1094
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2023
1094 points (97.2% liked)
politics
19145 readers
2197 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
USA have really no concept of non-sexual nudity?
[EDIT] - seems less of nudes and more of full on pornographic pictures, my bad.
I mean... Not really. But tbh, if anyone feels like "all nudity is bad" in America, it's the GOP. So, there is significant irony in a party member potentially participating in dissemination - knowing the number of times any involvement in the past has been criticized on these very grounds.
Remember when Bill O’Reilly would monologue about “disgusting debauchery of Spring Break” over videos of sexy young women playing volleyball in bikinis.
I have just one word to say to that falafel.
"Hands above the table, Bill."
"Hands above the table, Bill."
Not a fan of republicans but it seems rather obvious that it was not her intent to send sexual content to minors. But yes there is an irony that republicans would be the last to recognise that there is non-sexual nudity, so you have a point.
Despite your edit, from what I can tell of being born and raised in the USA, there isn't really a concept of non-sexual nudity, outside of locker rooms/campsite bathouses, some restrooms, and of course, nudist communities/beaches.
Even just taking a leak somewhere that is somewhat secluded if there are no restrooms can land someone a public urination and maybe an indecent exposure charge.
This is what comes of being largely founded by puritanical moronic zealots. Many of them were the Scientology of their age. Europe was glad to ship them over here.
This would really be more like non-consensual sexual nudity... Potentially sent to minors who might unexpectedly be exposed to it (presumably) without their or their parents' or guardians' consent.
Accidental or not, my understanding is that the reason she was sharing the photos to begin with was because she believed there was something "scandalous", embarrassing, and specifically sexual going on in the photos.
If Hunter were a woman, and likely if Greene were a man too, I feel there would be more significant pressure on Greene to apologize.
I don’t think so. If Hunter was a woman he now would be shamed endlessly, the focus would be on him instead of the perpetrator and there would be several porn sites featuring his photos.
Well, that, too, probably. Not to mention all comments like "Why would a woman with grown and married daughter act that way?!!?!"
This is too US-American for me. Would be funny if that broke the neck of that crazy lady.
But it is indeed sexual?
Is it? I thought it was just nudes? Anyways - sounds like peak stupid politics, hope you guys can come back to more rational times.
Yup moat people really dont.