Aesthetics, art, beauty and mind agit-prop, opinion manipulation and well-poisoning games Defending our Civilization Governance & control vs anarchy UD Newswatch highlights

Netflix goes over the moral cliff (or is it “conspiracism”?) . . .

Spread the love

A pic to ponder, first:

In the aftermath of Mr Weinstein, Mr Epstein, Ms Maxwell and others (see here, the MeToo movement and how it helped set up the Kavanaugh hearings accusations), as well as the questions hovering over Prince Andrew of Windsor and others, many have begun to believe there is a lurking network of

– promotion of sexual perversities (aka perversion),
– sex trafficking (the notorious casting couch is sex trafficking),
– grooming and trafficking of minors (there is a reason for age of consent laws),
– possibly, networks of blackmail
– promotion of pornography and near pornography — often, little more than – prostitution or even rape (Linda Lovelace, if you doubt me) on film or video
– tied to deliberate desensitising of the public
– and “moar” —

. . . under colours of art and freedom of expression.

The recent case of a Netflix promoted video (apparently shot originally in France, where it somehow seems to have won awards) has led to a stir. The focus of the camera in the video often enough turns to heavily sexualised behaviour and highly suggestive poses by a group of eleven year old pre-teen girls. (I refuse to link promotional videos or still shots.)

Where, of course, the issue in the little graphic novel above therefore raises pointed questions.

Whatever has been happening with us for it to come to this? END

32 Replies to “Netflix goes over the moral cliff (or is it “conspiracism”?) . . .

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    Netflix goes over the moral cliff (or is it “conspiracism”?) . . .

  2. 2
    Mac McTavish says:

    I’m of mixed emotions about this. Are we doing our kids a favor by isolating our kids from real life? I remember the old Dick VanDyke show. Rob and Laura slept in separate beds. How did they have a kid?

    As KF won’t provide links to examples, I can’t really comment on his moral uproar.

  3. 3
    EDTA says:

    There is a line that can be drawn between
    a) keeping entertainment relatively clean, while still educating young people in private about various evils, and steering them clear of them, and
    b) showing the evils to the point of desensitizing people to them, to where they think there’s nothing they can do about them; showing them in such a way that people at the fringes start to enjoy thinking about getting involved in them; and showing them with such frequency that many think they are the norm.

  4. 4
    Belfast says:

    @Mac.
    You have “mixed emotions” about heavily sexualised behaviour and highly suggestive poses by a group of eleven year old pre-teen girls? Go on. Be specific.
    In my experience, the “mixed emotions” ploy is always the hideyhole for someone who is in favour of what is under discussion in order to suggest that there are redeeming features which he won’t articulate.
    The “mixed emotions” ploy is invariably followed by a rhetorical question – as your comment is – rather than outright say one thinks “on balance” that one DOES favour.

  5. 5
    Truthfreedom says:

    2 Mac McTavish

    Rob and Laura slept in separate beds. How did they have a kid?

    5 seconds and a broom cupboard are enough. Boris Becker/ Ermakova.
    And there is this thing named IVF.

  6. 6
    Truthfreedom says:

    Waiting for Netflix to air “How Bellerophon and Pegasus Fell in Love and Raised a Family.”

  7. 7
    Mac McTavish says:

    B

    You have “mixed emotions” about heavily sexualised behaviour and highly suggestive poses by a group of eleven year old pre-teen girls? Go on. Be specific.

    Be specific about what? I’m not trying to be provocative here. KF raised the issue, and then he said he wouldn’t link to any clips. But I am from the show-me state. Don’t make a claim unless you can support it.

  8. 8
    Truthfreedom says:

    7 Mac McTavish

    But I am from the show-me state. Don’t make a claim unless you can support it.

    Then you can’t believe in “materialism”/ “unguided evolution”, because there could not be a thing with less support in the whole world.

  9. 9
    Mac McTavish says:

    TF

    Then you can’t believe in “materialism”/ “unguided evolution”, because there could not be a thing with less support in the whole world.

