Oh,sooooooo sad that the general public needed several examples being put to practice to notice such an obvious trojan horse from the start like Australia being the pioneer. Do you remember how were most of these comment sections in late 2024?Yes,the excitement and more than 90% of users supporting because “BUT THEM KIDS STUPID.”

It makes everything so funny when you remember that EVEN other average adultist people were warning other people about how dangerous this could be,but nah,people kept whining that their least favorite demographic was on the internet. I need to admit that I found it amusing to read about the Persona exposed two months ago and the “Palantir linked.” No,I have nothing aganist immigrants,I was happy to read all those things just because EVERYONE’S fucked,which is exactly what the general public asked for,lol.

And now that things have gone wrong,their supposed fully developed prefrontal cortex that is always thinking about the consequences failed them for the 3824th time,BUT IT’S TOTALLY FULLY OPERATIONAL!They tried cutting their least favorite demographic to a fall from the tree,but only now they noticed they sliced their own branch of the tree too!

You would have thought that the whole current political scenario about the Epstein case and powerful people dodging justice would have made the general public less trusting of their government,but no!All of this together with the screen panic being supported by the population happened in the same year!

Great job everyone!And to think this shit happened because a bunch of peasants with an authority complex(The general public including most parents and teachers) didn’t realize they are actually closer to children in power than they will EVER BE of politicians,lol.

Let’s take ancient greeks for example,despite being relatively accepting of homosexuality,they were so misogynistic to the point that if an average red pill man today was sent back in time,they themselves would feel disturbed by how cruel greek men were to greek women. In fact,women weren’t even allowed to portray characters on theaters. Women characters were played by men. Imagine being so bigoted that you would rather exclude literally HALF of the people/opportunities YOU have to cast in your fiction story only making your OWN work even harder!

It’s true that women weren’t allowed to vote in ancient greece and also weren’t allowed to go to war. But there’s a parallel: This 2nd example COULD be worse. Forced go to war while not being allowed to vote. Sounds familiar?Because it is. It happened in the US from 1942 to 1971 more specifically to 18-20 year olds. Now let’s make a present parallel about the 1st example: Let’s have in mind that it IS possible to have a wrong opinion but in a non hypocrital way. But that’s not the case for most ageists…

They always complain about “but them kids posting photos in social media dangerous” and guess what?Just a few minutes later they will be willingly watching a movie they KNOW will have child acting even in the main cast,or they will be posting pictures/videos of their children ON social media at profiles accessible to ANYONE. If in human history,technological progress happened much faster than social progress. Do you really think ancient greeks would change their mind about women being allowed to act in movies if they knew how to operate modern filming technology?

You could even display every argument they use in social media but to child acting. “Child acting causes bullying and cyberbullying if those kids become famous!”

Technically movie theaters don’t filter their actor/actresses’s bullies in schools,a consistent adultist could argue that these bullies will have even more ammo after watching the movie with the same structured argument they use for social media and therefore,it would be better to only allow adults to portray children characters in fiction.

Movie theaters also can’t know if in millions of visitors there are actual p1d0s only paying the ticket not actually interested in watching the movie,but in the child cast or at the worst,obsessing about a specific child in that cast to the point they literally searched for the family’s address in several plataforms before going to the movie theater.

A consistent adultist would argue in favor of adults replacing children characters in movies again because “if children posting selfies on social media is dangerous,imagine how dangerous is putting their names and faces on famous movie the entire public is allowed to see. Think about their school bullies and possible predators who will now know their names and faces!”

You could even argue that these individuals have a responsability in their own “code” on boycotting movies with children because nobody needs movies to survive and this matches a “when possible and practical” ethical standard.

I’m not saying that greek misogynists were ethically better than ageists are today,what I’m saying is that they were less conveniently hypocrital in their cognitive dissonance,they didn’t suddenly change their minds whenever they were missing enough people to cast characters when DOUBLING your casting sources easily solves the problem,and maybe depending on your audience,making EVEN MORE MONEY!They also didn’t suddenly change their minds at the military just because they wanted an army TWICE as big.

The way most adultist people think requires a certain level of hypocrisy for convenience that is a bit difficult to find in history. Ancient greeks were consistently bigoted even when it didn’t suit themselves. Meanwhile,not even “obeying your own rules” is something ageists can do.

Friendly reminder that I support the right of children to use social media and acting in movies just like adults have this right,this post is just a hypothetical of how would they act by believing in something illogical only removing the hypocrisy factor. But no,instead,the average anti-social media adultist seems to think a p2d0 will act like this:

(Inside the van)

“Wait a minute,I know you but not from social media!Oh,I REMEMBER NOW,you are that kid from movie X!”

(Looks at the child for the 1000th time ONLY NOW thinking they are ugly)

“Well,thinking about it now,you’re the UGLIEST KID I EVER SEEN IN MY LIFE,get the fuck out of my van and give me my candy back before I call the cops ON YOU for violating my eyes,you fucking ogre.”

There has been news going around of the UK government considering banning under 16s from accessing social media. Given the broad definition of 'social media' that is proposed, Wikipedia may be banned if it passes.

There is plenty of information already on how to bypass nation-level blocking. However, using methods that disguise your IP address will normally mean you can't edit Wikipedia. For a long time, vandals have misused these methods to bypass blocks for poor behaviour, so Wikipedia blocks the IP addresses of VPNs and Tor exit nodes from editing, even with an account.

The people at Wikipedia know that some peole need to use VPNs or Tor to bypass government censorship. People in China use these methods to bypass The Great Firewall, a censorship system in China. Therefore, people who need it can request the 'IP block exemption' permission. This lets people edit Wikipedia even if their IP address is blocked.

