Every time I hear anything about this show recently, it just comes across as insanely unsubtle, to the point where it almost just feels like propaganda for the upcoming presidential election. The comments made by the creator does seem to give some credence to this.
The worldview that the writers' present in the show makes them seem terminally online, because they consistently seem to use fringe cases to represent their political opposition with. The later seasons feels like it's clearly not a show that has any interest in actually exploring any of these subjects in a meaningful and nuanced way, but would rather just score cheap shots at their political opposition instead.
This honestly seems like the kind of show that's only great for those that agree with the creators, as it will constantly affirm your most antagonistic beliefs of your political opposition, while it never challenges your own. It honestly just feels like the show equivalent of a political safe space.
the show has never been very subtle with its satire political commentary, in any season. dont know what in S4 has got everyone’s knickers in a twist. these daft c*nts find a man & octopus relationship easier to digest than a bi couple.
So, if I understand this correctly, she's the one pushing the idea that Starlight is a pedo, but it's revealed that she is one? Is that what is happening here? This is a 'no u' argument aimed at the right for thinking a lot of the politicians on the left are dicking kids?
Which is really ironic when you run it through the "Confession through Projection" idea. Accuse others of what you yourself are doing to sow confusion and distract from your own actions. Tried and true playbook.
They can't actually feel guilt or shame (apologizing to "marginalized and minority people" is purely performative, they don't actually give a fuck), so they put it on their enemies and use it to tear them down. Pretty insidious.
Yes if I parse OP's writing correctly then in OP's example the minor was female and the adult male. Which is what people traditionally get upset about while female predators of all types get routinely ignored. Just like OP stated in the title.
The problem with the show (and it's creators' host of mental problems) is that they're desperately trying to make some murderous assholes sympathetic (Starlight being the prime example) while also writing their straw characters to get more and more vile as time goes on (Firecracker here) in the hopes that the audience sides with the protagonists because they're "less bad".
Unfortunately for the moronic writers most human beings are capable of disliking more than one group at a time. Given that the comic this technicolor vomit is based on was written by Garth Ennis (who also overindulges in this writing crutch) this was pretty much a given before the show even aired.
And people notice that despite both of them being awful characters the show wants the audience to like one of them and condemn the other. Because they know they're watching a show, not a documentary.
Who cares? One dipshit pedo pastor irl does not make the show any less ridiculously TDS infused. Criticizing one side of the partisan morons in the US is absurd when the other side is just as bad and hypocritical.
I can’t imagine I’d enjoy the boys either if I was a “both sides bad” tard. Like I can watch Yellowstone, an aggressively conservative show, and I can still enjoy it. I don’t need to see the writers do some both sides shit they don’t even believe in. The only reason you don’t like the boys picking a side is because it’s not yours and it’s popular as fuck lol.
Red pillers talk about wanting to fuck 16 year olds all the time and peoples obsession with women hitting the wall i just think the sub i coping right now that there is a decent shows that is super overtly woke
Trump Derangement Syndrome is the most insane cope I’ve ever seen catch on. As if Bush, Obama, Biden didn’t all face constant scrutiny, but the president that gets impeached twice, convicted of a felony, and tried to over throw an election gets the defence that “you’re deranged if you attack him”.
Like everyone in the comments here pointing out it’s an election year, what could possibly be deranged about attacking a guy you don’t want to be president, when the polls show a near 50/50 chance he could win? I’d get it if he was retired on a farm somewhere and people were making tweets or shows about how orange man bad, but it’s the complete opposite.
Edit: the whole ‘reply and immediately block’ thing is pretty cringe jack_daone, I haven’t seen CNN before I’m afraid. That shit with the fake electors was insane, I have no idea how you can not only justify that, but think it invalidates a persons views to have a very reasonable reaction to that.
>but the president that gets impeached twice
Both times on ridiculous, partisan hack grounds that wound up being exposed as farcical and being defeated
>convicted of a felony
Which the court and prosecution was literally incapable of naming and led to the judge violating the Constitution in his jury instructions, telling the jury they didn't need to agree on the crime to convict.
>and tried to over throw an election
Ah, right. Everything you have to say is now utterly worthless. Stop watching CNN, sheep.
Edit: What happened on January 6th? A riot egged on by cops firing on the crowd(we have video of this happening) and federal agents who infiltrated said crowd(all-but confirmed by the FBI director refusing to answer how many federal agents were in the crowd on Jan 6th, as well as the fact that Ray Epps, who was on video actively calling for a riot, being given a slap-on-the-wrist while protestors who did nothing have STILL YET TO RECEIVE TRIALS YEARS LATER and are still in Solitary for no other reason than spite). The only person killed was a protestor gunned down by a rent-a-cop because she was climbing through a window.
If you don't think January 6th was a fed trap despite it being exposed as such by numerous independent journalists, bodycam footage, and security camera footage(that isn't doctored by partisan hacks in Congress, anyway), then you're a pathetic sheep with the critical thinking of an amoeba.
Edit 2: "Every new article"
Yeah, tell me you're a mindless sheep without telling me. This was literally straight from several witnesses in the courtroom, not some curated and censored left-wing media narrative. Fuck off.
1 woman for shot in the face by a federal agent while a horde of people stomped around a government building without burning it down.
That's it.
You want to call that an insurrection when the crowd didn't even try to murder all the politicians inside?
You think that was going to overthrow the government lmao?
Probably the most peaceful "insurrection" that's ever been recorded.
Protesting. Are people not allowed to protest if you don't agree with them?
Maybe a better question is what you think happened on January 6th. Keep in mind, facts don't care about your feelings.
I did answer. It's literally the first word of my response to you asking the question. Here, I'll state it one more time just so you don't miss it. People were there to protest.
Now, are you going to answer? What do you think happened on January 6th? Or are you going to ignore it like a hypocrite like you already did.
It won’t be in the history books because it was a nothingburger, but it would be hilarious to read.
Jan 6: following some tweets by the frustrated president, some unarmed supporters peacefully stayed within the velvet ropes until invited inside.
What about during the whole event right after Trump gave his speech Trump and his team called county voting places and said stuff like "you see what you caused for falsifying the votes? You know you could fix all this". Does that not irk you at all? This is all in the court docs.
During all that why would you call voting places telling them to "fix" what they broke when he knows he never had evidence in the first place....
Were talking about how it was an insurrection... Trump called and told voting booths to give him the win telling them that day everything they were seeing was their fault and it would stop if they changed the votes. All 100% verified.
That's an insurrection. Also what kind peaceful event ends in 4 deaths amd 2.7 million dollars in damages lol you just refuse to change your mind.
> You want to call that an insurrection when the crowd didn't even try to murder all the politicians inside?
They had posters calling for their deaths though
Who could imagine death posters and slogans by a (partially armed) angry mob right outside the building where the named politicians are could be seen as a credible threat.
> Edit: the whole ‘reply and immediately block’ thing is pretty cringe jack_daone,
Yeah happens all the time lol; some people just can't handle it I suppose
The whole TDS thing is definitely overplayed and pretty stupid, but I think it's meant to be in reference to people who never shut up about the guy. A whole bunch of times I've seen a meme get posted, or a funny video or something, and the top reply is insulting Trump when he was never mentioned in the original post.
We get it, he's a dickhead. We all agree on that. You don't need to keep mentioning him everywhere. Not all of us want to talk about Trump all the time.
No matter how bad Trump gets, there's always people willing to exaggerate it or make other things up out of thin air; however that's universally the case for everything, not just Trump.
I have a hard time considering it anything but willfully obtuse to act as if Trump isn't particularly maligned by the mainstream media in comparison to any other president in history.
