• PKMKII [none/use name]@hexbear.netOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    I guess it’s like you said about emphasis, “think of the children!” is designed to get people to emphasize on the debate about what’s appropriate for children, so the debate doesn’t discuss what they’re actually trying to do.

          • PKMKII [none/use name]@hexbear.netOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            I guess that the discussion shouldn’t be about what sexual material we should or should not be shielding kids from, but rather that the laws are designed to create bread and circuses distractions for cultural conservatives with a dash of neoliberalism.

          • Smeagolicious [they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            Can’t speak for PKMKII ofc but it seemed like the difference is that they assert the goal isn’t to shield youth from depictions of sex at all, but rather to use it as a cudgel to exercise power against political & ideological opponents? I don’t know if there’s an actual disagreement per se, rather that it’s a dual purpose attack on opposing literature yknow?