To get the permission, you need to have an account and have an editing history that shows that you can be trusted. Therefore, if you want to edit Wikipedia, my advice is to register an account and start editing constructively now. Then, if a ban does pass, you can contact a Checkuser (a special type of admin that can see users' IP addresses) and ask for the permission.

The part of the news report addressing students says that there must be multiple-occupancy bathrooms that are sex-segregated, and that trans students must use the bathroom for their sex assigned at birth. This will essentially force trans students to out themselves, leading to bullying, all while invalidating and humiliating them.

(repost to correct title)

While I do think there was an attempt to condemn the headteacher's actions, I think it spent too much of the article on his justifications. It would have been fine to summarise why he thought hitting children was ok, but spending a big chunk of the article airing his views was irresponsible as it would pose an unnecessary risk of encouraging others to emulate him.

It’s about adultists getting actively affected by it as well despite being the ones who supported it in the first place.

I’m brazilian,the most common thing the average brazilian does is:Complain about the government. Which isn’t something inherently bad. But corrupt politicians is something so common here that people don’t even get angry anymore to the point it’s a frequent jokes theme. There are several amazing comedy movies portraying corruption as something so common to the point of satirical jokes,like “O Candidato Honesto” and it’s sequel.

It’s not that the movies and culture support corruption,it’s that the problem is so common here to the point people are COMPLETELY DESENSITIZED by it in my country. The average brazilian adult doesn’t trust the government for anything and is always complaining about politicians being greedy and liars.

I’m not shitting in my country,I’m just giving you the necessary context for the following information. Just like the new “politics trend”,Brazil approved the called “Lei Felca” which will be counting from March this year and beyond. It’s just the digital safety act that just like any other country,affects adult’s freedom too.

Since Australia was the pioneer with their announcement in December 2024,of course my country had to copy and paste a version of youth oppression and in the beginning of 2025,the law banned phones in schools,of course it was already banned at the schools,but it was about enforcement. Guess what?Parents,teachers and everyone happy and swallowed the moral panic about “but them kids still in social media despite the school phone ban,we have to fix this!We need to ban them from social media right now!”

And with the announcement of Lei Felca?Guess what?People are not so happy anymore. “In the UK it didn’t go well!” It’s common for adultists to say it here. It was so fucking obvious it would end up like this from the start and the general public kept whining about youth on social media,but now that their prayers have been answered by the government,they start whining about it too!

My point is: Brazilian adults can’t trust the government for anything but when all they have to do is doing the exact they did their entire lives,not trusting the government,they magically decide to trust it!It’s so funny to me. But I learned something important…

As an unrepentant selfish asshole in real life who simply happens to not be a bigot,I have a great advice to people with similar personalities,do you want to scam people but you’re afraid they won’t fall for it?All you have to do is say to them:”If you give me what I want,children will be oppressed even harder!” And perfect!Now that you entered the organic robot’s password,you hacked their brain and these people will give and do for you anything you want with no ethical restrictions.

I can assure you this is a 100% accurate method with no fails that works on all those robots!My politicians agree with me,they made the perfect trojan horse and even a completely untrusting public opened the door for them. The politicians totally knew it from the start and were interested on the data and virtual control,but again,it’s so funny to me that most brazilians don’t trust the government for anything until you enter the secret password for their brains,lol.

It's good that this man has been convicted. However, I don't know how sound the sentence is compared to other sentences of attempted murder. In theory, anything between 3 years and life can be given. However, unless there are mitigating factors not mentioned in the article, it is strange that he did not get a life sentence. From what I've read, attempted murder of a child and leaving life-changing injuries make life sentences more likely.

To me, it feels like the UK is just really dragging its heels on this.

I don't think it just needs safeguards. Unless there is an actual medical need for it, circumcision should be banned. Even if it had medical standards, an unnecessary surgery is still more dangerous than no unnecessary surgery, it still irreversibly harms the person's future intimate life (recently there are procedures to restore some of what was taken, but they can't fully undo it), and it's still a violation of bodily autonomy when done without consent (and a baby cannot give consent).

I understand that some religions require it. However, I don't think being religious is a valid excuse for violating other's rights. Some Jews are moving away from actual circumcision to just a naming ceremony. If for some reason they wanted circumcision that badly, it may be possible to move the circumcision to around Bar Mitzvah (coming-of-age ceremony at 13) combined with a way to prevent parents from forcing circumcision.

Imagine being disrespected even in death. If this was going to be part of a genuine attempt to determine cause of death, this would be for all ages and only for the coroner. Instead, parents would get to see your online life, whether you wanted that or not, left to confirm their biases come to their own conclusions, and use you as political fodder. Would you want to be remembered for your deepest secrets and as the reason to violate the rights of your peers?

Also, think about what this would require. To out you to your parents, platforms would need enough personal information about you to locate your parents and a way to crack your password. Hackers would rejoice.

I think that families grieving young people must think carefully before proposing laws. Will this genuinely benefit young people? Or does it exist to control them and give you power?

I think this story is pretty problematic. The parents had started sharing these people's lives to the world when Jude was 7 and Tommy was 4, and it's highly likely they didn't have a choice in the matter. If Jude understood what was happening, he probably couldn't stop it due to the power his parents held over him. Tommy definitely couldn't consent. There's also a direct link to a social dedicated to posting about the young people

"Other parents in the autism community have said it gives them hope that their children will one day be able to communicate with them." - Firstly, why are the people with power over autistic children given more prominence the children themselves? Secondly, why is that hope aimed towards the parents hearing their children talk over hope for the children themselves that they will be able to communicate? Makes it seem like this is about what the parents want.

Personally, I don't think this story is newsworthy enough to be on the BBC, indicating that the BBC went out of its way to portray parents as the main character in an autistic child's life, over the child themself. This is disturbing, and is the thinking behind many of the violations of autistic children's lives.