Cuties?

Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
4,046
Breaking news from leftist hyper geniuses. Netflix, the social propoganda platform which oversexualizrs 90% of its content is taking a bold stand against over sexualization by showing their second feature sexualizing 11 year olds, the first being “big mouth”. Stunning and brave! Traditional values incoming, thank you Netflix
 
Joined
Feb 22, 2020
Messages
2,506
Imagine caring about Netflix this much. Literal garbage machine produced by the Obama’s and made by the nephew of the inventor of western propoganda. And everything on it is bad

“Noooo don’t hurt netflix plzzzzzzz”
Classic take from our resident communist
I dont care about Netflix, I just dont subscribe to your fake outrage, neither will I be manipulated EMOTIONALLY by Fascists. they dont give a fuck about children, what don't you get about that ?

where is #cancelthepresident movement by those who care so much about the children ? You know Jeffrey Epstein's co-pedo-rapist.

You just can't see how you are being played like a fiddle ?
 
  • Love
Reactions: 000
Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
4,046
I dont care about Netflix, I just dont subscribe to your fake outrage, neither will I be manipulated EMOTIONALLY by Fascists. they dont give a fuck about children, what don't you get about that ?

where is #cancelthepresident movement by those who care so much about the children ? You know Jeffrey Epstein's co-pedo-rapist.

You just can't see how you are being played like a fiddle ?
>where is all these totally unrelated things

keep apologizing for pedophelia normalization, black lives matter antifa supporter, everyone can see you
 

Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,910
I think people could wake up one morning and say..we are going to really solve this problem..well everyone except the left who likes problems that never get solved....ahem...anyway...you don’t need to make a show exploiting young girls..ever!

She talks about how they work their agenda in the press...by demonization. That’s what they are setting up with this show..wrong will be right in their eyes and if you don’t believe that then you’re whatever word they come up with. So...it will be your fault not the fault of the people that made this show in the first place..that exploited young girls for an agenda...so pelosi in fact talking about the evil they do is relevant.
Oh please. You types need Laura Loomer to get banned on twitter before you think censorship is a problem. You didn't wake up one day, and decide that cancel culture is bad. You had to be shook into it by some scandalous story.
 

Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
20,288
Oh please. You types need Laura Loomer to get banned on twitter before you think censorship is a problem. You didn't wake up one day, and decide that cancel culture is bad. You had to be shook into it by some scandalous story.
Context is the issue with you...you always have false equivalencies.
 

Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,910
Context is the issue with you...you always have false equivalencies.
LMAO, what false equivalency? I clearly stated my position, then gave you an example. Not once did I imply equivalence. Moreover, the point of my comparison was to show a pattern. That pattern being, that people need to get shocked to be motivated.
 

pumkinspice

Established
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Messages
129
If "Cuties" is causing people to have a conversation about exploitation, they wouldn't typically have. Then the movie achieved a purpose, which I believe was the director's stated goal. Now, I get that it's an uncomfortable conversation for people to have. That level of discomfort is why the problem doesn't get solved, though.

You may not like the methodology, but sometimes people need to get shocked. Ultimately, I see the people playing part-time social justice warrior coming up short here. People are more worried about the movie than the reality where far worse happens to children every day.

In essence, people are attacking "Cuties" because it seems like an easy target. Now maybe canceling the movie does save some kids, but by aiming small, you're still letting the biggest offenders roam free. Maybe even enabling them through poor strategy.
Let's say the means justifies the end and a conversation was the goal here. So far, all I've seen are two things: people justifying the movie, and people condemning the movie. The conversation being had in mainstream media is whether or not the movie was "bad". The public are debating if this movie is a comment on societal ills, a fun movie about little girls twerking or a pedophilic dream. People are talking about "a movie" and whether not that movie should have been made and publicized, but not the real life examples of behavior we see (and have been seeing) in mainstream culture of the sexualization of little girls (and boys) and where it goes from here. They aren't doing that, but they are looking at one of many examples of immoral behavior and finding the silver lining around it.

