Jon Stewart Dismantles Weak GOP Rep on Gun Control

[Dadstoys]

That particular performer should certainly be arrested for public lewdness, which is what it is when you expose your junk to kids. See? The law already has a fix for that.

But not every Drag Queen engages in nudity. They perform, clothed, though not to my (or your) taste. Those performances are as protected as opera, ballet, or Ozzy Osbourne biting off bat heads. Or RHCP performing wearing nothing but socks. Point being, if you're choosing to go to these things, you get what you get.

It just amazes me that a forum full of [usually] small-government people who advocate for individual accountability and the government stepping out of things that are already solved by the market, can so easily lose their minds when it's a question of cross-dressers. "wE nEeD To MaKe mOrE LawZZ! It's fOr ThE ChiLdReN!"

Don't like it? Don't go to it.

So you honestly think this is where it stops ?
Seriously.
This and no further ?
Not a chance. Next thing it will be mandatory in schools.
We already have teachers bringing books in for middle schoolers to read that are too graphic to be read aloud in a public meeting.
There will be no place safe from it.

Sorry you don't see what's going on.
The idea is to expose children to every physical and mental depravity know to man before they can even spell it.
Even here when some people said that the next step was to normalize pedophilia there were those that said it was just a bunch of homophobia and it was a stupid notion.
Well tickle my ass with a feather , here it is right in our faces.

I'd put a money bet on the people that actually do take their kids to these things , we'll find out later are molesting them as well.
I do care about kids , and it sure would be nice if they could have an actual childhood free from deviants and headcases f*cking up their lives.

 

[Picton]

So you honestly think this is where it stops ?
Seriously.
This and no further ?
Not a chance. Next thing it will be mandatory in schools.
We already have teachers bringing books in for middle schoolers to read that are too graphic to be read aloud in a public meeting.
There will be no place safe from it.

Sorry you don't see what's going on.
The idea is to expose children to every physical and mental depravity know to man before they can even spell it.
Even here when some people said that the next step was to normalize pedophilia there were those that said it was just a bunch of homophobia and it was a stupid notion.
Well tickle my ass with a feather , here it is right in our faces.

I'd put a money bet on the people that actually do take their kids to these things , we'll find out later are molesting them as well.
I do care about kids , and it sure would be nice if they could have an actual childhood free from deviants and headcases f*cking up their lives.

Sorry.

I don't think a single one of these harms (which, sure, might happen sometimes) is worse than a government preemptively banning free expression. Never in a million years is that okay.

You and I can compare our slippery slopes. You see drag queens in schools. I see a tyrannical government in full, unfettered control of all performances, entertainment, information, and literature. I think my slippery slope is worse than yours.

 

[StevieP]

Crowder destroys Stewart right back...


View: https://youtu.be/STHN4c9StD4

 

[Dadstoys]

Sorry.

I don't think a single one of these harms (which, sure, might happen sometimes) is worse than a government preemptively banning free expression. Never in a million years is that okay.

You and I can compare our slippery slopes. You see drag queens in schools. I see a tyrannical government in full, unfettered control of all performances, entertainment, information, and literature. I think my slippery slope is worse than yours.

Said no parent of a raped child ever.

 

[Picton]

Said no parent of a raped child ever.

Ah yes. The Appeal to Emotion. And a bad one, too: show me a credible article about a child raped at a drag queen story hour.

Emotional responses and (as the Founders put it) "passions" are the main reason why we have a Bill of Rights. It protects all of our liberties from temporary spasms of anger and irrational outbursts of emotion. It guarantees that the timeless principles on which our nation was founded don't merely last as long as our intellect does.

I'm sorry. On this one, the Founders squarely disagree with you, and with this state Senator Stewart was interviewing. If a politician wants to sidestep the First Amendment, he needs a clearer and more present danger than anything you're presenting.

Don't like it? Don't go. That's freedom, and it beats statism every time.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Ah yes. The Appeal to Emotion. And a bad one, too: show me a credible article about a child raped at a drag queen story hour.

Emotional responses and (as the Founders put it) "passions" are the main reason why we have a Bill of Rights. It protects all of our liberties from temporary spasms of anger and irrational outbursts of emotion. It guarantees that the timeless principles on which our nation was founded don't merely last as long as our intellect does.