    You have a serious mental problem. I have never discussed my views on materialism, evolution, etc. Yet, because I acknowledge that I am gay, you jump to the conclusion that I am an atheist/materialist/subjective moralist. Might I suggest that you are a homophobic idiot?

  10. 10
    kairosfocus says:

    MMT, It is clear that the sexual manipulation of eleven year olds — girls, boys makes no difference — is seriously out of order, never mind what the critics as opposed to ordinary people had to say or what groups like NAMBLA have tried to advocate . There is a very good reason for age of consent laws and the listed crime of statutory rape. That is no irrational fear or hate; what those who so readily resort to accusations of phobias imply. KF

    PS: It is quite obvious from advocacy you have made that evolutionary materialistic scientism [= naturalism] and/or fellow travellers has significant influence on your argument. And that of many inveterate objectors over the years. Where such evolutionary materialism is indeed self-referentially incoherent and implies that our conscious rationality is grand delusion. Rosenberg summarises:

    Alex Rosenberg as he begins Ch 9 of his The Atheist’s Guide to Reality:

    >> FOR SOLID EVOLUTIONARY REASONS, WE’VE BEEN tricked into looking at life from the inside. [–> So, just how did self-aware, intentional consciousness arise on such materialism? Something from nothing through poof magic words like “emergence” won’t do.] Without scientism, we look at life from the inside, from the first-person POV (OMG, you don’t know what a POV is?—a “point of view”). The first person is the subject, the audience, the viewer of subjective experience, the self in the mind.

    Scientism shows that the first-person POV is an illusion. [–> grand delusion is let loose in utter self referential incoherence] Even after scientism convinces us, we’ll continue to stick with the first person. But at least we’ll know that it’s another illusion of introspection and we’ll stop taking it seriously. We’ll give up all the answers to the persistent questions about free will, the self, the soul, and the meaning of life that the illusion generates [–> bye bye to responsible, rational freedom on these presuppositions].

    The physical facts fix all the facts. [–> asserts materialism, leading to . . . ] The mind is the brain. It has to be physical and it can’t be anything else, since thinking, feeling, and perceiving are physical process—in particular, input/output processes—going on in the brain. We [–> at this point, what “we,” apart from “we delusions”?] can be sure of a great deal about how the brain works because the physical facts fix all the facts about the brain. The fact that the mind is the brain guarantees that there is no free will. It rules out any purposes or designs organizing our actions or our lives [–> thus rational thought and responsible freedom]. It excludes the very possibility of enduring persons, selves, or souls that exist after death or for that matter while we live.>>

    PPS: You can easily enough do web searches, I am not going to link such materials.

    PPPS, there are cultures where husband and wife routinely slept in different beds.

  11. 11
    Seversky says:

    I have always found so-called child beauty pageants distasteful both on the grounds of the serious risk of the sexual exploitation of children, parenting that treats children as ornaments and that it tends to install shallow values concerning physical appearance in the children themselves.

  12. 12
    Belfast says:

    @mac.
    How can you have “mixed emotions” about something when by your own criterion you want to see links as if you know nothing at all about it?
    You have “mixed emotions” about what?
    You can only have “mixed emotions” about something you know something about. As an example you surely do not have “mixed emotions” about the administration of Slate Street school in Belfast.

  13. 13
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky, I agree, and the tragic fate of young Miss Jon-Benet Ramsey speaks. KF

  14. 14
    Mac McTavish says:

    KF

    MMT, It is clear that the sexual manipulation of eleven year olds — girls, boys makes no difference — is seriously out of order, never mind what the critics as opposed to ordinary people had to say or what groups like NAMBLA have tried to advocate .

    What does me being gay have to do with pedophilia? I assume you are heterosexual. Are you a rapist? Do you lust after little girls? Frankly, I find your inference repulsive. All I have said is that I am gay, came out late in life, and am currently married to another man. None of that implies that i am attracted to little boys.

