Ethel Cain Posts Her D1k Pic On Insta

[Bronco 18,834]

15 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

I mean, again, I think the grooming described here is horrific, but I’m more inclined to argue that the emphasis should be on targeting the perps through moderation and law enforcement than it should be on the general public to consider that there’s a remote possibility that their thirst trap might be used to normalize sexual abuse (because that causal link isn’t fully their responsibility). 

But its on all of us. We are absolutely responsible for the culture we create if it is a culture that if it is an effective grooming tool. 

And the blurring of boundaries between adult and under 18 spaces, alongside people refusing to adapt in *any* way to accommodate other people is something we need to take responsibility for. 

Its why I used the alcohol example. Its also why things like drug consumption rooms work etc. 

By creating clear delineation between spaces and setting behavioural expectations within them, we reduce risk and make it easier to respond and tackle harm. 

This isn't about puritanical bans on nudity or ****ography. Its about taking self-responsibility for what we ourselves do. Because if we do that, we aren't leaving it to up companies like Meta which have a perverse incentive to allow or even enable harm for profit. 

And if we take self-responsibility, it reduces the ammunition that the right wing rely on (and deliberately try to build) to justify their puritanical censorship pushes. 

[Ladle Ghoulash 39,050]

18 minutes ago, Bronco said:

But its on all of us. We are absolutely responsible for the culture we create if it is a culture that if it is an effective grooming tool. 

And the blurring of boundaries between adult and under 18 spaces, alongside people refusing to adapt in *any* way to accommodate other people is something we need to take responsibility for. 

Its why I used the alcohol example. Its also why things like drug consumption rooms work etc. 

By creating clear delineation between spaces and setting behavioural expectations within them, we reduce risk and make it easier to respond and tackle harm. 

This isn't about puritanical bans on nudity or ****ography. Its about taking self-responsibility for what we ourselves do. Because if we do that, we aren't leaving it to up companies like Meta which have a perverse incentive to allow or even enable harm for profit. 

And if we take self-responsibility, it reduces the ammunition that the right wing rely on (and deliberately try to build) to justify their puritanical censorship pushes. 

I’d honestly be more inclined to aim for things like restricted devices for kids that can’t even download certain apps (or any apps without parental approval) because I think that gets at the specific issue more cleanly, but I see your point. 

[PartySick 168,786]

On 4/4/2026 at 7:23 AM, Bronco said:

Look at the singular talking point used by political groups when it comes to opposing the following:

Free school meals/targeted food suport for children in poverty etc - they say its not the taxpayers responsibility to feed kids, that parents shouldn't have children they can't feed.

Children social transitioning in schools & teachers being forced to inform parents even when there are legitimate child safeguarding concerns - they say the children belong to the parents and only parents can make the decision, even when teachers have evidence to support protecting the child from their parents. 

Bans on smacking children - they oppose it, again, because its not for the state to tell parents how to parent. Even though physical punishment like spankings are proven to be Adverse Childhood Experiences that cause lifelong trauma which costs society millions. 

Bans on educational materials featuring same-sex couples or any form of sex ed etc - repeatedly argued for decades, and on many occasions banned on the principle that its a parent's responsibility to teach the subjects to children and to actively teach harmful things to children as part of it. 

Parental responsibility should not be seen as gospel truth. I work with young people in the care system, every single one of those young people are in the system because of failed parents. And there are thousands of kids in the system - in the city based charity I work for we worked with over a 1000 last financial year. 

So yeah, I don't think we should sit here and palm off all responsibility to parents and ignore it ourselves. I will always think it is selfish because I personally know of 1000s of examples of parents who don't take responsibility.

And if we all swallow the selfish libertarian bollocks that we have no responsibility to others in society, especially young people, then we are passively facilitating their neglect and/or abuse. 

If my colleagues and our organisation didn't exist, it social services didn't exist. We all know what happens to those kids. And it is only because we recognise that for a healthy society to function we all have to pitch in that those young people get any form of support and protection. 

So yeah, I will always say that whether its our child or not. If we are in a space where a young person can be in accordance with the law and rules of the space that everyone in that space has responsibilities placed on them by society. That applies to kids and adults. Because without the social contract, we are all put at risk. 