I'm sorry. On this one, the Founders squarely disagree with you, and with this state Senator Stewart was interviewing. If a politician wants to sidestep the First Amendment, he needs a clearer and more present danger than anything you're presenting.

Don't like it? Don't go. That's freedom, and it beats statism every time.

You just don't get it.

In this one thing, we need the government to protect us from ourselves.

 

[michaelpelosillc]

I don't know if the Rep is an idiot or not, but his media team/PR folks are idiots for letting him appear with Stewart. Ten minutes of research would've shown that Stewart doesn't interview people. Rather, he interrogates them, cuts them off, and never lets them finish a thought. Now, he's trying to do "serious journalism," so it's just more apparent. Also, if you do an interview with someone, whether it be on video or in print, you need to have a contractual basis to at least make edits for things that are out of context. For the Reps home crowd, it's a win regardless because he's pushing something that at least 51% of his voting base agrees with. For the rest of us who are pro-2A but living in anti-2A states, interviews like this are a loss.

 

[HuntMaine]

Headline should read “Weak politician with limited argument skills”. It would have been easy to refute and rebutt Stewart but this hack was weak

 

[michaelpelosillc]

So you honestly think this is where it stops ?
Seriously.
This and no further ?
Not a chance. Next thing it will be mandatory in schools.
We already have teachers bringing books in for middle schoolers to read that are too graphic to be read aloud in a public meeting.
There will be no place safe from it.

Sorry you don't see what's going on.
The idea is to expose children to every physical and mental depravity know to man before they can even spell it.
Even here when some people said that the next step was to normalize pedophilia there were those that said it was just a bunch of homophobia and it was a stupid notion.
Well tickle my ass with a feather , here it is right in our faces.

I'd put a money bet on the people that actually do take their kids to these things , we'll find out later are molesting them as well.
I do care about kids , and it sure would be nice if they could have an actual childhood free from deviants and headcases f*cking up their lives.

Statistically, children who are molested/raped are done so by a family member, many of which never had shown or expressed an interest in pedophilia or same-sex relations of any sort. In fact, when it comes to same-sex pedophilia, one can be indiscriminate in the sex of victims while still maintaining a strictly heterosexual adult life. It's a screwed up condition, probably partially genetic, that hasn't been linked to any sort of entertainment. As someone with personal experience with this (on the victim end), I'm confident in stating that many adults who violate children are those you would never think capable of doing so.

This is all to say: if you want to protect children, you'd do a much better job by either isolation from immediate family or mandating that all visits with family members (men, mostly, including fathers) are recorded.

 

[Picton]

You just don't get it.

In this one thing, we need the government to protect us from ourselves.

Yep. It's always just this one thing...

Statistically, children who are molested/raped are done so by a family member, many of which never had shown or expressed an interest in pedophilia or same-sex relations of any sort.

This.

If "stopping child sex abuse" is your stated goal, and you're willing to go full statist, there are many things you could do that are much more productive than banning Drag Queen Story Hour. That's just a sop to the base.

And based on some of the responses here, it apparently works as propaganda.

 

[Dadstoys]

Ah yes. The Appeal to Emotion. And a bad one, too: show me a credible article about a child raped at a drag queen story hour.

Emotional responses and (as the Founders put it) "passions" are the main reason why we have a Bill of Rights. It protects all of our liberties from temporary spasms of anger and irrational outbursts of emotion. It guarantees that the timeless principles on which our nation was founded don't merely last as long as our intellect does.

I'm sorry. On this one, the Founders squarely disagree with you, and with this state Senator Stewart was interviewing. If a politician wants to sidestep the First Amendment, he needs a clearer and more present danger than anything you're presenting.

Don't like it? Don't go. That's freedom, and it beats statism every time.

To bring up an old Shriv quote "What you tolerate , you validate."
Close your eyes and pretend it's not happening , It's got us to the point we're at now.

My personal opinion is that person in the picture and article I posted should have been ripped out of that chair, carried to the parking lot and fed feet first into a wood chipper as an example.

One question I really would like you to answer that I asked before is, Do you think it just stops here?
I know the answer based on the insight of someone who dealt with pedos for many years .
I'm just curious how you justify letting sexual predators have access to kids.

 

[Picton]

One question I really would like you to answer that I asked before is, Do you think it just stops here?
I know the answer based on the insight of someone who dealt with pedos for many years .
I'm just curious how you justify letting sexual predators have access to kids.

