WUT. ... πŸ‘€... Are we out of our goddamn minds? Are we seriously trying to have a conversation on who has the RIGHT to ABUSE a CHILD? Let alone that right being determined by "dibs".. πŸ’€πŸ’€πŸ’€πŸ’€

No one has the right to abuse a kid. No one is saying that if a school abuses a kid parents shouldn't be told. Calling a kid by their chosen name and pronouns is not abuse. No one is talking about "hormone blockers" either. Schools don't run around injecting random hormone blockers into kids. That's a medical decision. Schools don't have the right to make medical decisions for kids, let alone have funds to perform such procedures. You guys are fighting imaginary monsters that you created with your imagination.

Regarding what's "sustainable", it depends. But regardless of if the parents would ever find out on their own and abuse the kid then, accelerating that by proactively outing the kid is insane. Imagine an analogous scenario: A husband who's abusive to his wife. Wife is planning to leave and happens to confide in you. Do you immediately drop everything, go to the husband and tell him that's she's planning to leave "Because he might find out a different way and beat her anyway" That's completely bonkers.

Also, please quit referring to kids as "fuckable". Now we're back to the same bullshit as with that other idiot. If blocking puberty makes the kid "fuckable longer" in your eyes, please seek mental health treatment & stay away from children.

Dibs! THAT'S the term I was trying to remember.

I don't know, ARE we trying to have a conversation about that? Would you consider it abuse if you believed someone was calling a kid by the wrong pronouns? Would you consider an action to be abuse if you believed the action was feeding into a person's mental illness?

From what I've read this case is not about whether schools should be required to proactively out children for requesting a particular pronoun. The school in question had a policy asking teachers to use particular pronouns, and unlike previous cases, specifically forbid informing parents. From what I understand, the parents were not disputing any particular decision by the teachers, but rather the protocol itself.

In other words, your scenario isn't analagous because there is no third party nothing requiring me to interact with the wife at all, let alone requiring me to do it behind the husband's back. Because if the husband was sending his wife over to me in the same way a parent sends their kid to school, I absolutely would NOT humor the wife.

I would call bullshit; "planning to leave" my ass! I'd accuse her of needing to be with him because of how much she enjoys the excitement or for some other reason I'd make up on the spot. I wouldn't do jack shit unless she could prove herself able and willing to act without his assistance. Maybe I'd help if she "ran away from home" in the middle of the night or otherwise independently seeked me out, but if she can't even meet me without her husband's help then I'd tell her to shut up and I'd tell her not to expect me to be complicit in her stupid schemes. I don't give a shit if he beats her; I just don't want the interaction to become a fight over how she should be treated as if she is just some kind of precious object. If she won't demonstrate any more independence than an object her husband has dibs on then that's exactly how I'll treat her.

I would feel very similar about Baird Middle School from the First District case if the school didn't have the policy telling teachers to use their students' requested pronouns. If the only reason I'm interacting with these students is because their parents sent them to me then there's no way I'd humor a request to go against their parents' wishes. I'd tell them to shut up and get back to their schoolwork. If they found me somehow outside of school without their parents' help then I'd call refer to them by whatever damn pronouns I felt like, but I am completely uninterested in trying to take advantage of the parents' trust in order to interact with their kid against their wishes, or in taking advantage of their kid's trust in order to snitch on the kid to the kid's parents.

By the way, my bullshit is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than the bullshit between that other idiot and you. I think some people get pent up from not being able to talk with an actual pedophile, and so they just accuse random people of being pedophiles in order to get off. My bullshit on the other hand, is actually being a pedophile. It's irritating seeing people fling shit at eachother when I'm RIGHT HERE!

I would definitely seek mental health treatment as you suggest if I trusted a therapist not to instantly turn around and try to ruin my life. In the USA, therapists have a myriad of legal exceptions to patient confidentiality, and even if they didn't, people have a history of ignoring the law in order to fuck with pedophiles. I've talked with a UK pedophile (we probably met on Epstein island or something, idk) who never touched a kid and tried to talk with a therapist about his pedophilia. Soon after his electronics were seized and he was arrested for having 500 terabytes of photos and videos documenting the abuse of numerous fictional children and for having like, one shock image of a goat or something. (They wanted to add an "extreme pornography" charge too.)