Libertarian ideals are morally repugnant and based on the rejection of personal responsibility to others. They are inseparable from selfishness. And they are the tool of oppressors who seek to isolate, control and abuse those unable to defend themselves.

I don't think you can draw a one-to-one comparison between those things though 'cause people who don't support internet censorship will have different views on each of these topics.

Providing for poorer people is the responsibility of a society. Sometimes that means kids get free school lunches, sometimes it means adults get EBT or other forms of welfare. That's just having a functional society tbh. It's an investment 'cause hungry kids can't learn and become productive adults.

Trans kids' social lives are none of teachers' business. It's a private matter. You don't even have to discuss how it could be harmful to a child to out them to an intolerant family 'cause the "mind your own business" thing comes well before that. Anything said after that is moot.

Hitting kids has been proven to be detrimental to their well-being so spanking, smacking, etc is child abuse and should be legally treated as such. Hitting kids has never been about discipline, it's always been about parents' inability to regulate their own emotions and find constructive, intelligent ways to correct and teach their kids.

Banning LGBTQ literature and education is simply censorship rooted in bigotry and it's objectively wrong.

And yet, I'm absolutely of the opinion that parents should be responsible for their kids online and the rest of us shouldn't have to jump through hoops or practically dox ourselves to use websites just 'cause some scrubs reproduced and are failing to meet the responsibilities of having a child. That's more so a critique of age verification laws than anything else but it can apply to forms of censorship.

And the argument that predators use nudity online to groom and prey on kids so we should censor nudity...again, not a one-to-one but in my head it's as ridiculous as the idea that cis men are a danger to women so we must ban trans women from using public restrooms. Why place restrictions and guardrails on people who already abide by societal norms and have no interest in hurting kids, especially when those guardrails often do nothing but inconvenience the public and force predators to be even sneakier?

Kids still get hurt but now I have to give p*rnhub my blood type and social security number just to jerk off. It's stupid.

 

All that said, nudity goes against Instagram's TOS anyway 'cause they do specifically allow minors on their platform so this argument being spurred by this specific post is weird regardless of the opinion on it imo. It shouldn't exist on Insta 'cause it breaks their rules, which they have a right to set, and that's enough tbh  

[PartySick 168,786]

14 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

I’d honestly be more inclined to aim for things like restricted devices for kids that can’t even download certain apps (or any apps without parental approval) because I think that gets at the specific issue more cleanly, but I see your point. 

I'm always gonna be of the opinion that prohibition is not a solution.

You give kids a dummy phone that won't install certain apps and you create a micro economy in schools where people are trading normal cell phones that parents will have no idea about and no ability to regulate.

[apollorowling 702]

1 hour ago, Roughhouse Dandy said:

Day 4. 

You're still talking so 🤷

[Bronco 18,834]

1 hour ago, PartySick said:

I don't think you can draw a one-to-one comparison between those things though 'cause people who don't support internet censorship will have different views on each of these topics.

The individual absolutely will - but I was responding to the user who questioned me highlighting how the language and the near exact wording is a particular dogwhistle of libertarian politicians and advocacy groups who are actively seeking to undermine social cohesion and the idea of the "state". 
They use the exact same "logic" for every single issue like this "why should we do X to look after/accomodate someone else". And they use it on *every* single social topic which is what I was listing. 
 

1 hour ago, PartySick said:

Trans kids' social lives are none of teachers' business. It's a private matter. You don't even have to discuss how it could be harmful to a child to out them to an intolerant family 'cause the "mind your own business" thing comes well before that. Anything said after that is moot.

Yes & no. 
Any professional working with young people should absolutely have a professional distance from them, but we also need to ensure we build trust with the young people we work with to create the neccessary conditions for disclosures to happen. 
I don't want to know, nor do I care, that Kyle broke up with Kelly via text on Tuesday. But what I do want to know is that Kelly now has an older boyfriend and she has stopped hanging around with her friends. I want to be aware that she has 2 phones and I want to be aware that she turned up hungover after having been last seen with her older boyfriend. Because Kyle & Kelly isn't something I need to act on, but everything else is a clear safeguarding concern. 

And this is why its important that LGBT+ youth can trust that the professionals in their life are safe spaces - so that they can come out to us, in private or in class, and explicitly tell us "dad can't know as i'm worried he'd hurt me". We don't care about their social life, we don't care if they are or aren't trans, what we care about is that they are safe. 
If professionals working with young people worked on a "Mind your own business" basis, there would be zero safeguarding protections. 
 

