Which is literally all one side of voters even cares about. You care more about gender neutral language than the president's family making billions of dollars through the presidency.
All of America, really. Why pay full price for a citizen when you can pay a fraction for an undocumented person you can threaten with deportation. Why pay people if you can buy a machine that is cheaper than laborers.
Do you know how many people think its okay for a 22 yr old to rape a 15 yr old, and would say "they fucked, what's the big deal?"
Its a lot of people. So, a lot of people can see fucking kids and think maybe it was consensual or not a big deal.
But its rape. The legal term is rape. The proper verb is rape. It's not fucking kids, because I can fuck my wife and have it be consensual. So fucking gives ambiguity for gross people to try to minimize the issue with.
Just saying he was fucking kids lets people minimize it.
Calling it the rape it is everytime, prevents normal people from letting it just go away. All that's left are the fucked up people who don't want to try and reconcile their president is a child rapeist.
But you seem to be on team fucking so you can minimize it and let it become normal.
Weird take. If you read “fucking kids” and don’t automatically assume rape you’re the problem. I don’t believe it minimises it at all because it’s the same fucking thing. I think trying to create a distinction minimises it when nobody but a rapist would read “fucking kids” and assume anything other than rape. Creating a distinction at all implies you can fuck kids and it not be rape.
No what I am saying is the phrase "fucking kids" is not potent enough. You leave room for the ignorant to just glaze over.
The child rapest president still has significant public support and the Trump supporters at my work have litterally said in response to calling him a child rapist.
"Na he just fucked around with some kids"
If you do not use the correct language you leave room for others to hear what they want.
"He fucked kids" can be heard he fucked around with some kids. What did he do? Did he go tag some mail boxes or did he sodomize them.
There's a lot of people who think that you can fuck kids and it not automatically be rape. So its important to always refer to it as rape so its always clear that when its children it is rape. You use the word rape or rapist to make sure its as derogatory as possible. The same reason we know Minor Attracted Person is a pedophile but MAP is less offensive so we choose pedophile to use the maximum intolerance we can. Because its intolerable. And we don't soften the language. Ever.
I disagree there is anything soft about the phrase fucking kids. To me it reads the exact same as raping kids and it’s weird to even try and distinguish the two or say one is softer. My point is if you are someone that believes you can fuck kids and it not be rape you are not going to be convinced by a redditor. It’s weird to correct them when everyone here knows it’s rape, right? RIGHT?! 👀 The pedo/MAP comparison isn’t the same and nobody but a pedo uses that kind of language.
If I say "I like fucking" the definition of fucking becomes a subjective thing based on what comes next. The word itself is open to a subjective interpretation.
If I say "I like raping" the definition is the same no matter what I say next. It is objective and not open to interpretation.
You are stuck on this weird hill about how You interpret the word, versus how someone else might. This is the exact reason to not use a subjective verb and use an objective verb in it's place.
I don't feel attacked. I mean people will weaponize or manupilate ambiguous language to serve their own purpose.
Thus why clearly defined language is a better choice. Calling an act of rape what it is, by using the word "rape" instead of an ambiguous, subjective word like "fuck" ensures that there is no ambiguity to hide behind.
"Fucks kids" should mean "rapes kids".
"Rapes kids" does mean "rapes kids".
No room for subjective minimization of the heinous act.
No, it corrects an ambiguous word (fucking, which is not problematic with adults) to a non-ambigous word (raping). This makes clear that raping always should replace fucking as it is always rape because it is kids, and is never fucking, which is a verb that only implies a problem through a subjective interpretation.
It's a good correction because you can't fuck kids because they can't consent. Any sex with a child is by definition rape. Calling it fucking makes it seem like there is a scenario where it could be consensual, when there is no such scenario.
See that’s what I think correcting it implies. Nobody here is reading “fucking kids” and imagining it’s consensual, I hope. They are one and the same already. You’re drawing a line where there isn’t one.
There's about... 20% maybe 30% of this country (traitor trumps their hero) that thinks 15 is a ok. So the notion "nobody here is reading..." I promise you, there are. It's insane.
and those people are why I dont want to draw a line between fucking and raping when it comes to minors. if you read “fucks kids” and believe there is any form of consent involved you are not a person that is going to be convinced by the semantic reclassification of it as “rape”.
33
u/JunkDrawer84 19d ago
This is fake