    PS: It is quite obvious from advocacy you have made that evolutionary materialistic scientism [= naturalism] and/or fellow travellers has significant influence on your argument.

    Really? Please provide an example. I have never made any comments about evolution, materialism, naturalism, atheism or any other ism. I have simply disagreed with your take on current events. And because I have disagreed with you, you have accused me of being a materialist, Darwinist, atheist, pedophile.

    I have made a point of not discussing evolution, ID, religion, atheism, materialism, naturalism, or objective/subjective morality. Mostly because I don’t find them at all interesting. I have my own beliefs and don’t care to share them with others.

    Now, for cause, I am accusing you of being disingenuous and prejudiced in your portrayal of my views. If you disagree, simply copy and paste some of the comments where I am demonstrating my “supposed” atheist,,materialist, Darwinist, blah, blah ilk. If you can’t, it is incumbent on you to walk balk your inflammatory rhetoric.

  15. 15
    vividbleau says:

    Mac
    “None of that implies that i am attracted to little boys.”

    I think you are over reacting, KF was referring to NAMBLA.

    Vivid

  16. 16
    Truthfreedom says:

    9 Mac McTavish

    Might I suggest that you are a homophobic idiot?

    Ah. The homophobic card. At least you had the decency of waiting a few posts. 🙂 “Someone is challenging me, so I am going to cry and use the fake discrimination tactic.”

    What about growing up? As I mentioned, the West is now a kindergarten society.

    Phobias are irrational fears. (E.g. arachnophobia). “Homophobia” per se does not exist. It’s just another marxist manipulative trick to silence opposing views.

  17. 17
    Truthfreedom says:

    10 Kairosfocus

    >> FOR SOLID EVOLUTIONARY REASONS, WE’VE BEEN tricked into looking at life from the inside.

    It doesn’t seem to me that this Rosenberg guy has been “tricked” by evolution at all, because he now lives to write about how the “trick” did not work.

    Why is that “darwinists” can always escape the supposedly “inescapable” clutches of evolution? 🙂

    Plantinga has a nice argument (EAAN) to solve this conundrum. But atheists do not like it. 🙁

  18. 18
    BobRyan says:

    Mac McTavish

    What you are is a socialist revolutionary with Marxist leanings. You justify violence to achieve the results of the destruction of democratic institutions around the world. You believe socialism can work and refuse to accept the facts of the failures. You refuse to accept what happens to homosexuals whenever socialists revolutionaries come to power.

    Absolute morality does exist. It is absolutely immoral to sexualize children regardless of gender.

  19. 19
    BobRyan says:

    Truthfreedom @ 16

    Words like homophobia mean nothing. They are little more than bumper sticker slogans used to attack and vilify anyone who dares disagree with an approved point of view. Reactionary used to be the word of the day.

  20. 20
    Truthfreedom says:

    10 Kairosfocus

    Something from nothing through poof magic words like “emergence” won’t do.

    Do not crush the physicalist faith. 🙂

    Physicalists can talk as much as they like
    about neural structures, resonant patterns of brain activity and the like, but
    in fact they have no explanation for the “emergence” of
    consciousness from “complex interconnections of physical entities within
    the brain.” This is actually an article of faith, comparable to
    Christians’ faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
    A Christian who understands
    their faith says, “I have chosen to believe in Jesus resurrected from the
    dead.” A physicalist also chooses to believe, that consciousness
    “emerges” from complex networks of neurons, but is usually not aware
    that they have chosen to believe.
    Physicalism, a False View of the World

    Ouch. Seversky and his promissory materialism in 3, 2, 1 …

  21. 21
    Truthfreedom says:

    19 BobRyan

    Words like homophobia mean nothing.

    It means that we are free to believe anything as long as it aligns with what Mr. and Mrs. Marxist believe and deem acceptable .
    Which is anything but freedom. 🙂 And that is why “marxism” and “piles of corpses” go always hand in hand.

