear that we need to rethink how this all works.
There are adults in real life that have very petite bodies and could be mistaken for teenagers. Do you think they shouldn’t be able to fall in love and start families?
No people scoff at the 1000 years old trope cause it’s transparently an excuse to portray sex with a child
That’s exactly what I said.
This is interesting.
People like to scoff at the idea of “1,000-year-olds in kids’ bodies” for being just an excuse for pedophilia. The justification can only be that it doesn’t matter if the person is mature; if it’s a kid’s body, it’s wrong.
But this other idea, that it’s okay to have sex with kids as long as the adult is in a kid’s body, is clearly flimsy; the reason sex with kids is wrong is because they can’t give informed consent.
But the objections to these ideas are mutually exclusive. If a man in a kid’s body is still wrong for having sex with a kid, the issue at hand must be maturity. But then that “ancient deity in a kid’s body” cannot be wrong, because they have the maturity required.
Both of these scenarios cannot be wrong simultaneously, and I think the only reasonable conclusion is that it’s maturity and mental/emotional development that counts. So petite succubi must therefore be fair game.
I feel like this might be spam.
That’s horrifying. I hope she died quickly, at least.
What a joyless existence they must choose to endure.
I wonder how many years it’ll take for it to snap from the weight of the top part.
I think it’s alarming that we can’t be sure whether this woman was doing that or not. Her skills are one-point if it was just an act.