I would love to pay a therapist Monero in order to stream therapy sessions with them over Tor, but I'm not bending over backwards just to throw away my current life. Also, I am actually skeptical as to whether puberty blockers actually keep children fuckable. Really I was just telling a joke in order to emphasize that what bears the most moral relevance in these cases is who is acting responsible for a kid's own life, not what the responsible party does afterward.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Ok. So you are pro-abuse, pro-treating people like object and you are an actual pedophile. Thanks for clearing that up.

It's so fucking ironic when people run around accusing trans people of pedophilia because being the "wrong" gender somehow equals raping children in their minds, when there actual literal pedophiles all up in their comment section being transphobic as well.

It sucks that you're not able to seek the treatment you need. Despite that, please don't rape actual children or pay the people who do that for CSAM.

Regarding what you said about paying a dark-web therapist in Monero, this might actually be possible. I watch this YouTube series called Deep Web Browsing by Someordinarygamers. In it Mutahar (the channel owner) browses the actual dark net. In one episode (I don't know which, unfortunately) he came across a site offering therapy. Since it's the dark net I'm sure they take crypto (don't know if Monero or just BTC). I don't know if the site is still around (or if they're legit, but it would be a weird way to scam. Usually scams are more common things like "red rooms" and "hitmen" sites)

Unfortunately, I don't remember the exact episode number (there's over 200 of them). If I come across it again, tho (which I will the question is whether or not I'll be conscious at the time. I use this series to help me fall asleep so I watch it over and over again) I'll message you and let you know. Hopefully, they're still around.

Woah, pro-abuse? Please read my responses carefully, can you find somewhere I actually said I was pro-abuse? My actual intent was to say that the victim should be the primary individual responsible for fighting their own abuse and for giving others the opportunity to fight their abuse. If the victim is unwilling to seize independence themselves, (which happens far too often) then any attempt to fix their life for them is stupid.

I'm glad to hear that you find the random pedo accusations irritating too, though it didn't slip past me that you were making pedo accusations yourself. Also, why do you say that I'm transphobic? I've been specifically trying to avoid saying anything transphobic so far.

If I was in your shoes I would be more forgiving of people looking for a link between the two. Anecdotally, I am Nostr friends with a nonbinary pedophile and I'm following a transgender "MAP ally". I also hear there's a lot of statistics correlating mental illnesses like pedophilia with mental illnesses like homosexuality and gender dysphoria.

It's cool to hear that you are interested in extreme privacy stuff. While browsing .onion sites myself I never saw any therapy ads besides the obligatory "stop it, get some help" messages sending you to some useless clearnet website. I did come across a darknet "confessional" site though. You could see all the previous confessions and all the responses to them. "Oops! I went and watched child porn again! Father, you have to help me! What should I do?" "Uh, that's really bad. God says for you to stop watching child porn. And after that, make sure to pray for guidance and you will have God's forgiveness..." To me, the whole situation seemed really pathetic. Neither party seemed to have any real insight into the sin itself. But that's just what I got out of it anyway.

Due to the technical limitations of Tor, I strongly suspect that any therapy offered would be limited to text chat, and I also suspect that the "therapist" would be like, one guy who may or may not have a degree. If that's the extent of what counts as therapy then I might as well just talk with a therapist over email, or enter the DMs of some random therapist on Nostr and pay them in zaps.

I don't think your characterization of me as being "unable to seek the treatment that I need" makes a lot of sense. It's not as if I'm some amoral creature lacking any sort of autonomy. I am perfectly capable of seeking treatment, I am just intentionally choosing not to in order to avoid a little bit of risk. Additionally, I don't know what exactly this "treatment" is supposed to do. Therapy is literally just talking with someone. It's not as if words between two people is going to suddenly make every child on Earth unattractive. The biggest reason I take the possibility of therapy seriously is because I just really like talking with people in general.