1 hour ago, PartySick said:

And yet, I'm absolutely of the opinion that parents should be responsible for their kids online and the rest of us shouldn't have to jump through hoops or practically dox ourselves to use websites just 'cause some scrubs reproduced and are failing to meet the responsibilities of having a child. That's more so a critique of age verification laws than anything else but it can apply to forms of censorship.

So what happens to the children where the "scrubs" "are failing to meet the responsibilities". 

Like, in this specific topic, I'm not advocating for age verification laws. I'm explicitly stating we should self-police the content we produce and share in spaces shared with young people under 18. Just using common-sense notions like "lets not post uncontextualised nudity on a platform where I can't actively control who sees it". 
Especially when the platform in question has numerous allegations of it actively promoting such content to children for profit. And has only had any form of protection system in place for 10 months - and it has had whistleblowers claim it's already being broken internally for profit. 

So I ask again - what happens to the children that don't have a responsible adult looking after them? What do we say to them as a society? "Sorry, but we didn't think experiencing minimal discomfort on social media was a worthwhile personal cost to protect you" seems to be the response. 
And I don't think it's because anyone here wants it to happen, I don't and I won't say you do (or others I've argued with lol). But that is the cold hard reality of this libertarianist stance. 
 

[Bronco 18,834]

2 hours ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

I’d honestly be more inclined to aim for things like restricted devices for kids that can’t even download certain apps (or any apps without parental approval) because I think that gets at the specific issue more cleanly, but I see your point. 

In the ideal world, we ban social media. I'll never be convinced that social media is anything other than a cancer. 

[PartySick 168,786]

1 hour ago, Bronco said:

"Sorry, but we didn't think experiencing minimal discomfort on social media was a worthwhile personal cost to protect you"

Well, I would hardly call a total adjustment of social media services/activity and (sometimes) privacy invasion "minimal discomfort" but...kinda? Yeah  same as it's always been.

Kids are primarily their parents responsibility and when those parents fail, kids get hurt. I've been the child in that situation, it sucks so much, but I've never once thought "if only society changed to protect me". Though, I'm willing to admit I probably have a warped, at least partially incorrect view on that 'cause I very much have a "just leave me tf alone" stance when it comes to society which itself is probably informed and manifested by trauma

Anyway, the issue is this is a problem with no real good solution 'cause, as stated above, prohibition just becomes a nuisance for normal folks and makes predators even more elusive. Kids still get hurt but now it's harder to catch the bad guys and everyone else is grievanced by BS that doesn't actually work anyway.

Kids just need to be taught how to be safe and that starts with teaching parents how to keep them safe. But there is literally no solution without creating an ideal world, I think.

Also, this would be an easier topic to talk about if the discorse wasn't started over Ethel's post which she was objectively wrong to post since it violates Insta's TOS and it exposes minors to frontal nudity which is always a no-no outside of specific educational or artistic situations.

 

Tl;dr - I don't think you're wrong but I don't think I'm wrong either tbh

[Bronco 18,834]

59 minutes ago, PartySick said:

Tl;dr - I don't think you're wrong but I don't think I'm wrong either tbh

Agreed. I think we're both coming at the subject wanting the same endgoal, just not agreeing on the methods. 

[Roughhouse Dandy 12,804]

6 hours ago, apollorowling said:

You're still talking so 🤷

Aht aht. Off my nuts, peasant

[nATAH 54,154]

5 hours ago, Bronco said:

In the ideal world, we ban social media. I'll never be convinced that social media is anything other than a cancer. 

it was cool when it had an actual social aspect rather than a career choice; arranging events, uploading photos, keeping in touch with long distance friends etc. your bubble was your bubble. then suddenly we "needed" these algorithmic "news" feeds that just serve us slop on a paper plate within seconds of each other...

now it's all about engagement, money, fame, exploitation and political fear mongering. your feeds are no longer about what your friends are up to, it's about what's pissing everyone off

at least forums like this manage to stay in their own lane... you can't really make a career out of being on GGD everyday

[VTV 13,333]

no offense but i didnt expect such mentality from a person with a thirst trap as their display photo