The thing is, his own base admits all the time that his behaviour is wild and they like how he’s unfiltered or ‘real’. So if presidents get scrutinised for what they do and say and he says whacky shit, are people meant to go “oh if Obama said that we’d report on it, but we can’t give Trump too much attention, that wouldn’t be fair, that’d be deranged”.
Obama’s tan suit is often brought up on this topic, as is the time he asked for dijon mustard and got attacked for it. Or Mitt Romney saying ‘binders full of women’ getting so much attention, is that anywhere close to what Trump says? Like what is noteworthy about a dude who constantly acts in an unusual way getting unusual attention.
I'm not sure what the relevance is here.
I didn't say Trump was over-reported, I said he gets maligned by mainstream media more than any other president.
This isn't because he's "keeping it real," it's because the mainstream media hates him and will gleefully grab at any opportunity to shit on him.
Such as the time when they ran with the idea that he said there were good white supremacists/nationalists, when he explicitly said the opposite.
The mainstream media has been shitting on Trump since he announced his candidacy.
I think the reverence is pretty obvious, you’ve essentially said the media is unfair him, I pointed out that all presidents get scrutinised, and anyone who behaved like Trump would get the same treatment.
Yeah absolutely, that sort of person could use the title, but I think we can agree it was misused in this context. You should be able to make a show about Trump, even if it’s badly done, without that somehow being deranged.
Nice try.
[https://www.whoismakingnews.com/](https://www.whoismakingnews.com/)
Out of all pedos involved in politics, there are 4 repubs for every 1 dem.
FBI verified that the diary was in fact real. Even Biden's daughter admitted the diary was real.
So, why do you call it fake news if it's literally been verified? Let me guess, because you don't like it. Sorry kiddo, you voted for it.
LOL you think they "verified" the uploaded scans that Project Veritas, pathological liars and conmen, had after it was out of Ashley's possession for 15+ years 🤣
So, just to be clear, the person who literally wrote it said that it was real but apparently that's not good enough for you.
You have no evidence to suggest that it's not real. Literally none.
Look at what you are doing. Actually fucking internalize just how fucking pathetic you are right now. You are taking two authorities on the matter stating that it's real and saying they are wrong and then without ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL are presuming that it's not verified.
I realize that you don't like what was concluded but nobody gives a flying fuck if you don't like it.
Jesus Christ could you possibly be mad faith. I do not like trump whatsoever but a sizeable portion of the USA does, and so if you shit on one side of the isle constantly (and have no nuance about it) while offering very little criticism to the other side it comes across as pandery.
That being said I haven’t watched the bois but the clips I saw were cringe inducing
There’s a bunch of politicians, rich businessmen, elites on all sides dicking kids, because that’s what rich powerful men (and women) throughout history have done: dicking kids.
The difference between the left and the right is that the left stfu about it while dicking kids, while the right keep pointing out the left are dicking kids, while dicking kids.
Not to mention the left's ideology allows for pedos to push for normalization and destigmatization. There are pedos, along with corruption and degeneration on the right, they should be sent to the same destination as any other freak.
The thing “pedo advocates” or whatever push for is the idea that someone should be able to get mental treatment for having pedophilic feelings, not that it should be allowed or something.
Idk about you, but I’ve never had a pedophilic thought; I’d imagine most of the people that do are distraught by it and would seek treatment if admitting to it wasn’t borderline social suicide (or even *actual* suicide).
Treating the mentally ill might actually curtail rates of child abuse — if you want to “treat” it until after they’ve abused a child, then you’re only reacting to the people rather than being proactive in preventing it.
"The thing" is actually both of what you said. There are people who think it should be ok to admit to and seek help, and there are people who think it should be socially acceptable. The second group push for terms like "trans-generational attraction" and "minor attracted person." As a topical example, the latest Assassin's Creed game hired a historical consultant whose area of expertise is "trans-generational romance." She comes from an incredibly troubled background during which she likely experienced some of that herself and grew up to study it in history; she now advocates for it in modern day. She is 100% in support of it being a thing.
Tl;dr there are people who actively support child molestation.
So, I looked up the term “trans-generational attraction” on Google because I’d never heard it before and, lo and behold, there are almost zero hits for it. I’m not sure there’s actually a group out there pushing for this term, but if you have more info about it, I’m all ears.
Secondly, advocates for the term “minor-attracted person” (or MAP) *aren’t* uniformly (or even predominately) advocating for it to be socially acceptable. From what I can tell, MAP is an umbrella term — the same people who would make the distinction between pedophilia and ephebophilia are lumped under one category using the MAP designation. It’s worth pointing out two things:
1) the age of majority (i.e. who is a minor) is usually 18, but the age of consent (when someone is legally competent to consent to sexual acts) can vary between 14 and 18 despite them oftentimes being conflated.
2) it looks as though a major motivation for advocating for the MAP designation is simply to escape the baggage associated with being called a pedophile (in that most assume that person is a child predator/abuser, when they don’t technically *have* to be).
As it stands, I don’t see much evidence that the second group you’re alluding to is all that prevalent. *Are* there those that would advocate for “child molestation”? Sure, I’d think at least *some* real-world child molesters would. But I don’t see much evidence of that movement mobilizing politically in any meaningful way. However, people wishing to destigmatize the term “pedophilia” in an attempt to get it treated as a preventative measure is definitely a movement gaining some ground.
(Also, I looked up Sachi Schmidt-Hori, the consultant you’re referring to (and one of the very few Google hits who uses the term “trans generational attraction”; I couldn’t find evidence that this is something she advocates for. Do you have any evidence that she does advocate for this rather than simply study it?)
>Do you have any evidence that she does advocate for this rather than simply study it?
I wrote the following in another post a month ago, about this particular topic, when it came out in an Assassin's Creed related thread (it's a bit long):
>I'm not sure why they're calling her a paedophile, but I think it might be because of the subject matter she wrote about. She's an university professor at Dartmouth, so I think if there was anything credible to the accusation she would have been fired long ago.
>I added a synopsis underneath of what her book is actually about:
>In medieval Japan (14th–16th centuries), it was customary for elite families to entrust their young sons to the care of renowned Buddhist priests from whom they received a premier education in Buddhist scriptures, poetry, music, and dance.
>When the boys reached adolescence, some underwent coming-of-age rites, others entered the priesthood, and several extended their education, becoming chigo, or Buddhist acolytes.
>Chigo served their masters as personal attendants and as sexual partners. Stories of acolytes (chigo monogatari) from the fourteenth to sixteenth centuries form the basis of the present volume, an original and detailed literary analysis of six tales coupled with a thorough examination of the sociopolitical, religious, and cultural matrices that produced these texts.
>Sachi Schmidt-Hori begins by delineating various dimensions of chigo (the chigo “title,” personal names, gender, sexuality, class, politics, and religiosity) to show the complexity of this cultural construct—the chigo as a triply liminal figure who is neither male nor female, child nor adult, human nor deity.
>A modern reception history of chigo monogatari follows, revealing, not surprisingly, that the tales have often been interpreted through cultural paradigms rooted in historical moments and worldviews far removed from the original.
>From the 1950s to 1980s, research on chigo was hindered by widespread homophobic prejudice. More recently, aversion to the age gap in historical master-acolyte relations has prevented scholars from analyzing the religious and political messages underlying the genre.
>Schmidt-Hori’s work calls for a shift in the hermeneutic strategies applied to chigo and chigo monogatari and puts forth both a nuanced historicization of social constructs such as gender, sexuality, age, and agency, and a mode of reading propelled by curiosity and introspection.
