this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2025
886 points (98.2% liked)

Not The Onion

17464 readers
989 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SynonymousStoat@lemmy.world 238 points 2 days ago (20 children)

Since when did keeping kids off of porn sites become everyone else's problem and not the problem of parents? Oh, right, that's just a bullshit reason to make accessing porn more difficult and a security risk since they can't just make porn illegal.

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 39 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

It's more than that, they want to

  1. limit who can post and make money off porn, and no, this isn't to support small creators at all unfortunately
  2. build massive blackmail networks
  3. build massive sex work websites with curated AI models and videos

And yes, any time ANY ONE EVER says, "Do it for the kids, just think of the kids," when it is not something DIRECTLY and CONSENSUALLY helping kids, but instead FORCING ADULTS TO DO THINGS, is being manipulative every time.

[–] bizarroland@lemmy.world 26 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The only time the phrase "do it for the kids" is actually valuable is when it's someone asking you to grill hot dogs at a picnic.

If it's a politician saying it, "do it for the kids" is slang for "bend over and take it up the ass because otherwise you're a bad person".

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

Yes and again, your example is an action of directly and consensually helping kids. The kids directly get the hot dog you made. They consent to eating the hotdog. They aren't forced to eat it. You aren't giving the hotdog to a third person who will then eat it and then by extension later help a child in some other way. Which btw, they should be doing in the first place.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I’m gonna be the odd one out, I guess.

At a picnic, it’s likely that you’re not grilling just for the kids; and likely that grilling means you’re excluded from other activities.

Activities like playing games with said kids.

Bringing them into the picture instantly becomes manipulative, where you can make the same argument (that they need to be cooked, and someone has to do it,) without it.

Edit to add some background: I’m an uncle, but not a father. At family picnics, my bro and parents like to use my nephew and nieces as a guilt trip so I let them task dump; even though we’re organized enough they’re fairly equitable (including watching the kids as a task, even if it’s more fun.)

SiL in particular is egregious.

It’s always manipulative, even if when the child’s wellbeing is directly involved, it’s maybe called for. But that really shouldn’t t be the case at a picnic.

Most parents don’t even realize they’re doing it- ie asking you to cover their summer vacation (and not reciprocating.) at work.

load more comments (16 replies)