Thanks for the Youtuber recommendation. Personally, I watch a lot of stuff from MentalOutlaw. He's a funny guy and he has a lot of interesting videos about info-sec and software security in general. The only thing that puts me off about him is that he is fairly open about his support of piracy, and I believe thay piracy is wrong. I believe that if someone enjoys a piece of media, then they should be willing to pay or support the publisher the way the publisher expects them to.

I scrolled up and it looks like the context here was that schools should uphold privacy for students vulnerable to potential abuse

It's really simple to just either agree or disagree with that

Mental Outlaw is a glowie

Also since there was something about you being a pedo, you should know Mental Outlaw has implied he looks forward to a day where pedos are violently purged soon

Idk though, I didn't really read this whole argument

Hey, if people advocating for total pedophile death upset me that much then I'd have far fewer options for friends. I don't think I can afford to be picky, and frankly, I don't really mind if someone wants me dead. He can hate me all he wants; I don't see why it should negatively affect my attitude towards him.

Do you love anyone?

Plenty of people. Not in the way you do, but that's all private anyway.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think where I was going with that doesn't involve any private info.

Do you love anyone who believes you should die ASAP?

Do you love anyone who believes you don't deserve to die?

None of the people I love IRL know I'm a pedophile, and frankly, its none of their business. I definitely trust them and believe they wouldn't turn around and hate me if I was 100% open with them. It's just that trust is not a factor I consider when deciding what I should keep to myself.

I have considered myself friends with many people online who have told me I'm better off dead and that I should kill myself. When I got locked out of my account on Funnyjunk.com , it was alongside another user who stated in a call that he did not consider me to be a good man. Despite this, I quite enjoyes speaking with him, and he reached out to me a few times afterward.

Another Funnyjunk user told me he believed that I was just like a wild animal for being a pedophile, and that I should be put down. Despite this, he was perfectly willing to talk with me on several occasions and I enjoyed our chats.

Personally, I am really skeptical that the people who say I'm better off dead would ever have the conviction to kill me, but that was never why I liked hanging out online with them anyway.

If the people you love wouldn't want you to die, they are targets too.

Mental Outlaw probably doesn't have the conviction to kill you, but he definitely doesn't care about protecting any of the people you love.

I can relate to being OK with people who have solid reason for wanting you to die. Digit seems to think I deserve to die for being obsessive, creepy, not respectful of her boundaries, etc. But loving her doesn't mean I have to be accepting of people who pressure her to continue feeling the same way when she probably wouldn't even get much happiness from me dying compared to her being able to escape her anger

Yes, they would be willing to become targets. And I would let them make themselves targets. It's not real love if I don't at least respect them that much. Similarly, I really would feel genuinely upset if an internet friend started hurting me the way they sometimes say they would. I don't want to be friends with someone who is actually harming me. The only reason I'm friends with those types on the internet is because they are physically unable to hurt me.

I'm not friends with Mental Outlaw. I've never talked with him.

Also, nobody has a real reason to hurt me. I'm awesome. I deserve to be praised, not hurt.

I still think nobody should support Mental Outlaw

Man, what's your beef with him? Anything tangible? I disagree with one of his beliefs. What's your excuse?

He's like videogamedunkey but bad.

I love videogamedunkey because despite going along with society's bullshit, for example continuing to post on YouTube without joining nostr, at least he tries his best and has a good soul.

Mental Outlaw has all the pandering to YouTube viewers and staying off nostr, but without the spirit.

Ugh, not this shit again. Are you capable of distinguishing other people's thoughts from your own? Have you considered that maybe neither of those people have even heard of Nostr?

Did you hit your head?

You can ignore the first question. Is there something that makes you think either of them know or think about Nostr at all?

No, they seem too busy pandering to the YouTube audience

But Dunkey is of the quality level to be forgiven for that and Mental Outlaw is too much of a glowie

Does Mental Outlaw do anything in particular that you have a problem with?