The public at large are not applying this discussion to the real world and real children who are being exposed to sexual behavior and images daily. The debate is very narrowly focused in the media, with the talking heads discussing what Cuties will do to children, when children can go anywhere and see a image or hear a song with explicit sexual content. So this debate (because it is not a conversation) going on in mass media is not doing anything. It's called normalization. Cause a controversy, get people talking, get people angry, get the idea in people's heads, then in a month they will move on to the next thing without issue. It's conditioning behavior and shaping ideals. It's basic psychology.
 

Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,910
Let's say the means justifies the end and a conversation was the goal here. So far, all I've seen are two things: people justifying the movie, and people condemning the movie. The conversation being had in mainstream media is whether or not the movie was "bad". The public are debating if this movie is a comment on societal ills, a fun movie about little girls twerking or a pedophilic dream. People are talking about "a movie" and whether not that movie should have been made and publicized, but not the real life examples of behavior we see (and have been seeing) in mainstream culture of the sexualization of little girls (and boys) and where it goes from here. They aren't doing that, but they are looking at one of many examples of immoral behavior and finding the silver lining around it.

The public at large are not applying this discussion to the real world and real children who are being exposed to sexual behavior and images daily. The debate is very narrowly focused in the media, with the talking heads discussing what Cuties will do to children, when children can go anywhere and see a image or hear a song with explicit sexual content. So this debate (because it is not a conversation) going on in mass media is not doing anything. It's called normalization. Cause a controversy, get people talking, get people angry, get the idea in people's heads, then in a month they will move on to the next thing without issue. It's conditioning behavior and shaping ideals. It's basic psychology.
If we are looking through the shallow lense of what the public will do, then yeah, I agree with you. However, there is a small sector of the media talking about changing our entire culture. That's not good enough for your moral code, so let's move on to the next part.

Upon looking through the lens on an individual level, I think the positives outweigh the negatives. Essentially we may be past the point of no return as far as "normalization." In that sense, it's better for people to know the truth than to hide the facts in a closet. Do you want to try to go ice skate uphill? No, you don't, but that's what you and others are doing when you harp about normalization.

I don't think Cuties is a grand gesture. But I'm also not about to go social justice warrior over it. I'm waiting to hear what the victims of sexual exploitation have to say. That is after all, what all of this is supposed to be about.
 

pumkinspice

Established
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Messages
129
If we are looking through the shallow lense of what the public will do, then yeah, I agree with you. However, there is a small sector of the media talking about changing our entire culture. That's not good enough for your moral code, so let's move on to the next part.

Upon looking through the lens on an individual level, I think the positives outweigh the negatives. Essentially we may be past the point of no return as far as "normalization." In that sense, it's better for people to know the truth than to hide the facts in a closet. Do you want to try to go ice skate uphill? No, you don't, but that's what you and others are doing when you harp about normalization.

I don't think Cuties is a grand gesture. But I'm also not about to go social justice warrior over it. I'm waiting to hear what the victims of sexual exploitation have to say. That is after all, what all of this is supposed to be about.
Let’s leave assumptions about “my” moral code out of this, since I think most people will agree that sexualizing a child is wrong. I’m glad that there are people pointing out the things in our society that sexualize children. The point of my post was, that is what should happen, if that’s what people are claiming was the goal, but won’t, in the majority of press that the movie is getting.

I agree we are past the point of return. Movies like this will continue to be made (it’s not the first) and people will continue to exploit children privately and publicly no matter how much we talk about it. My point about normalization is, a movie like this would not have received the praise or defense it has, without movies and other media pushing the boundaries over time to condition the public to see it as normal or at least, an acceptable way to “protest” or expose some thing. Exploiting children to expose exploited children? and the conversation that follows is not how we can stop more children from being exploited, but whether or not it was truly exploitation in the first place? With more people leaning towards “No, it wasn’t”. And then some people argue that the exploitation was worth it, like there aren’t better ways to go about it? It’s just a weird thing to witness. But you are right, it serves a purpose.

I’m no SJW by any means. I don’t get rattled at the things mass media does cause i know everything they do serves a purpose one way or another, and I’m just here for the ride. It just baffled me how anyone could justify this movie, but that’s just where we are. In a nutshell, it’s like people are being duped into believing this movie was the directors way of “making a change” while participating in the same it claims to expose.
 

Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,910
Let’s leave assumptions about “my” moral code out of this, since I think most people will agree that sexualizing a child is wrong. I’m glad that there are people pointing out the things in our society that sexualize children. The point of my post was, that is what should happen, if that’s what people are claiming was the goal, but won’t, in the majority of press that the movie is getting.

I agree we are past the point of return. Movies like this will continue to be made (it’s not the first) and people will continue to exploit children privately and publicly no matter how much we talk about it. My point about normalization is, a movie like this would not have received the praise or defense it has, without movies and other media pushing the boundaries over time to condition the public to see it as normal or at least, an acceptable way to “protest” or expose some thing. Exploiting children to expose exploited children? and the conversation that follows is not how we can stop more children from being exploited, but whether or not it was truly exploitation in the first place? With more people leaning towards “No, it wasn’t”. And then some people argue that the exploitation was worth it, like there aren’t better ways to go about it? It’s just a weird thing to witness. But you are right, it serves a purpose.

I’m no SJW by any means. I don’t get rattled at the things mass media does cause i know everything they do serves a purpose one way or another, and I’m just here for the ride. It just baffled me how anyone could justify this movie, but that’s just where we are. In a nutshell, it’s like people are being duped into believing this movie was the directors way of “making a change” while participating in the same it claims to expose.
Your moral code was made clear though. So it's fair game when I point out you are expecting too much. It's like you and some others expect the clouds to part and the poor children of the world to be saved automatically. The problem is, real change doesn't work like that. Change has a long period where we exist in an awkward phase of uncertainty. Where people have to push the limits, because nobody knows what the limits should be.

Clearly the movie "Cuties" misses the mark, but I wonder if this is a question of style differences. In essence, putting a child in any movie could be considered exploitation. On the one hand, you could have a story about the nasty things little girls end up doing. On the other hand, someone could tell a story featuring a child that rips your heart to pieces. Most of us would pick neither story, but for comparative purposes, which is worse?

My argument is beyond justification. Sitting right in the middle of consideration land. I was hoping you could consider the simple fact that we can't clean up the dirt without getting dirty.
 

pumkinspice

Established
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Messages
129
Your moral code was made clear though. So it's fair game when I point out you are expecting too much. It's like you and some others expect the clouds to part and the poor children of the world to be saved automatically. The problem is, real change doesn't work like that. Change has a long period where we exist in an awkward phase of uncertainty. Where people have to push the limits, because nobody knows what the limits should be.

Clearly the movie "Cuties" misses the mark, but I wonder if this is a question of style differences. In essence, putting a child in any movie could be considered exploitation. On the one hand, you could have a story about the nasty things little girls end up doing. On the other hand, someone could tell a story featuring a child that rips your heart to pieces. Most of us would pick neither story, but for comparative purposes, which is worse?

My argument is beyond justification. Sitting right in the middle of consideration land. I was hoping you could consider the simple fact that we can't clean up the dirt without getting dirty.
I don’t know, maybe you didn’t read my comment or understand it, but I definitely don’t expect “the clouds to open up and all children be saved automatically”. I’m not arguing for world peace, I’m arguing that the movie is clearly pedophilic in nature and that people, like you, are naive to think anything good can come out of it, as far as any productive conversation (and action) on a mass scale. There will be never be a change, in my opinion.
 

Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,910
I don’t know, maybe you didn’t read my comment or understand it, but I definitely don’t expect “the clouds to open up and all children be saved automatically”. I’m not arguing for world peace, I’m arguing that the movie is clearly pedophilic in nature and that people, like you, are naive to think anything good can come out of it, as far as any productive conversation (and action) on a mass scale. There will be never be a change, in my opinion.
I think I called your strict and unattainable morality argument accurately. Moreover, the bit I added about the clouds parting ways was to highlight how you don’t see progress as progress without a cataclysmic event. You admit there will never be a change, but that’s only because of your narrow moral lens.

Maybe upon hearing about the “Cuties” scandal, more people get involved in taking care of vulnerable children. Maybe people pay a little more attention to their children. According to you, those things aren’t good because it’s not mass scale enough. So again, we pretty much need Jesus to get speared all over again for there to be any moral positive. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but you have no plan.