I do not accept your premise that drag performers are, de facto, pedophiles. None of the credible research supports that. So, yes. I do think it stops there.

I know a few drag performers. All are happily married, with kids and white-collar jobs. Could they be sex offenders? Undoubtedly. But could they instead just be people who want to provide a different kind of "art" than you're willing to watch? More likely.

So that's why it's so awesome that it's your right not to go watch it. Viva freedom. Freedom is messy; I get that it might scare you. But it beats an arbitrary State.

ETA: I'm also not convinced, from the tone of your posts, that you actually understand the differences between drag queens, transvestistic fetishists, cross-dressers, transgenders, and child rapists. If you're putting all of those into one category, then I'm sorry to say you're VERY uninformed about all this. It's your choice whether you care enough to get educated about it.

 

[Dadstoys]

Statistically, children who are molested/raped are done so by a family member, many of which never had shown or expressed an interest in pedophilia or same-sex relations of any sort. In fact, when it comes to same-sex pedophilia, one can be indiscriminate in the sex of victims while still maintaining a strictly heterosexual adult life. It's a screwed up condition, probably partially genetic, that hasn't been linked to any sort of entertainment. As someone with personal experience with this (on the victim end), I'm confident in stating that many adults who violate children are those you would never think capable of doing so.

This is all to say: if you want to protect children, you'd do a much better job by either isolation from immediate family or mandating that all visits with family members (men, mostly, including fathers) are recorded.

I've said this before and at the risk of beating a dead horse , I know someone who worked in a D.A's office who's entire career was sex crimes against children.
Yes, a good percentage are family members and then there are the rest.
Some of the stuff she told me would make your blood run cold and a lot of them are never caught till much later and deeper into their career because it is far easier to intimidate a child into silence than an adult.

Now the full court press is on to try and make it seem normal and force acceptance.
The person , whoever it was that tried to turn it from pedophile kid rapist to "Minor attracted persons" should have been shot in the face on the spot.

There are people who like many other things that have happened in this country will regret not acting when they should have and it's too late.

 

[michaelpelosillc]

I've said this before and at the risk of beating a dead horse , I know someone who worked in a D.A's office who's entire career was sex crimes against children.
Yes, a good percentage are family members and then there are the rest.
Some of the stuff she told me would make your blood run cold and a lot of them are never caught till much later and deeper into their career because it is far easier to intimidate a child into silence than an adult.

Now the full court press is on to try and make it seem normal and force acceptance.
The person , whoever it was that tried to turn it from pedophile kid rapist to "Minor attracted persons" should have been shot in the face on the spot.

There are people who like many other things that have happened in this country will regret not acting when they should have and it's too late.

I understand. It's brutal. I was a child sex crime victim. My father was the perpetrator. I've worked many hours in help groups, hotlines, after school groups for those who were traumatized in a similar fashion, etc. I've also done consulting work with victims of sex trafficking nonprofits. With all that said, I seem to remember that, a majority of the time, well over 80%, it was family. And this didn't change much with age range. That is, those who were 16 and thought the relationship was "real" at the time had similar family experiences to those that were just old enough to remember something happening. And in many instances, these cases are not prosecuted because children do not say anything, usually by threat of force or extreme manipulation. However, none of these cases involved an individual adult that was a drag performer...or trans...or even gay. Pedophilia, especially, is a legitimate disorder that only pertains to the attraction of children. Many of these cases (mine included) involved someone who had homosexual pedophiliac inclinations but, in their adult life, were attracted to women and women only.

I say all these things not because I think I have the answers, or my experience is unique, but because I think there is a real threat in associating sexual orientation and expression with a mental disorder like pedophilia. Because when we do that, we miss 99.9% of the cases and ignore the subtle ways in which predators enter the lives of children and stay, either physically or as an emotional burden that you carry forever. Much like most crime, the perpetrators are usually the ones closest to us.

To sum it up: your brain and hormones are working REALLY different if you have an attraction to children. It's not something that is tied to an occupation, strictly speaking.

Now, there is certainly a discussion to be had related to what children should or shouldn't be exposed to and at what age. There are stages of development that are very much agreed upon and overloading those earlier stages with too much stimulation and not enough context isn't great.