He does glowie shit like say "end to end encryption" when he just means "encryption"

People herald him as some kind of rebellious tech genius when he's just a bootlicking idiot

He's like a cop except if cops could go undercover without taking off their regular cop uniforms somehow

I'm pretty sure there is a difference between the two. Additionally, many people use the term "end-to-end encryption," are they all glowies too?

Yes and if I see them getting huge audiences on YouTube for it I will tell people to stop supporting shitty propaganda too

If he's not gonna use nostr, he shouldn't recommend any internet-connected software while pretending to be any kind of expert at all

So you admit that he might just be a non-expert?

No, I recognize that he is a non-expert but also that he is a glowie propagandist with too many YouTube viewers

How do you differentiate between client encrypted data and server encrypted data if not using the term end-to-end-encryption?

You just did

So the term is actually useful, you just don't like it?

No, I recognize that death cultists have an inverse idea of what's useful

If whatever gets everyone killed is useful to you, that doesn't make it useful to me

I think we shouldn't lie to people about how electronics work to help support the deep state that seems to be trying extremely hard to kill the planet

What do you mean? What is the lie? How is knowing when my data is encrypted on my own machine "inverse useful?"

"End to end" doesn't imply your own machine is involved, it implies no other machines have access except the intended ones

"Encryption" is the part that implies your machine is involved, it describes something that has to happen on your machine

So? What is the lie? Where are all the corpses that this "inverse useful" definition is supposed to be creating?

The lie is the implication that no other machines have access except the intended ones

And wtf corpse tracking capability do you think the rogue AI in my phone has bro? That's a stretch

Why are you so interested in a topic that sounds so incredibly exhausting to actually test anything about? Do you have any idea what it would take to check every named "end-to-end" connection to see if some clandestine third party has access to the data? If you wanted to really test the claim?

Why are you bothering with this idea? Are you genuinely interested in putting in that kind of effort? Or do you just not care about the statements you make?

There is no testing to do since the guy is usually talking about software. Software can't do end-to-end encryption, it needs a machine to run on. Test done before it starts.

I care about the statements I make, so I'm not going to lie to people with the suggestion that their normie ass consumer electronics can do end-to-end encryption just by downloading an app.

Yes, and you could test the actual hardware itself if you want to test whether something is intercepting your data on the hardware level. Is that your claim? That spyware is being integrated into all forms of computing hardware?

1. No, you can't test the actual hardware itself, how tf would you do that? And this software is always an app instead of a whole OS so you also can't test the OS very easily

2. End-to-end encryption is probably never verified by testing. You'd vet the design, manufacturing, whole supply chain, you'd ideally have a system in place to keep each individual in the chain of custody accountable for everything involved in assembling and installing hardware, you'd ideally have people with guns who will track down and arrest anyone that tampers with shit - testing doesn't seem like it would do much unless you have an unimaginably well-equipped and well-staffed lab and a lot of time.

3. Spyware is definitely integrated into internet-connected consumer electronics

There are plenty of ways to debug and audit hardware. People have found differences between physical electrical components and their written specifications by using multimeters and by measuring the responses of the physical chip. Chip manufacturers are also constantly checking semiconductor chips for defects. There's no reason why a determined individual couldn't do this themselves. It is also often possible to probe the hardware on the software level. I know of at least one person who found undocumented behavior by measuring CPU response times for different instructions. If you are worried about network communication then there are numerous external devices you can use to measure and test the various network signals that a piece of hardware is sending out.

And yet, despite this, you still claim to know definitively that there is spyware in our devices. I think you aren't careful at all with your statements. I think you know exactly how exhausting it would be for you to actually verify your statements, and that you are way too lazy to check them.

I'm glad you aren't checking your devices for spyware, since that would be a supreme waste of time. But I don't know why you find this topic interesting enough to talk about. Making and engaging with these kinds of hardware claims sounds like a profound mistake, and I don't understand why you do it. Do you just not care?

Modern transistors keep getting smaller.

I think I am careful with my statements, and I don't think I'm mistaken here

And semiconductor manufacturers built devices to check for defects on the transistor level. Obviously you don't think you are mistaken with your statements; that would be lying, and who would ever lie on the internet?