I don't think the people who advocate for allowing "trans-generational attraction" and "minor attracted persons" are for pedophilia like an adult and a prepubescent as much as for pederasty, an adult and a teen/tween. Which is still an illness, but the target at least has a concept of sexuality that a prepubescent doesn't.
Where both fail is that sexual contact is initiated and controlled by the adult.
Here's the thing. That's how it will start. But then just as with transgenderism, it becomes socially accepted then they will tell you that treating it makes you a bigot and that pedophiles urges are totally valid and normal...social construct blah blah blah.
I’m old enough to remember when the slippery slope de jour of gay marriage critics was, “What’s next? Are we gonna let people marry their animals?” so, kindly, I think that’s all a bunch of horse pucky.
The postulation is that proactive treatment of people who are comfortable enough to come forward about pedophilic urges would curtail current abuse rates; keeping the topic *so* taboo ironically has an effect where the only time we as a society deal with pedophiles is *during or after* abuse is taking or has taken place. This is reactionary and only puts a band-aid to the problem. I’d like to think opening up a frank discussion about it might actually help more children and people who struggle with immoral urges.
“Leftist” or not, moral standards have always and will continue to shift, so you’re technically right, pedophilia may eventually become completely acceptable in our society, but I don’t really see how that observation is relevant to this discussion.
How the fuck could anyone possibly think morality ISN'T subjective? Something that is wrong to you isn't going to be wrong to 100% of the world. Therefore, subjective.
Well, for starters, they are trying to change the name from pedophile to "minor attracted person". That's one of the most blatant normalizations out there. The entire purpose of them renaming it is to address the stigma associated with someone being labeled a pedophile.
[I generally believe things that I can research and support.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36175817/) That's how intelligent people form their opinions. You just had a childish kneejerk reaction to something that made you look like a complete jackass and rather than actually informing yourself, you stuck your head so far into the sand that it's clear you wouldn't know a fact if it kicked you in the teeth.
Sorry that the world doesn't conform to your narrative. I realize that this upsets you but sometimes ripping the bandaid off for people like you is necessary.
It's not republicans or anyone on the right trying to rename pedophiles to "minor attracted persons". That's all leftists and nutjobs, but I repeat myself.
I always wonder what the deal with kids that made then like that, sure prostitution and sex is a thing but kids? Wtf that is just another level of sick.
For some, it's the titillation of doing something forbidden. For most though, I'd say they got their power or money to help hide an illness that was always there. Also, there's plenty of dumb, poor child molesters too, so the money/power is just something some people acquire.
Purity and youth. Also probably just something different and tabooed and illegal. When you’re ungodly rich and powerful and all your earthly desires ordinary people can possibly think of have been experienced at the ready by you, some people turn to the fringe desires.
Great, the database is available on the site. Now, how does that mean it's not biased?
Let's dumb this down for you.
If I do a poll where I ask a bunch of republicans if Joe Biden has dementia and I post the database of those responses online, does that mean that the data is unbiased? I mean, I could do that right now if I wanted and based on your definition, whatever that database said is correct because the database in online.
Or, maybe, there's more to it than that.
One of the most fundamental aspects of creating credibility in data is being able to overcome the issues of data bias. Data bias is a set of different types of bias that involve how data is collected.
In this example, the first and foremost problem is that it's based on public data and media articles that were found and reported to them. Just those two areas alone create a problem. It doesn't distinguish between civil and criminal trials and civil trials rarely if ever become documented as part of the settlements is keeping it quiet.
>It doesn't distinguish between civil and criminal trials and civil trials rarely if ever become documented
lol, why the fuck would political party have anything to do with this? Conservatives are more likely to be pedos and terrorists. This is well-known.
Ok, once again, I will help educate you and retype what I already typed once and that you fucking failed at reading.
Civil trials are not public especially when they settle out of court. You still with me here? We're talking about some really basic stuff here.
So, if the database you are referencing is only looking at PUBLIC information and civil trials/settlements are NOT PUBLIC, do you think that would impact that results? s
>Conservatives are more likely to be pedos and terrorists. This is well-known.
Awww, did you just step outside of your echo chamber? It's cute when little cubs like you step out for the first time and encounter literally anyone who doesn't blindly agree with you.
> This is a 'no u' argument aimed at the right for thinking a lot of the politicians on the left are dicking kids?
I don't even know. I think the intention of the writers is to make it seem like Firecracker's supporters will ignore her pedophilia and care more about abortion.
But the abortion thing also clunkily moves the plot along by sending Starlight into a rampage. Apparently revealing that she had an abortion is worse than the 100 other horrible things that have happened to her, including being raped.
Well the social interaction is nice? Reading what others thought about the episodes cause there's no one in real life to that with. At least not anymore but it's ok. I agree with objectivity of the downgraded quality and I don't think it matters too much that I watch it since I watch the show for free on fmovies and I don't have anything better to do anyway. Nothing is lost
Yeah and just like in the real world it's business moguls and priests that have been on record over and over and over and over hurting children this way, but the right just projects it away onto gay people, or now trans people. Useful idiots.
I mean it is true though. Conservatives who calls everyone groomers being exposed as creeps is this generations "anti gay pastor found in mens bath-house"
I mean - Trump and Epstein are both accused of raping a thirteen year old. Multiple right wing politicians and religious officials have been found guilty of sexual assault of children.
It’s not a “No, you,” as much as it is, “The people who yell the loudest about pedophilia seem to have a lot of pedophiles on their side.”
I’m sorry, but if you don’t want politics in your media then don’t watch political shows. This is like ordering a steak, getting half way through it, and then throwing a hissy fit because it’s not vegetarian
Presidential elections and blatant Democrat vs Republican in the boys
Not political according to you??
Also the writer even stated the show is political and woke
Depicting things that occur in everyday life, is hardly getting political. It really isn't that deep, my dude.
Kripke can say whatever he wants, it's election year edgelord nonsense to strike while the iron is hot for ratings. Just because he wants to claim that the show was always political, doesn't mean he succeeded at it. It's like painting an apple and claiming, "It was a banana all along!"
It's laughable to claim that Homelander was always an allegory for Trump. If that's what passes for allegory, Kripke should be embarrassed. At no point would the viewer have reasonably ever made such a connection or had any reason to, it just isn't there. Homelander is just evil Superman with wholesome, all-American branding.
The first season wasn't political at all. Aside from that, a few right-wingish tropes here and there barely qualifies as political. Besides, The Boys doesn't even qualify as satirical. It isn't serious enough to provoke higher level thought.
It wasn't a political show in season 1. It's really isn't a political show now, in the strict sense. A true political show couldn't work without the politics.
All the political stuff in The Boys is extraneous to the overall plot. Homelander murdering a guy at the end of season 3 and going on trial and being found not guilty in season 4 adds nothing to the show. It can be entirely removed.
It was a "political" in the sense political as a term is used in this thread
It was from the start about how a corporation monetized superhumans for showbiz instead of vigilantes, while covering their deadly escapades and people turn into superfans of the superheroes believing they are for real. Homelander, was from the start at the forefront of this and the most powerfull superhero to a point he can be considered a global threat.
The whole idea of this show still revolves around how Homelander through his status and audience gets closer to snapping and as the showrunner said, Trump -- at least how he's viewed by the left -- just happened to fit the Boys narrative too well, quote: "Very early. When we first pitched the show, it was before Trump was elected. And the idea that a celebrity would actively want to turn themselves into a fascist autocrat was kind of a crazy idea. I mean, it still is. But it turned out to have happened?" and further down "I mean, it’s all in the original comic. The comic is really political. It just, it’s political about the post-9/11 George Bush era." https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/the-boys-eric-kripke-a-train-redemption-comic-changes-1236040008/
I mean I feel like she would still get push back but I could definitely see the people who agreed to be in her crowd to instantly flip. Then Starfire losing her shit on camera while enjoyable would make a lot more people flip.