  22. 22
    kairosfocus says:

    MMT, As you wish to personalise and polarise, I point to a discussion here — and yes, that’s a whole book, though the summary remarks will be plenty to make the key points that need to be heard in the face of yet more smoke and fog. NAMBLA has advocated for what is termed therein the classic or “Greek” model for male homosexual behaviour and is relevant in light of issues of distraction you raised: yes, there is a strong historic connexion of male homosexuality to preying on boys, hence the Galilean moon of Jupiter, Ganymede named after the catamite of Jupiter/Zeus (yes it was so entrenched in pagan Greek culture that the chief god had a catamite . . . a statement about upper class male behaviour), and of course there is the common law crime known as buggery which in key part targetted the notorious preying on boys. Currently, NAMBLA is a notorious advocacy group pushing for this model. The movie in question is about preying on girls and about failure of the relevant institutions to see that it constituted grooming behaviour. Let’s just say that 11 year old girls should not be sexualised in highly suggestive ways on camera, through what in my neck of the woods is called “wukkin up” and/or “forced ripe” / “early trouble” behaviour, with obvious suggestion to “kick in she back door,” complete with highly suggestive strategic zooming. The on-camera behaviour of Miley Cyrus, a former Disney Princess was bad enough and itself a telling influence on young girls idolising her Hanna Montana character; now the vids are showing 11 year old girls acting out like porn starlet wanna-be’s (how did we ever reach the point of such a classification of “stars”?) or even Lolita level casting couch hopefuls. Didn’t Congressman Weiner, for cause, find himself in legal hot water for behaviour and suggestions towards a 15 year old? These are ELEVEN year olds, now in award winning film — an indictment of the system. Further associations with grooming, sex trafficking and incest are obvious. That this won prizes in France and that it is being promoted in the US, with politicised attempts to suggest that it is good art and objections are right wing [= nazi . . . itself, several slanders] moral panic, are simply telling. KF

    PS: This should provide enough documentation on tape, and yes details I alluded to with words are thankfully blurred.

  23. 23
    willspeaks says:

    Mac Tavish
    It’s not hard to find the Trailer

  24. 24
    JVL says:

    Prince Andrew of Windsor

    Sigh. He is either: His Royal Highness, The Prince Andrew or His Royal Highness, The Duke of York.

  25. 25
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, really. Don’t you see that I simply noted the house he is from? Would you have preferred if I used Battenberg, of the Hanoverian dynasty? It is increasingly clear you are trying to find small things to object to that are distractive in the face of dealing with a serious abuse. KF

  26. 26
    kairosfocus says:

    WS, I do not recommend watching said trailer. KF

  27. 27
    Mac McTavish says:

    Willspeaks

    Mac Tavish, It’s not hard to find the Trailer

    Yes, I finally looked at it. It was difficult to discern what the story line was but I assume that it is about a children’s dance contest and the culture clashes of the girls who want to compete. Not exactly my cup of tea but I will withhold judgment.

  28. 28
    kairosfocus says:

    MMT, that withholding itself speaks. KF

  29. 29
  30. 30
    Mac McTavish says:

    KF

    MMT, that withholding itself speaks.

    Yes, it speaks to the fact that I chose not to pass judgment on something with insufficient evidence. The trailer definitely doesn’t look like something I would approve of but the short clip does not provide any context.

  31. 31
    vividbleau says:

    Mac
    “but the short clip does not provide any context.“

    Other than showing eleven year old children humping, twerking and grabbing and showing their crotch in skimpy clothes what other context do you need?

    Vivid

  32. 32
    kairosfocus says:

    Vivid, that is the precise point; it reveals, inadvertently, how benumbed too many have become. I would be concerned with young women TWICE the age of these girls being so exploited. (I add, Miley Cyrus/ Hanna Montana . . . go see a good parson and counsellor.) That people profess to be in doubt on young girls being exploited like this underscores how dangerous is the state of our civilisation. We need to be wondering about what has desensitised us like we are seeing. The answers are not going to be good, but they may help us begin to find our way back to sanity. KF

Leave a Reply