But you certainly aren't willing to put any significant effort into actually checking your statements. Making statements without checking them isn't being careful. I think you just don't care about verifying your statements. Maybe if you did care then you would realize just how exhausting and stupid this topic is. If you want to have a meaningful conversation then you wouldn't bring up your hardware conspiracy beliefs.

It's no wonder Mental Outlaw uses the term "end-to-end" encryption. He probably wants to have conversations that actually lead somewhere. He probably wants to stick to statements we can actually check, like talking about open-source software.

Idk what you're smoking but in reality consumer devices are still full of backdoors at the hardware and software level

Reality is very hard to test. How much do you care about reality? How much energy do you think this topic is worth? Do you actually want to engage or do you just want to say things?

I care about reality a lot since Digit lives in it; I think this topic is worth the energy it takes to keep replying to reiterate the truth; I doubt there's much of a point in this context though because you seem to be refusing to recognize the truth

He's a glowie of very bright glow level

And I still think schools should try to protect students from abusers

you definitely write some of the most awesome notes on nostr

Thanks buddy, I try. Have I mentioned that I'm not leaving, no matter how much of a dumpster fire Nostr becomes?

not sure but I think that you mentioned it

You're wrong by the way; there is always the option to disengage entirely, which is what I recommend when someone asks you for help, but absolutely will not take any responsibility for themselves.

I mean, you are literally arguing for schools to intentionally out kids to abusive parents, plus your other statements definitely make you seem pro-abuse. Also, you know what did slip past you? The obvious troll. The fact that you missed that I was obviously trolling that dumbass motherfucker is cute.

Anyway, I don't care what you do. Except don't hurt kids. Hurting kids bad. I don't know what that therapy consised of or thequalification of the therapist in question. I did a darn net google and couldn't find the site. But I only used one search engine, plus dark net search kinda sucks.

Yeah, I've seen mental outlaw's videos. Good stuff, from what i remember.

Here's an up-to-date list of the whole Deep Web Browsing series so far: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUjF4ki8MEB44zScrvTYuOIib-lLM20yl

No I'm not. I'm arguing for schools to obey the parents' requested pronouns for their kids, or for schools to expell kids to avoid having to engage with abuse outside their control, or for schools to warn children not to request pronouns they don't want shared with their parents (and then don't mention to the parents if a kid was planning on making that kind of request and changed their mind.)

Or I'm advocating for kids to find their own way to escape abusive parents for good and without having to punish their parents for giving them too much trust and freedom.

Also, trolling somebody by copying them is no good unless you can add a good twist. I'm not a big fan of no-you's.

Er, I mean, wow you really got me good with that one!

You opinion on what is or isn't good trolling has been noted and will be given all the consideration it deserves.

It's up to schools if they want to respect the kid's pronouns. Kids are just not outed to abusive parents. That's it. And not disclosing that you're trans to parents who would abuse you isn't "punishing your parents for giving you too much freedom"

This is crazy, bro...

Isn't it? The parebnts from this case wanted to control the pronouns that were used to refer to their kids. They chose to let their kid go to this school. Would the parents have gotten what they wanted if they HADN'T made that choice? If they hadn't given their kid enough leway to have a life outside of their knowledge?

Funny how so many trans kids are getting literally abused by their parents and you are trying to spin it like it's those very parents are the victims. Stop. Treating. Kids. As objects. As someone with literal pedophilic tendencies, it's VERY important for you to do that. Kids are not a toy you can have "dibs" on.

I don't have "pedophilic tendencies." I'm a pedophile. There's a difference. I have free will. Every action I have ever taken has been my own. Everything I will ever do will be because I willed it.

You dodged my question earlier when I asked whether the school's protocol is sustainable, and now you dodge a question again, this time about exactly what would have happened if the parents didn't give so much leway to their kid and the school.

You said that the school's actions aren't punishing parents for giving their kid too much freedom, and now you say that kids aren't a toy you can have dibs on. If you really believe these things then are my questions not relevant to this discussion? If a school's actions aren't punishing parents for giving their kid too much freedom then what would happen if they stopped sending their kid to this school? If you really believe children aren't objects then what would happen if a parent really did try to call dibs?