 

[Picton]

I understand. It's brutal. I was a child sex crime victim. My father was the perpetrator. I've worked many hours in help groups, hotlines, after school groups for those who were traumatized in a similar fashion, etc. I've also done consulting work with victims of sex trafficking nonprofits. With all that said, I seem to remember that, a majority of the time, well over 80%, it was family. And this didn't change much with age range. That is, those who were 16 and thought the relationship was "real" at the time had similar family experiences to those that were just old enough to remember something happening. And in many instances, these cases are not prosecuted because children do not say anything, usually by threat of force or extreme manipulation. However, none of these cases involved an individual adult that was a drag performer...or trans...or even gay. Pedophilia, especially, is a legitimate disorder that only pertains to the attraction of children. Many of these cases (mine included) involved someone who had homosexual pedophiliac inclinations but, in their adult life, were attracted to women and women only.

I say all these things not because I think I have the answers, or my experience is unique, but because I think there is a real threat in associating sexual orientation and expression with a mental disorder like pedophilia. Because when we do that, we miss 99.9% of the cases and ignore the subtle ways in which predators enter the lives of children and stay, either physically or as an emotional burden that you carry forever. Much like most crime, the perpetrators are usually the ones closest to us.

To sum it up: your brain and hormones are working REALLY different if you have an attraction to children. It's not something that is tied to an occupation, strictly speaking.

Now, there is certainly a discussion to be had related to what children should or shouldn't be exposed to and at what age. There are stages of development that are very much agreed upon and overloading those earlier stages with too much stimulation and not enough context isn't great.

QFT.

The information is out there. This is a topic that it's dangerous to generalize about, given the implications for peoples' rights.

 

[drgrant]

Drag Queen story hour at the library is easy to avoid. Just don’t go.

It's easy to say that right up until someone else is denied use of the same public resource for something moonbats don't like. That likely hasn't happened yet but it wouldn't shock me if they denied a korean war story hour. I mean if we're going to allow parents to opt kids into exposure to sexual deviance it only stands that violent history should be allowed, too. Otherwise i agree. Don't like it don't go, but it does bring up the subject of fair use of that resource. Or wether it's appropriate to use a library that way at all.

 

[Picton]

It's easy to say that right up until someone else is denied use of the same public resource for something moonbats don't like. That likely hasn't happened yet but it wouldn't shock me if they denied a korean war story hour. I mean if we're going to allow parents to opt kids into exposure to sexual deviance it only stands that violent history should be allowed, too. Otherwise i agree. Don't like it don't go, but it does bring up the subject of fair use of that resource. Or wether it's appropriate to use a library that way at all.

Again, I'll tell you the same thing I told @Dadstoys

Whether you admit it or not, you're putting VERY different things into one basket, and that basket is not supported by the research. Drag performances are not the same thing as sexual deviance. The information is out there now; you can learn about these things if you wish to.

With that said, I'm no fan of censorship in any form, and the library industry (a member of whom I am married to, lol) is generally VERY MUCH AGAINST censorship as well. So I doubt librarians would be all that interested in banning a Korean War story hour; as you acknowledge, it's not likely. But in any event, my answer is the same: don't like it? Don't go.

 

[Dadstoys]

I do not accept your premise that drag performers are, de facto, pedophiles. None of the credible research supports that. So, yes. I do think it stops there.

I know a few drag performers. All are happily married, with kids and white-collar jobs. Could they be sex offenders? Undoubtedly. But could they instead just be people who want to provide a different kind of "art" than you're willing to watch? More likely.

So that's why it's so awesome that it's your right not to go watch it. Viva freedom. Freedom is messy; I get that it might scare you. But it beats an arbitrary State.

ETA: I'm also not convinced, from the tone of your posts, that you actually understand the differences between drag queens, transvestistic fetishists, cross-dressers, transgenders, and child rapists. If you're putting all of those into one category, then I'm sorry to say you're VERY uninformed about all this. It's your choice whether you care enough to get educated about it.

I'm actually informed .
You will not be the one to educate me.
No one said a word about all of them .
Don't try and come of as some kind of expert talking down to some rube.
I'm talking about the one's making great effort to get next to kids and nothing else.
This shit raises eyebrows even in the gay community .
Know how I know that ? I actually ask instead of presuming .
I ask the opinion of people who spent a career pursuing monsters.
But you know better than either ?

