Page 1 of 4
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 9:15 am
by Leisher
xHamster blocking NC residents due to LGBT bathroom bill.
I'm not really in favor of this punishment. It's like executing everyone in a room because one of them is a murderer. Think of all the lonely folks who aren't in favor of this bill, didn't vote for these people, and now can't bust a nut while watching some MILF porn.
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 9:48 am
by TheCatt
So I had never heard of xHamster before yesterday, when I heard about this.
So I went there. They are not blocking people, but I had to click through this first:
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 9:51 am
by Leisher
That's much better than an outright block.
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 10:22 am
by Malcolm
"She-males" beat out "gay" for category views?
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 11:17 am
by GORDON
I'm picturing Catt using those search terms and furiously hitting F5 hoping for new content, driving up the count.
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 11:46 am
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:I'm picturing Catt using those search terms and furiously hitting F5 hoping for new content, driving up the count.
I didn't see "rabbit pr0n" on the search list.
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 1:18 pm
by Alhazad
Malcolm wrote:"She-males" beat out "gay" for category views?
'Shemale' is a straight male fetish and 'gay', which usually refers to gay men and not lesbians, is a gay/female fetish.
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 7:09 pm
by TPRJones
I've known a couple of women into shemales. But as a general statement I would agree.
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2016 3:08 pm
by Vince
Bruce Springstein canceled a show there or something as well. Wanting to see if we can get a similar law and ban here in KY.
Oh, and I think xhamster did this for publicity. Because no one had ever heard of them until this.
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2016 3:09 pm
by Malcolm
Oh, and I think xhamster did this for publicity. Because no one had ever heard of them until this.
Porn needs advertising?
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2016 3:21 pm
by Leisher
Vince wrote:Oh, and I think xhamster did this for publicity. Because no one had ever heard of them until this.
xHamster is pretty well known.
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2016 3:21 pm
by Troy
Definitely had heard of xhampster before. Pretended not to when it was brought up at the office, though.
efb by Leisher
Edited By Troy on 1460575836
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2016 3:28 pm
by TheCatt
Leisher wrote:Vince wrote:Oh, and I think xhamster did this for publicity. Because no one had ever heard of them until this.
xHamster is pretty well known.
I had never heard of it before this thing.
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2016 5:37 pm
by Vince
Now Ringo Star is boycotting. NC is getting rid of some pretty craptacular music with this move. I guess not all unintended consequences are bad.
Re: Poor Carolinians
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 8:05 am
by Vince
With all this "Men should be allowed to poop with little girls" talk from the left, I wonder if feminists still stand by their position that men can't express an opinion about abortion since they don't have a uterus?
Re: Poor Carolinians
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 12:47 pm
by Vince
I saw a thought on a twitter feed... why are men who are NOT mentally ill not allowed to use the women's bathroom? Isn't that discriminatory?
Re: Poor Carolinians
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 5:07 pm
by TPRJones
Well ... yes. Anything short of one group bathroom is in some way or other discriminatory towards someone, yes. The fight is about where to draw the line of discrimination that hurts the least number of people, not about trying to make it so there is no discrimination.
Re: Poor Carolinians
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 5:12 pm
by Leisher
Then that line has already been crossed. Didn't someone (Gordon?) post numbers of trans people in the U.S. and it's something like .1% maybe less?
Even if it's 10%, and it's not even close to that, it's still a lot less than the percentage of people that are straight and identify with the sex their genitals indicate they are.
Thus, by forcing them to expose themselves at their most vulnerable moments, you're discriminating against them in favor of that .1%.
Re: Poor Carolinians
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 6:02 pm
by Vince
I've about given up trying to reason with them or even understand the crazy.
Re: Poor Carolinians
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 6:42 pm
by TPRJones
Leisher wrote:Thus, by forcing them to expose themselves at their most vulnerable moments, you're discriminating against them in favor of that .1%.
That math doesn't work. If only 0.1% of the population is trans, then where are you getting all the extra trans people to make the other 99.9% all uncomfortable? It's not like there will be a trans person posted in every bathroom in the U.S. just waiting to jump out at the straights and shout "boo!"
The question would be what percentage of people that encounter a trans person in their bathroom will be upset about it? I'm sure that number is less than 50%. Not just because I think most people don't care, but also because a large percentage of trans people pass unnoticed so no one will even know there was a trans person in their bathroom in the first place.
EDIT: Unless you want to postulate that the mere possibility is a violation of their rights, to which I would say that's not how rights should work.