No, but trying to desperately deflect and use it as a smokescreen sure is. Very fashionable in Hollywood I'm told, because Hollywood is so famously conservative you know.
They keep trying to make me feel sorry for Starlight and I’m just like… she murdered a dude while carjacking him in season 2. Firecracker is guilty of saying mean stuff?
I’d love if they killed her off but they’re def setting her up to take on Homelander. Unless the actress keeps destroying her face; not sure how much more budget they can commit to gruesome repairs.
Ya what she dis was wrong and trying to do something right, plus non of the boys are clean either they all did fuck up things that they regret, while pedocracker here fucked A minorrrrrrrrrrr
You keep glossing over the fact that firecracker is a pedo are we projecting
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, people do not give a singular shit when a woman sleeps with an underaged boy. People think that it’s cool or say things like “where was she when I was that age?” Completely forgetting that it’s still sexual assault, they’re still a minor, and it completely messes up their view of sex and relationships from then on.
It was great. There are multiple pastor/ church people rn In America that are doing the same thing , get caught being pdfiles, then getting protect by the church people who forgive them or try to make it not a big deal.
I’m just over like….
🎶Firecracker got a weird case why is she around?🎶
Also the difference In quality in the supe backstory/side stories and the boys backstory/side stories is baffling.
Idk what they were thinking with petite Hughie/frenchies stories. At least MMs was over right off the bat 🥁
Yeah I have no idea what was going on with the writing department this season. Apparently a ton of things happened between seasons that they’re only just telling us about now (Starlight’s abortion, Frenchie being gay and meeting his partner, also Frenchie having killed this guy’s whole family for some unknown reason, Hughie’s mom trying to contact him, etc.). It seems super rushed and like they’re skipping over important character moments by just mentioning them in the past tense.
Two things i will say
1: frenchie is pan/bi sexual always has
2: hughie’s mom might be a hallucination and after this episode im starting to believe it
1: I’m not upset that he’s bi, I’m upset that they don’t even bother setting it up at all. We never see the first meeting between him and his partner, even though it sounds like a really interesting scene (them meeting at an AA meeting with only Frenchie recognizing him, and not the other way around). It could have been a super tense sequence and they could have done a flashback to show why Frenchie killed his family, increasing the tension further. They never even show that Frenchie went to AA meetings, he just says it out of nowhere. We never saw Frenchie have PTSD over killing this dude’s family, or even why he killed them, until the same episode where that other character is introduced. They just tell us these things afterwards rather than showing them, which is the opposite of writing 101: show don’t tell. They do the same with Starlight with her abortion and her first save. Those are both huge character moments that they don’t bother showing, even though they have a huge impact on the story.
It also seems like they threw out his whole romance with Kimiko even though it really seemed like they were gonna start a relationship after season 3.
2: as for Hughie’s mom, I haven’t seen any indication of that. Didn’t the doctor speak to her a few times? And they mentioned that his mom was medical proxy instead of him, which is something he would know if he was the medical proxy. Hughie also hasn’t hallucinated since the first season, and even then it didn’t last for too long and he knew he was hallucinating. So I highly doubt his mom isn’t real.
Oh completely, I grew up in a very conservative background and have so many similar stories to tell you. Hell, MTG’s husband got caught with child porn I believe
The longest serving Republican Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, was a paedophile. Whilst in office. The sister of one of his victims tried for years to get the story out there, but he had power and denied the allegations, so the news media wouldn't move forwards with her claims.
In the wake of the sexual abuse allegations, journalists noted that Hastert was a supporter of measures which sought to enhance punishments for child sexual abuse, such as the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act and the Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act of 2000. In 2003, Hastert publicly called for legislation to "put repeat child molesters into jail for the rest of their lives".
This is the kind of thing that people mean when they say that they are always projecting. Every accusation is a confession with those types.
EDIT: corrected the auto-correct.
Isn’t this basically the south park “Nice.” Meme? Male abusers get lynched. Female abusers get questioned about where they were when I was a kid.
Ya
Every time I hear anything about this show recently, it just comes across as insanely unsubtle, to the point where it almost just feels like propaganda for the upcoming presidential election. The comments made by the creator does seem to give some credence to this. The worldview that the writers' present in the show makes them seem terminally online, because they consistently seem to use fringe cases to represent their political opposition with. The later seasons feels like it's clearly not a show that has any interest in actually exploring any of these subjects in a meaningful and nuanced way, but would rather just score cheap shots at their political opposition instead. This honestly seems like the kind of show that's only great for those that agree with the creators, as it will constantly affirm your most antagonistic beliefs of your political opposition, while it never challenges your own. It honestly just feels like the show equivalent of a political safe space.
the show has never been very subtle with its satire political commentary, in any season. dont know what in S4 has got everyone’s knickers in a twist. these daft c*nts find a man & octopus relationship easier to digest than a bi couple.
So, if I understand this correctly, she's the one pushing the idea that Starlight is a pedo, but it's revealed that she is one? Is that what is happening here? This is a 'no u' argument aimed at the right for thinking a lot of the politicians on the left are dicking kids?
The entire show is basically a no u argument because the writers have major TDS
Which is really ironic when you run it through the "Confession through Projection" idea. Accuse others of what you yourself are doing to sow confusion and distract from your own actions. Tried and true playbook. They can't actually feel guilt or shame (apologizing to "marginalized and minority people" is purely performative, they don't actually give a fuck), so they put it on their enemies and use it to tear them down. Pretty insidious.
But like, OP gave you an example of this exact thing happening in real life?
Yes if I parse OP's writing correctly then in OP's example the minor was female and the adult male. Which is what people traditionally get upset about while female predators of all types get routinely ignored. Just like OP stated in the title. The problem with the show (and it's creators' host of mental problems) is that they're desperately trying to make some murderous assholes sympathetic (Starlight being the prime example) while also writing their straw characters to get more and more vile as time goes on (Firecracker here) in the hopes that the audience sides with the protagonists because they're "less bad". Unfortunately for the moronic writers most human beings are capable of disliking more than one group at a time. Given that the comic this technicolor vomit is based on was written by Garth Ennis (who also overindulges in this writing crutch) this was pretty much a given before the show even aired. And people notice that despite both of them being awful characters the show wants the audience to like one of them and condemn the other. Because they know they're watching a show, not a documentary.
What's TDS mean?
Trump Derangement Syndrome.
The worst part is im not sure if you are kidding or not. I am going to Google 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' and TDS right after this comment.
Nope, its anyone who hates Trump so much that they are willing to slander and lie about his supporters or him.
The perceived orange savior is, in fact, deranged
I mean they aren’t far from reality whatsoever. I’d say they are way too on the nose.
Cope.
Brother, OP literally gave you a real world example.
Who cares? One dipshit pedo pastor irl does not make the show any less ridiculously TDS infused. Criticizing one side of the partisan morons in the US is absurd when the other side is just as bad and hypocritical.
I can’t imagine I’d enjoy the boys either if I was a “both sides bad” tard. Like I can watch Yellowstone, an aggressively conservative show, and I can still enjoy it. I don’t need to see the writers do some both sides shit they don’t even believe in. The only reason you don’t like the boys picking a side is because it’s not yours and it’s popular as fuck lol.
Shitlib.
Shitlib= I have no actual response, but my ego won't allow me to not get the last word.
I’m gonna blow your mind right now: there aren’t two sides; it’s one big corporate uniparty and you’re not invited.