 

[Picton]

I'm actually informed .
You will not be the one to educate me.
No one said a word about all of them .
Don't try and come of as some kind of expert talking down to some rube.
I'm talking about the one's making great effort to get next to kids and nothing else.
This shit raises eyebrows even in the gay community .
Know how I know that ? I actually ask instead of presuming .
I ask the opinion of people who spent a career pursuing monsters.
But you know better than either ?

I'll say it like this: if you equate drag performance with sexual deviance (specifically pedophilia), you have no factual basis for doing so. Whether you acknowledge that or not. If you do? Post it. Because you're using that misunderstanding to support statist actions that defy the constitution.

That being the case? Your support better be ironclad, in my book.

 

[drgrant]

Again, I'll tell you the same thing I told @Dadstoys

Whether you admit it or not, you're putting VERY different things into one basket, and that basket is not supported by the research. Drag performances are not the same thing as sexual deviance. The information is out there now; you can learn about these things if you wish to.

You obviously haven't looked at too much of these things. Maybe not so much story time (at first it was pretty innocuous most probably are harmless) but the drag shows themselves are a whole other ballgame....

So you didn't see that show where the performer was getting the kid to touch "her" crotch? Really??

It's pretty obvious theres a subsection of drag that's overtly sexual/full on groomer stuff. This isn't just dudes trying to look pretty.... if it was only that id be more apt to completely dismiss the conservotard roiling fist thing as being 110% idiotic.

 

[Picton]

You obviously haven't looked at too much of these things. Maybe not so much story time (at first it was pretty innocuous most probably are harmless) but the drag shows themselves are a whole other ballgame....

So you didn't see that show where the performer was getting the kid to touch "her" crotch? Really??

It's pretty obvious theres a subsection of drag that's overtly sexual/full on groomer stuff. This isn't just dudes trying to look pretty.... if it was only that id be more apt to completely dismiss the conservotard roiling fist thing as being 110% idiotic.

So it's worth banning drag? Or not?

Because that's fundamentally what this is about: posters who'd snarl about banning guns, but are FULLY in support of banning drag.

 

[drgrant]

So it's worth banning drag? Or not?

Because that's fundamentally what this is about: posters who'd snarl about banning guns, but are FULLY in support of banning drag.

/I'm/ not suggesting banning anything. I'm just positing that it's often not as innocent as you make it out to be. I think if conventional sexuality was pushed as much as this stuff is the karens would have banned it all.... but it's pretty obvious sexualuzed drag is "getting a pass because of protected class". Ironically conservotards could probably get it all banned if they simultaneously promoted conventional sexuality. The karens would go full retard. Then it would get mainstream attention. Can't have the next generation growing up to meet the pervert needs of straight cis males......

 

[Picton]

/I'm/ not suggesting banning anything. I'm just positing that it's often not as innocent as you make it out to be.

I've admitted it isn't, always. But it usually is. And I'm hardly the only one saying it; there are plenty of stats out there, and on this thread.

 

[Dadstoys]

I understand. It's brutal. I was a child sex crime victim. My father was the perpetrator. I've worked many hours in help groups, hotlines, after school groups for those who were traumatized in a similar fashion, etc. I've also done consulting work with victims of sex trafficking nonprofits. With all that said, I seem to remember that, a majority of the time, well over 80%, it was family. And this didn't change much with age range. That is, those who were 16 and thought the relationship was "real" at the time had similar family experiences to those that were just old enough to remember something happening. And in many instances, these cases are not prosecuted because children do not say anything, usually by threat of force or extreme manipulation. However, none of these cases involved an individual adult that was a drag performer...or trans...or even gay. Pedophilia, especially, is a legitimate disorder that only pertains to the attraction of children. Many of these cases (mine included) involved someone who had homosexual pedophiliac inclinations but, in their adult life, were attracted to women and women only.

I say all these things not because I think I have the answers, or my experience is unique, but because I think there is a real threat in associating sexual orientation and expression with a mental disorder like pedophilia. Because when we do that, we miss 99.9% of the cases and ignore the subtle ways in which predators enter the lives of children and stay, either physically or as an emotional burden that you carry forever. Much like most crime, the perpetrators are usually the ones closest to us.

To sum it up: your brain and hormones are working REALLY different if you have an attraction to children. It's not something that is tied to an occupation, strictly speaking.

Now, there is certainly a discussion to be had related to what children should or shouldn't be exposed to and at what age. There are stages of development that are very much agreed upon and overloading those earlier stages with too much stimulation and not enough context isn't great.