I don’t care if you have a plan or not. Don’t call me naive when I have a plan. Of course, my goal wouldn’t be to do movies like “Cuties.” My films would be worse, in a sense that I breeze by your moral code and be just as filthy. The story of exploitation is horrible, no matter how it’s spun. And that’s the point you are missing.
 

Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
20,288
Let’s leave assumptions about “my” moral code out of this, since I think most people will agree that sexualizing a child is wrong. I’m glad that there are people pointing out the things in our society that sexualize children. The point of my post was, that is what should happen, if that’s what people are claiming was the goal, but won’t, in the majority of press that the movie is getting.

I agree we are past the point of return. Movies like this will continue to be made (it’s not the first) and people will continue to exploit children privately and publicly no matter how much we talk about it. My point about normalization is, a movie like this would not have received the praise or defense it has, without movies and other media pushing the boundaries over time to condition the public to see it as normal or at least, an acceptable way to “protest” or expose some thing. Exploiting children to expose exploited children? and the conversation that follows is not how we can stop more children from being exploited, but whether or not it was truly exploitation in the first place? With more people leaning towards “No, it wasn’t”. And then some people argue that the exploitation was worth it, like there aren’t better ways to go about it? It’s just a weird thing to witness. But you are right, it serves a purpose.

I’m no SJW by any means. I don’t get rattled at the things mass media does cause i know everything they do serves a purpose one way or another, and I’m just here for the ride. It just baffled me how anyone could justify this movie, but that’s just where we are. In a nutshell, it’s like people are being duped into believing this movie was the directors way of “making a change” while participating in the same it claims to expose.
A documentary about children who are already victims would have been better but the makers of the show didn’t really have conversation in mind when they made it..because I agree that we are past the point of no return..like all other perversions this is to advance the cause.
 

Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
20,288
If "Cuties" is causing people to have a conversation about exploitation, they wouldn't typically have. Then the movie achieved a purpose, which I believe was the director's stated goal. Now, I get that it's an uncomfortable conversation for people to have. That level of discomfort is why the problem doesn't get solved, though.

You may not like the methodology, but sometimes people need to get shocked. Ultimately, I see the people playing part-time social justice warrior coming up short here. People are more worried about the movie than the reality where far worse happens to children every day.

In essence, people are attacking "Cuties" because it seems like an easy target. Now maybe canceling the movie does save some kids, but by aiming small, you're still letting the biggest offenders roam free. Maybe even enabling them through poor strategy.
Ha! They don’t care about children!” Hastings said. “If you really cared about children, you would celebrate a film that’s clearly sexualizing children in order to show that it’s wrong to sexualize children.”

Netflix corrects problematic ‘Cuties’ by putting Joe Biden in every scene
 

pumkinspice

Established
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Messages
129
I think I called your strict and unattainable morality argument accurately. Moreover, the bit I added about the clouds parting ways was to highlight how you don’t see progress as progress without a cataclysmic event. You admit there will never be a change, but that’s only because of your narrow moral lens.

Maybe upon hearing about the “Cuties” scandal, more people get involved in taking care of vulnerable children. Maybe people pay a little more attention to their children. According to you, those things aren’t good because it’s not mass scale enough. So again, we pretty much need Jesus to get speared all over again for there to be any moral positive. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but you have no plan.

I don’t care if you have a plan or not. Don’t call me naive when I have a plan. Of course, my goal wouldn’t be to do movies like “Cuties.” My films would be worse, in a sense that I breeze by your moral code and be just as filthy. The story of exploitation is horrible, no matter how it’s spun. And that’s the point you are missing.
if you’re ok with the collateral damage, that’s your thing. Other people realize that such methods really are unnecessary and serve no real productive purpose.
No, I don’t think there will be any real change because the efforts for “change” ride the fence. They are hypocritical in nature. They start a fire then soothe the flames by directing the conversation elsewhere...children aren’t being saved by this, if that’s really the purpose of the movie. Its naive to think so, yes.
Most people, if anyone, don’t need a movie about an oppressed 11 yr old Islamic girl learning how to be seductive to tell them to protect their children..it doesn’t even make sense. There’s very obviously an agenda here. It is what it is.
 
Last edited:
Top