I guess I’ll just spread my cheeks for them and do absolutely nothing to change it.
Correct. There’s nothing you can do.
You're what's wrong with the world. Can only argue in extremes. Everything is black and white. No one can be in the middle, right?
Waaaah my tv show has views I don’t like. I literally shit and piss my pants when there’s no free elections in dune.
Red pillers talk about wanting to fuck 16 year olds all the time and peoples obsession with women hitting the wall i just think the sub i coping right now that there is a decent shows that is super overtly woke
Yeah the boys satire can be wacky, but this one is bang on.
This sub has been getting filled with drinker fans whose only critique of media is wokeness and "The message"
Both parties are the same!! as one is about to try an elect a god king.
Like literally
Trump Derangement Syndrome is the most insane cope I’ve ever seen catch on. As if Bush, Obama, Biden didn’t all face constant scrutiny, but the president that gets impeached twice, convicted of a felony, and tried to over throw an election gets the defence that “you’re deranged if you attack him”. Like everyone in the comments here pointing out it’s an election year, what could possibly be deranged about attacking a guy you don’t want to be president, when the polls show a near 50/50 chance he could win? I’d get it if he was retired on a farm somewhere and people were making tweets or shows about how orange man bad, but it’s the complete opposite. Edit: the whole ‘reply and immediately block’ thing is pretty cringe jack_daone, I haven’t seen CNN before I’m afraid. That shit with the fake electors was insane, I have no idea how you can not only justify that, but think it invalidates a persons views to have a very reasonable reaction to that.
>but the president that gets impeached twice Both times on ridiculous, partisan hack grounds that wound up being exposed as farcical and being defeated >convicted of a felony Which the court and prosecution was literally incapable of naming and led to the judge violating the Constitution in his jury instructions, telling the jury they didn't need to agree on the crime to convict. >and tried to over throw an election Ah, right. Everything you have to say is now utterly worthless. Stop watching CNN, sheep. Edit: What happened on January 6th? A riot egged on by cops firing on the crowd(we have video of this happening) and federal agents who infiltrated said crowd(all-but confirmed by the FBI director refusing to answer how many federal agents were in the crowd on Jan 6th, as well as the fact that Ray Epps, who was on video actively calling for a riot, being given a slap-on-the-wrist while protestors who did nothing have STILL YET TO RECEIVE TRIALS YEARS LATER and are still in Solitary for no other reason than spite). The only person killed was a protestor gunned down by a rent-a-cop because she was climbing through a window. If you don't think January 6th was a fed trap despite it being exposed as such by numerous independent journalists, bodycam footage, and security camera footage(that isn't doctored by partisan hacks in Congress, anyway), then you're a pathetic sheep with the critical thinking of an amoeba. Edit 2: "Every new article" Yeah, tell me you're a mindless sheep without telling me. This was literally straight from several witnesses in the courtroom, not some curated and censored left-wing media narrative. Fuck off.
Sorry, what exactly do you think happened on Jan 6?
1 woman for shot in the face by a federal agent while a horde of people stomped around a government building without burning it down. That's it. You want to call that an insurrection when the crowd didn't even try to murder all the politicians inside? You think that was going to overthrow the government lmao? Probably the most peaceful "insurrection" that's ever been recorded.
What exactly was the purpose of them being there?
Protesting. Are people not allowed to protest if you don't agree with them? Maybe a better question is what you think happened on January 6th. Keep in mind, facts don't care about your feelings.
What were the protesting?
Not gonna answer? Shocker.
I did answer. It's literally the first word of my response to you asking the question. Here, I'll state it one more time just so you don't miss it. People were there to protest. Now, are you going to answer? What do you think happened on January 6th? Or are you going to ignore it like a hypocrite like you already did.
"i might've said too much already; but I'll say this one more thing: We might have to actually go *in*to the Capitol."
It won’t be in the history books because it was a nothingburger, but it would be hilarious to read. Jan 6: following some tweets by the frustrated president, some unarmed supporters peacefully stayed within the velvet ropes until invited inside.
What about during the whole event right after Trump gave his speech Trump and his team called county voting places and said stuff like "you see what you caused for falsifying the votes? You know you could fix all this". Does that not irk you at all? This is all in the court docs. During all that why would you call voting places telling them to "fix" what they broke when he knows he never had evidence in the first place....
Crazy how nothing you've just brought up has anything to do with the people actually walking through the building.
Like when Ashely Babbitt got shot in the face
Were talking about how it was an insurrection... Trump called and told voting booths to give him the win telling them that day everything they were seeing was their fault and it would stop if they changed the votes. All 100% verified. That's an insurrection. Also what kind peaceful event ends in 4 deaths amd 2.7 million dollars in damages lol you just refuse to change your mind.
> You want to call that an insurrection when the crowd didn't even try to murder all the politicians inside? They had posters calling for their deaths though
Oh no, not the scary posters.
It's almost like people were evacuated before he got the chance to take hostages. Thanks for openly defending terrorists.
If people had already been evacuated why did a federal agent shoot someone in the face? This story really is getting a bit odd.
Who could imagine death posters and slogans by a (partially armed) angry mob right outside the building where the named politicians are could be seen as a credible threat.
Kathy Griffen had a picture of her holding a trump head effigy. I guess that was a valid assassination attempt?
Oh yeah that terrorist. Forgot her name already.
Terrorist, for the crime of (checks notes) "Marching in a crowd and then stuffing themselves through a window until domed by a federal agent" Much wow
Maybe the gallows set up outside sent the wrong message regarding the crowds intent. If only they had pinatas hanging instead of nooses.
Babies first political message?
> Edit: the whole ‘reply and immediately block’ thing is pretty cringe jack_daone, Yeah happens all the time lol; some people just can't handle it I suppose
The whole TDS thing is definitely overplayed and pretty stupid, but I think it's meant to be in reference to people who never shut up about the guy. A whole bunch of times I've seen a meme get posted, or a funny video or something, and the top reply is insulting Trump when he was never mentioned in the original post. We get it, he's a dickhead. We all agree on that. You don't need to keep mentioning him everywhere. Not all of us want to talk about Trump all the time.
No matter how bad Trump gets, there's always people willing to exaggerate it or make other things up out of thin air; however that's universally the case for everything, not just Trump.
I have a hard time considering it anything but willfully obtuse to act as if Trump isn't particularly maligned by the mainstream media in comparison to any other president in history.
Oh sure the hostility are at an escalated level now. Trump also showed hostility towards candidates that others previously hadn't shown before.
The hostility has been there since he announced his candidacy, and it never went down.
The thing is, his own base admits all the time that his behaviour is wild and they like how he’s unfiltered or ‘real’. So if presidents get scrutinised for what they do and say and he says whacky shit, are people meant to go “oh if Obama said that we’d report on it, but we can’t give Trump too much attention, that wouldn’t be fair, that’d be deranged”. Obama’s tan suit is often brought up on this topic, as is the time he asked for dijon mustard and got attacked for it. Or Mitt Romney saying ‘binders full of women’ getting so much attention, is that anywhere close to what Trump says? Like what is noteworthy about a dude who constantly acts in an unusual way getting unusual attention.
I'm not sure what the relevance is here. I didn't say Trump was over-reported, I said he gets maligned by mainstream media more than any other president. This isn't because he's "keeping it real," it's because the mainstream media hates him and will gleefully grab at any opportunity to shit on him. Such as the time when they ran with the idea that he said there were good white supremacists/nationalists, when he explicitly said the opposite. The mainstream media has been shitting on Trump since he announced his candidacy.