I'm sorry for what you had to go through .
They way it was explained to me by the person who dealt with putting these people in prison was "Certainly not everyone who wants to be around kids is a pedophile , but 100% of pedophiles want to be around kids.

 

[Dadstoys]

I'll say it like this: if you equate drag performance with sexual deviance (specifically pedophilia), you have no factual basis for doing so. Whether you acknowledge that or not. If you do? Post it. Because you're using that misunderstanding to support statist actions that defy the constitution.

That being the case? Your support better be ironclad, in my book.

Because I never said that , it's a whole cloth fabrication and misrepresentation of what I said as is your M.O.
That and anyone who continually uses the word "Statist to try and shore up a losing argument should come down with an incurable case of facial herpes. It's weak sauce.

 

[michaelpelosillc]

I'm sorry for what you had to go through .
They way it was explained to me by the person who dealt with putting these people in prison was "Certainly not everyone who wants to be around kids is a pedophile , but 100% of pedophiles want to be around kids.

That's true. Most don't make it obvious. Maybe that's changing. Where I agree, I think it's a little weird when anyone forces any activity/hobby/performance on any child. Kind of like the father screaming mercilessly at his kid to swing the bat when it's clear the kid doesn't like baseball. Or mothers who enforce beauty standards on their girls and then wonder why they have body distortion disorders. To me, it's all bad for kids.

 

[Junior314]

I don't know if the Rep is an idiot or not, but his media team/PR folks are idiots for letting him appear with Stewart. Ten minutes of research would've shown that Stewart doesn't interview people. Rather, he interrogates them, cuts them off, and never lets them finish a thought. Now, he's trying to do "serious journalism," so it's just more apparent. Also, if you do an interview with someone, whether it be on video or in print, you need to have a contractual basis to at least make edits for things that are out of context. For the Reps home crowd, it's a win regardless because he's pushing something that at least 51% of his voting base agrees with. For the rest of us who are pro-2A but living in anti-2A states, interviews like this are a loss.

Ohh he’s an idiot.

 

[Junior314]

/I'm/ not suggesting banning anything. I'm just positing that it's often not as innocent as you make it out to be. I think if conventional sexuality was pushed as much as this stuff is the karens would have banned it all.... but it's pretty obvious sexualuzed drag is "getting a pass because of protected class". Ironically conservotards could probably get it all banned if they simultaneously promoted conventional sexuality. The karens would go full retard. Then it would get mainstream attention. Can't have the next generation growing up to meet the pervert needs of straight cis males......

I've admitted it isn't, always. But it usually is. And I'm hardly the only one saying it; there are plenty of stats out there, and on this thread.

It’s by definition an overt display of a sexual fetish. It’s men that (typically) dress like a caricature of what a women is.

Some of these take place at the local library and some of these are hosted at bars and restaurants where they dance around sliding money to the “performers”.

If your 18 and you want to pretend to be someone else go for it. Acting like this is totally innocent and not harmful to kids is laughable.

 

[Picton]

It’s by definition an overt display of a sexual fetish.

Whose definition? Cite it.

I'm not usually "that guy," but the question here is whether it's okay for .gov to ban something. So we better have our ducks in a row, because the constitution expressly forbids .gov from banning that thing. Fed .gov, yes, not state .gov, but once this gets into federal court, that distinction is unlikely to matter much.

That means whatever definition you're using had better stand up in court, at every level of scrutiny up to SCOTUS. Who has usually erred on the side of NOT banning forms of entertainment, for over 200 years.

Again, let's not pretend that "solving this problem" doesn't create other problems, too. If the cure is worse than the disease (and I think it is), then I don't want .gov applying the cure.

 

[Junior314]

Whose definition? Cite it.

I'm not usually "that guy," but the question here is whether it's okay for .gov to ban something. So we better have our ducks in a row, because the constitution expressly forbids .gov from banning that thing. Fed .gov, yes, not state .gov, but once this gets into federal court, that distinction is unlikely to matter much.

That means whatever definition you're using had better stand up in court, at every level of scrutiny up to SCOTUS. Who has usually erred on the side of NOT banning forms of entertainment, for over 200 years.

Again, let's not pretend that "solving this problem" doesn't create other problems, too. If the cure is worse than the disease (and I think it is), then I don't want .gov applying the cure.

I didn’t say it should be banned by the government.

I’m just not going to pretend thinks wholesome family entertainment.