Have you even considered the child's own autonomy when hearing these questions? Do you think the kid even has free will? Do you believe that the parents have free will? Yes, yes, I hear you, the parents aren't victims. But are the parents so incapable of critical thought that the school never has to worry about the parents withdrawing their kid? Are you unable to think of alternatives, or do you genuinely believe that my questions aren't worth answering?

Yes, the school's approach is sustainable. Also what leeway? I don'tnsee any leeway. I see them try to give even less leeway that already isn't there.

What would happen if they stop sending thebkid to that school is called "homeschool". That's an option for them, but they would rather sue the school over pronouns.

The child's autonomy is what matters and the child is saying "these are my pronous, but don't tell my parents because they would abuse me for coming out as trans"

This ain't rocket sciece, buddy. I don't know why I'm even arguimg with a literal pedophile who views kids as objects.

It’s not the teachers choice, plain and simple. mind your own business. You’re a teacher, shut your mouth and teach math. A teacher shouldn’t be discussing pronouns with the kids, period. How parents want to deal with their kids is their choice, if there’s abuse that should be dealt with separately. Teachers discussing this mental illness inducing gender crap is abuse. Sorry, not sorry.

Nice try kid, adults don't talk like this. Having trouble opening your juicebox or something?

Follow your own advice little guy. Shut up and sit down.

Enjoy your mental

Illness

You too! 😘

I appreciate that you are taking the time to argue with a pedophile who advocates for treat children like objects in certain circumstances. I think it's very confident of you, and I am interested in your perspective.

Yes, there's homeschool, private school, and it is also possible to take one's kids to a different public school. I know that many parents care quite a bit about their kids education, to the point where they will move to a different school district if they think it will mean their kids get a better education.

In this court case, the parents sent messages to the school ahead of time requsting them not to provide mental health treatment without approval, they were willing to sue the school, and yes, they almost certainly withdrew their kid from the school. Because of cases like these, how many other transphobic parents chose not to send their kids to public schools in the first place?

You say that the policy is sustainable and that the child's autonomy is what's most important, but in this case it seems pretty clear to me that it wasn't. There were numerous information leaks, including one of the teachers snitching completely. You say that the school is just respecting a student with abusive parents, and that the parents are already not giving their kid any leway, but the end result is that the student ends up with more supervision less progressive teachers. If the goal was to increase the kid's autonomy, then trying to provide it by exploiting the parents' trust seems like it had the opposite effect. If you don't consider that to be "less leway" then I'm curious to hear what term you'd use.

If the hope is that the parents will be total pushovers then I think the school shouldn't have been so afraid to rub it into the parents' faces that they were using different pronouns with the kid. If the kid agrees to the whole scenario then that's what I would have done in the school's shoes. It's not snitching if the kid knows the parents will find out and chooses to ask for it anyway.

It's up to the kid on what and how much risk they choose to take regarding this. The very fact that the mental health trearment was provided could have been worth it. Shit, the kid could be alive now because if that.

Regarding sustainability, I think we are dealing with a form of survival-bias: we only know about the cases where the parents did find out and make a stink about it. If something is successfully kept secreat, it's excluded from "statistics" by its very nature.

Is it up to the kid? What if the parents never chose to send their kid to that school in the first place? What would you have done in the parents' shoes if you thought there was a chance the school would treat your kid in a way that you viewed as manipulative and harmful?

Bruh. We've been over this. Homeschool and privare school are all options. There are parents here in the state who don' want their kid taught evolution. They tried to suethe school. The courtstold them to go fuck themselves (as they should have). Now there are parents who either homeschool or use private school. But thry don't get to tell public schools to stop teaching science and toteach religious fiction instead.

Yes, I know. I'm just trying to understand, if that's the case then where exactly do you get the idea that it's up to the kid?

You realize that that was an answer to a completely different question, right. Just scroll up. Not only are we going in circles now, you are also losing the track of the conversation.