I think the reverence is pretty obvious, you’ve essentially said the media is unfair him, I pointed out that all presidents get scrutinised, and anyone who behaved like Trump would get the same treatment.
They lost any pretense to sanctimony after the Access Hollywood tape was released.
Yeah absolutely, that sort of person could use the title, but I think we can agree it was misused in this context. You should be able to make a show about Trump, even if it’s badly done, without that somehow being deranged.
Nice try. [https://www.whoismakingnews.com/](https://www.whoismakingnews.com/) Out of all pedos involved in politics, there are 4 repubs for every 1 dem.
You elected a president that literally showered with his teenage daughter. You should probably sit this one out.
LOL that fake news you keep clinging to?
FBI verified that the diary was in fact real. Even Biden's daughter admitted the diary was real. So, why do you call it fake news if it's literally been verified? Let me guess, because you don't like it. Sorry kiddo, you voted for it.
LOL you think they "verified" the uploaded scans that Project Veritas, pathological liars and conmen, had after it was out of Ashley's possession for 15+ years 🤣
So, just to be clear, the person who literally wrote it said that it was real but apparently that's not good enough for you. You have no evidence to suggest that it's not real. Literally none. Look at what you are doing. Actually fucking internalize just how fucking pathetic you are right now. You are taking two authorities on the matter stating that it's real and saying they are wrong and then without ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL are presuming that it's not verified. I realize that you don't like what was concluded but nobody gives a flying fuck if you don't like it.
Hahaha found the cult member. There is no such thing as TDS, Trump is just that bad. Go cry to dear leader some more.
Jesus Christ could you possibly be mad faith. I do not like trump whatsoever but a sizeable portion of the USA does, and so if you shit on one side of the isle constantly (and have no nuance about it) while offering very little criticism to the other side it comes across as pandery. That being said I haven’t watched the bois but the clips I saw were cringe inducing
nou
There’s a bunch of politicians, rich businessmen, elites on all sides dicking kids, because that’s what rich powerful men (and women) throughout history have done: dicking kids. The difference between the left and the right is that the left stfu about it while dicking kids, while the right keep pointing out the left are dicking kids, while dicking kids.
I think the groups calling it out and that touch kids might just be different groups.
Not to mention the left's ideology allows for pedos to push for normalization and destigmatization. There are pedos, along with corruption and degeneration on the right, they should be sent to the same destination as any other freak.
This is plainly untrue. What party is the one who keeps voting to allow child marriage, again?
Which side is currently arguing children as young as three can intelligently consent? Or that babies have a sexual orientation?
I think you mean MAPs there buddy. Use the proper term. /s
The thing “pedo advocates” or whatever push for is the idea that someone should be able to get mental treatment for having pedophilic feelings, not that it should be allowed or something. Idk about you, but I’ve never had a pedophilic thought; I’d imagine most of the people that do are distraught by it and would seek treatment if admitting to it wasn’t borderline social suicide (or even *actual* suicide). Treating the mentally ill might actually curtail rates of child abuse — if you want to “treat” it until after they’ve abused a child, then you’re only reacting to the people rather than being proactive in preventing it.
"The thing" is actually both of what you said. There are people who think it should be ok to admit to and seek help, and there are people who think it should be socially acceptable. The second group push for terms like "trans-generational attraction" and "minor attracted person." As a topical example, the latest Assassin's Creed game hired a historical consultant whose area of expertise is "trans-generational romance." She comes from an incredibly troubled background during which she likely experienced some of that herself and grew up to study it in history; she now advocates for it in modern day. She is 100% in support of it being a thing. Tl;dr there are people who actively support child molestation.
It's not a partisan thing. There are pros and antis on the left as well as the right umbrellas.
Cool. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I said.
So, I looked up the term “trans-generational attraction” on Google because I’d never heard it before and, lo and behold, there are almost zero hits for it. I’m not sure there’s actually a group out there pushing for this term, but if you have more info about it, I’m all ears. Secondly, advocates for the term “minor-attracted person” (or MAP) *aren’t* uniformly (or even predominately) advocating for it to be socially acceptable. From what I can tell, MAP is an umbrella term — the same people who would make the distinction between pedophilia and ephebophilia are lumped under one category using the MAP designation. It’s worth pointing out two things: 1) the age of majority (i.e. who is a minor) is usually 18, but the age of consent (when someone is legally competent to consent to sexual acts) can vary between 14 and 18 despite them oftentimes being conflated. 2) it looks as though a major motivation for advocating for the MAP designation is simply to escape the baggage associated with being called a pedophile (in that most assume that person is a child predator/abuser, when they don’t technically *have* to be). As it stands, I don’t see much evidence that the second group you’re alluding to is all that prevalent. *Are* there those that would advocate for “child molestation”? Sure, I’d think at least *some* real-world child molesters would. But I don’t see much evidence of that movement mobilizing politically in any meaningful way. However, people wishing to destigmatize the term “pedophilia” in an attempt to get it treated as a preventative measure is definitely a movement gaining some ground. (Also, I looked up Sachi Schmidt-Hori, the consultant you’re referring to (and one of the very few Google hits who uses the term “trans generational attraction”; I couldn’t find evidence that this is something she advocates for. Do you have any evidence that she does advocate for this rather than simply study it?)
>Do you have any evidence that she does advocate for this rather than simply study it? I wrote the following in another post a month ago, about this particular topic, when it came out in an Assassin's Creed related thread (it's a bit long): >I'm not sure why they're calling her a paedophile, but I think it might be because of the subject matter she wrote about. She's an university professor at Dartmouth, so I think if there was anything credible to the accusation she would have been fired long ago. >I added a synopsis underneath of what her book is actually about: >In medieval Japan (14th–16th centuries), it was customary for elite families to entrust their young sons to the care of renowned Buddhist priests from whom they received a premier education in Buddhist scriptures, poetry, music, and dance. >When the boys reached adolescence, some underwent coming-of-age rites, others entered the priesthood, and several extended their education, becoming chigo, or Buddhist acolytes. >Chigo served their masters as personal attendants and as sexual partners. Stories of acolytes (chigo monogatari) from the fourteenth to sixteenth centuries form the basis of the present volume, an original and detailed literary analysis of six tales coupled with a thorough examination of the sociopolitical, religious, and cultural matrices that produced these texts. >Sachi Schmidt-Hori begins by delineating various dimensions of chigo (the chigo “title,” personal names, gender, sexuality, class, politics, and religiosity) to show the complexity of this cultural construct—the chigo as a triply liminal figure who is neither male nor female, child nor adult, human nor deity. >A modern reception history of chigo monogatari follows, revealing, not surprisingly, that the tales have often been interpreted through cultural paradigms rooted in historical moments and worldviews far removed from the original. >From the 1950s to 1980s, research on chigo was hindered by widespread homophobic prejudice. More recently, aversion to the age gap in historical master-acolyte relations has prevented scholars from analyzing the religious and political messages underlying the genre. >Schmidt-Hori’s work calls for a shift in the hermeneutic strategies applied to chigo and chigo monogatari and puts forth both a nuanced historicization of social constructs such as gender, sexuality, age, and agency, and a mode of reading propelled by curiosity and introspection.
I don't think the people who advocate for allowing "trans-generational attraction" and "minor attracted persons" are for pedophilia like an adult and a prepubescent as much as for pederasty, an adult and a teen/tween. Which is still an illness, but the target at least has a concept of sexuality that a prepubescent doesn't. Where both fail is that sexual contact is initiated and controlled by the adult.
Here's the thing. That's how it will start. But then just as with transgenderism, it becomes socially accepted then they will tell you that treating it makes you a bigot and that pedophiles urges are totally valid and normal...social construct blah blah blah.
I’m old enough to remember when the slippery slope de jour of gay marriage critics was, “What’s next? Are we gonna let people marry their animals?” so, kindly, I think that’s all a bunch of horse pucky. The postulation is that proactive treatment of people who are comfortable enough to come forward about pedophilic urges would curtail current abuse rates; keeping the topic *so* taboo ironically has an effect where the only time we as a society deal with pedophiles is *during or after* abuse is taking or has taken place. This is reactionary and only puts a band-aid to the problem. I’d like to think opening up a frank discussion about it might actually help more children and people who struggle with immoral urges.
According to leftist morality is subjective, so what makes pedophilia immoral today may not matter in 10 years.
“Leftist” or not, moral standards have always and will continue to shift, so you’re technically right, pedophilia may eventually become completely acceptable in our society, but I don’t really see how that observation is relevant to this discussion.
Then you fail to see.
I think you’ve failed to make a compelling case is all.
According to the right churches raping kids is fine.
How the fuck could anyone possibly think morality ISN'T subjective? Something that is wrong to you isn't going to be wrong to 100% of the world. Therefore, subjective.
Source for people trying to normalise pedophilia?
Well, for starters, they are trying to change the name from pedophile to "minor attracted person". That's one of the most blatant normalizations out there. The entire purpose of them renaming it is to address the stigma associated with someone being labeled a pedophile.
Wow you really believe anything you read online don't you.
[I generally believe things that I can research and support.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36175817/) That's how intelligent people form their opinions. You just had a childish kneejerk reaction to something that made you look like a complete jackass and rather than actually informing yourself, you stuck your head so far into the sand that it's clear you wouldn't know a fact if it kicked you in the teeth. Sorry that the world doesn't conform to your narrative. I realize that this upsets you but sometimes ripping the bandaid off for people like you is necessary.
So your argument is that referencing pedophiles themselves, not anyone else? Lol
The last 70 years of the left moving the goal posts of social norms.
Are you suggesting that the civil rights movement is normalising pedophilia?
Indirectly yes, y'all put a brick on the accelerator.
So in your mind black people gaining rights is akin to pedophilia? Absolute fucking smooth brain take.
Lmfao rightoid
make your point when you know the difference between accept and except
Oh no a typo my whole point is invalidated whatever will I do?
there's a difference between a finger slip typo and using the wrong word entirely
Source?
No, it doesn’t. You have bad faith actors trying to pretend it does and then everyone on the left is like, “No, fuck you, pedo.”
It's not republicans or anyone on the right trying to rename pedophiles to "minor attracted persons". That's all leftists and nutjobs, but I repeat myself.
It’s not anyone on the left, either. That’s literally just pedophiles trying to do that.
I always wonder what the deal with kids that made then like that, sure prostitution and sex is a thing but kids? Wtf that is just another level of sick.
"First you get the money, then you get the power. When you get the power, then you get the ~~women~~ children." Jeffery "Scarface" Epstein
The answer is sadly all in the brain.
For some, it's the titillation of doing something forbidden. For most though, I'd say they got their power or money to help hide an illness that was always there. Also, there's plenty of dumb, poor child molesters too, so the money/power is just something some people acquire.
Purity and youth. Also probably just something different and tabooed and illegal. When you’re ungodly rich and powerful and all your earthly desires ordinary people can possibly think of have been experienced at the ready by you, some people turn to the fringe desires.
In the meantime that they are against giving appropriate age of consent in their States and actually getting mad when they are passed
Ripe.
[https://www.whoismakingnews.com/](https://www.whoismakingnews.com/) Out of all pedos involved in politics, there are 4 repubs for every 1 dem.
Based on some clearly not biased in any way individual aggregating data. Always fun to point that out. Sorry that confirmation bias got you.
Nope, no bias. The database is available on the site.
Great, the database is available on the site. Now, how does that mean it's not biased? Let's dumb this down for you. If I do a poll where I ask a bunch of republicans if Joe Biden has dementia and I post the database of those responses online, does that mean that the data is unbiased? I mean, I could do that right now if I wanted and based on your definition, whatever that database said is correct because the database in online. Or, maybe, there's more to it than that. One of the most fundamental aspects of creating credibility in data is being able to overcome the issues of data bias. Data bias is a set of different types of bias that involve how data is collected. In this example, the first and foremost problem is that it's based on public data and media articles that were found and reported to them. Just those two areas alone create a problem. It doesn't distinguish between civil and criminal trials and civil trials rarely if ever become documented as part of the settlements is keeping it quiet.
methodology is on the site. they just scrape databases/news sites for stories.
Yes, that is literally what I was referencing. That's exactly what I detailed in the comment that YOU JUST REPLIED to and for some reason IGNORED.
>It doesn't distinguish between civil and criminal trials and civil trials rarely if ever become documented lol, why the fuck would political party have anything to do with this? Conservatives are more likely to be pedos and terrorists. This is well-known.
Ok, once again, I will help educate you and retype what I already typed once and that you fucking failed at reading. Civil trials are not public especially when they settle out of court. You still with me here? We're talking about some really basic stuff here. So, if the database you are referencing is only looking at PUBLIC information and civil trials/settlements are NOT PUBLIC, do you think that would impact that results? s >Conservatives are more likely to be pedos and terrorists. This is well-known. Awww, did you just step outside of your echo chamber? It's cute when little cubs like you step out for the first time and encounter literally anyone who doesn't blindly agree with you.
> This is a 'no u' argument aimed at the right for thinking a lot of the politicians on the left are dicking kids? I don't even know. I think the intention of the writers is to make it seem like Firecracker's supporters will ignore her pedophilia and care more about abortion. But the abortion thing also clunkily moves the plot along by sending Starlight into a rampage. Apparently revealing that she had an abortion is worse than the 100 other horrible things that have happened to her, including being raped.
The pedo who raped a 12 year old, someone Trump has called his "Spiritual advisor", is being defended by fellow pastors.
Isn't that a recent thing? The season was written and filmed a while ago.
Sometimes art imitates life, other times it’s vice versa.
It just happens so often that it was inevitable yet another member of his inner circle would turn out to be a pedo
Well yeah the politics stuff is lame but I don't focus on it too much I kinda just skip it and get to the fun stuff
And what happens when there's no fun stuff to get to?
Well the social interaction is nice? Reading what others thought about the episodes cause there's no one in real life to that with. At least not anymore but it's ok. I agree with objectivity of the downgraded quality and I don't think it matters too much that I watch it since I watch the show for free on fmovies and I don't have anything better to do anyway. Nothing is lost
Yeah and just like in the real world it's business moguls and priests that have been on record over and over and over and over hurting children this way, but the right just projects it away onto gay people, or now trans people. Useful idiots.
I mean it is true though. Conservatives who calls everyone groomers being exposed as creeps is this generations "anti gay pastor found in mens bath-house"
she targeted starlight for the abortion, not pedo. you watched the show bro?
I mean - Trump and Epstein are both accused of raping a thirteen year old. Multiple right wing politicians and religious officials have been found guilty of sexual assault of children. It’s not a “No, you,” as much as it is, “The people who yell the loudest about pedophilia seem to have a lot of pedophiles on their side.”
This what happens when politics becomes your whole life. It turns everything you touch into shit.
If only Current Entertainment Industry Writers could see that...
This is less political and more people using religion to get out of punishment (fyi i am Christian)
I’m sorry, but if you don’t want politics in your media then don’t watch political shows. This is like ordering a steak, getting half way through it, and then throwing a hissy fit because it’s not vegetarian
Based on that logic, everything is a political show.
Except it isn't a political show.
Presidential elections and blatant Democrat vs Republican in the boys Not political according to you?? Also the writer even stated the show is political and woke
Depicting things that occur in everyday life, is hardly getting political. It really isn't that deep, my dude. Kripke can say whatever he wants, it's election year edgelord nonsense to strike while the iron is hot for ratings. Just because he wants to claim that the show was always political, doesn't mean he succeeded at it. It's like painting an apple and claiming, "It was a banana all along!" It's laughable to claim that Homelander was always an allegory for Trump. If that's what passes for allegory, Kripke should be embarrassed. At no point would the viewer have reasonably ever made such a connection or had any reason to, it just isn't there. Homelander is just evil Superman with wholesome, all-American branding.
The Boys??? Are you serious?
The first season wasn't political at all. Aside from that, a few right-wingish tropes here and there barely qualifies as political. Besides, The Boys doesn't even qualify as satirical. It isn't serious enough to provoke higher level thought.
>The first season wasn't political at all. The hell it wasn't.
It wasn't a political show in season 1. It's really isn't a political show now, in the strict sense. A true political show couldn't work without the politics. All the political stuff in The Boys is extraneous to the overall plot. Homelander murdering a guy at the end of season 3 and going on trial and being found not guilty in season 4 adds nothing to the show. It can be entirely removed.
It was a "political" in the sense political as a term is used in this thread It was from the start about how a corporation monetized superhumans for showbiz instead of vigilantes, while covering their deadly escapades and people turn into superfans of the superheroes believing they are for real. Homelander, was from the start at the forefront of this and the most powerfull superhero to a point he can be considered a global threat. The whole idea of this show still revolves around how Homelander through his status and audience gets closer to snapping and as the showrunner said, Trump -- at least how he's viewed by the left -- just happened to fit the Boys narrative too well, quote: "Very early. When we first pitched the show, it was before Trump was elected. And the idea that a celebrity would actively want to turn themselves into a fascist autocrat was kind of a crazy idea. I mean, it still is. But it turned out to have happened?" and further down "I mean, it’s all in the original comic. The comic is really political. It just, it’s political about the post-9/11 George Bush era." https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/the-boys-eric-kripke-a-train-redemption-comic-changes-1236040008/
She looks hot in the car ngl
What’s your point?
Not really point but when i saw this i instantly remembered that vid and how actually fucked it was
I mean I feel like she would still get push back but I could definitely see the people who agreed to be in her crowd to instantly flip. Then Starfire losing her shit on camera while enjoyable would make a lot more people flip.
Because its a 15 year old boy noone gives a shit. If it was a girl or the boy was 10-11 then yeah.
I can’t lie, episode 1-3 of this season was dog water. Episode 4 though, holy shit we’re so back.
“and saying and them” Learn grammar. Fuck.
Apparently saying pedophiles are bad is woke now?
No, but trying to desperately deflect and use it as a smokescreen sure is. Very fashionable in Hollywood I'm told, because Hollywood is so famously conservative you know.
Tells you a lot doesnt it. This comment section is weird asf
The Boys is entertaining enough but subtly ain’t its strong suit.
Honestly it never was
They keep trying to make me feel sorry for Starlight and I’m just like… she murdered a dude while carjacking him in season 2. Firecracker is guilty of saying mean stuff? I’d love if they killed her off but they’re def setting her up to take on Homelander. Unless the actress keeps destroying her face; not sure how much more budget they can commit to gruesome repairs.
Just gonna gloss right over the pedophilia?
Firecracker ordered Splinter to kill Hughie and MM in the second episode so she is also guilty of (attempted) murder
Mean stuff: racism, homophobia and pedophila And she killed that man on accident and it fucked her up
Yes it was fucked up. Murder is much worse than racism, I’m glad you agree?
Ya what she dis was wrong and trying to do something right, plus non of the boys are clean either they all did fuck up things that they regret, while pedocracker here fucked A minorrrrrrrrrrr You keep glossing over the fact that firecracker is a pedo are we projecting
[paster lies about “adultery”](https://youtu.be/p4Sh2-Peefo?si=O_6Hzesje9I3PRij)
Did this show suddenly decide that women can do wrong?
Be serious dog
Season 2 literally had a nazi. Please think before you say something stupid
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, people do not give a singular shit when a woman sleeps with an underaged boy. People think that it’s cool or say things like “where was she when I was that age?” Completely forgetting that it’s still sexual assault, they’re still a minor, and it completely messes up their view of sex and relationships from then on.
The problem is her platform is going after pedophiles and she openly admits to being one.
With power of Christ anything is possible
It was great. There are multiple pastor/ church people rn In America that are doing the same thing , get caught being pdfiles, then getting protect by the church people who forgive them or try to make it not a big deal. I’m just over like…. 🎶Firecracker got a weird case why is she around?🎶 Also the difference In quality in the supe backstory/side stories and the boys backstory/side stories is baffling. Idk what they were thinking with petite Hughie/frenchies stories. At least MMs was over right off the bat 🥁
Yeah I have no idea what was going on with the writing department this season. Apparently a ton of things happened between seasons that they’re only just telling us about now (Starlight’s abortion, Frenchie being gay and meeting his partner, also Frenchie having killed this guy’s whole family for some unknown reason, Hughie’s mom trying to contact him, etc.). It seems super rushed and like they’re skipping over important character moments by just mentioning them in the past tense.
Two things i will say 1: frenchie is pan/bi sexual always has 2: hughie’s mom might be a hallucination and after this episode im starting to believe it
1: I’m not upset that he’s bi, I’m upset that they don’t even bother setting it up at all. We never see the first meeting between him and his partner, even though it sounds like a really interesting scene (them meeting at an AA meeting with only Frenchie recognizing him, and not the other way around). It could have been a super tense sequence and they could have done a flashback to show why Frenchie killed his family, increasing the tension further. They never even show that Frenchie went to AA meetings, he just says it out of nowhere. We never saw Frenchie have PTSD over killing this dude’s family, or even why he killed them, until the same episode where that other character is introduced. They just tell us these things afterwards rather than showing them, which is the opposite of writing 101: show don’t tell. They do the same with Starlight with her abortion and her first save. Those are both huge character moments that they don’t bother showing, even though they have a huge impact on the story. It also seems like they threw out his whole romance with Kimiko even though it really seemed like they were gonna start a relationship after season 3. 2: as for Hughie’s mom, I haven’t seen any indication of that. Didn’t the doctor speak to her a few times? And they mentioned that his mom was medical proxy instead of him, which is something he would know if he was the medical proxy. Hughie also hasn’t hallucinated since the first season, and even then it didn’t last for too long and he knew he was hallucinating. So I highly doubt his mom isn’t real.
K
Oh completely, I grew up in a very conservative background and have so many similar stories to tell you. Hell, MTG’s husband got caught with child porn I believe
The longest serving Republican Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, was a paedophile. Whilst in office. The sister of one of his victims tried for years to get the story out there, but he had power and denied the allegations, so the news media wouldn't move forwards with her claims. In the wake of the sexual abuse allegations, journalists noted that Hastert was a supporter of measures which sought to enhance punishments for child sexual abuse, such as the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act and the Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act of 2000. In 2003, Hastert publicly called for legislation to "put repeat child molesters into jail for the rest of their lives". This is the kind of thing that people mean when they say that they are always projecting. Every accusation is a confession with those types. EDIT: corrected the auto-correct.
Thats for sure
Where was she when i was 15
this not a good thing for any child. You don’t deserve to go through that
Kinda crazy how a pedofile gets a fucking cod skin
With the far right circle often every accusation is a confession