Thursday, April 26, 2018

Twitter NSFW? While Conservatives (Alone) Are Banned From Twitter, Porn Stars' XXX-Rated Photos Make Quite a Splash ("Anyone want to see me get blasted?")

You are being forewarned: most of the links — and some of the quoted captions — in the second half of this post are Not Safe For Work (NSFW) as, indeed, they take you to some pretty steamy images, and by that we mean less X-rated than XXX-rated or, if you prefer, more Penthouse caliber than Playboy grade (if you catch our drift).

Okay, I'll be honest with you, I was not, I am not, scandalized by the torrid pictures linked below.

Indeed, I'll be quite frank — doing research for a blog post can be fun at times!

So, listen, I promise, I am not too much of a puritan, far from it, and offhand, I don't have an aversion to eye candy, as I think that there are fights more important to engage in.

In other words, this post is not — repeat, not — a call for Stormy, Brandy, Wifey, and their ilk to have their their posts deleted and/or to be banned from Twitter, permanently or otherwise.

In case you're wondering, I spent more time laughing while "researching" this post than hand-wringing (fun double entendre here) like an old schoolmarm, foaming at the mouth (another fun double entendre), and collapsing on the fainting couch (yet more fun double entendring).

Oh hell, I'll confess: I'm pretty much against censorship. 
Plus: I did like the eye candy.

At the same time I have to admit to feeling admiration for the strength in the bloke at CPAC who told me that if he arrived home and found the latest issue of his wife's women's beauty and fashion magazine subscription in the mailbox sporting a scantily-clad model on the cover (was it Elle? it was one of those), he would tear it off, just like that, and throw it in the garbage.

Yeah, I don't disagree, offhand that sounds kind of extremist but when you think about it (or when his wife thinks about it), that might turn out to be a pretty good man to be married to (at least in one aspect of life).
For me, what poses a problem — indeed, what does scandalize me — is the double standards of the left and of social networks like Twitter. Double standards like the fact that the groups of anti- or non-conservatives which neither Twitter nor the Twitter mobs (nor, for that matter, the members of the #metoo movement) show the least interest in keep growing. (In the case of porn stars, maybe the leftists think that they are not showing "hate" and "disrespect" but — ahem — "love" and — cough — "compassion"? Well, that's certainly one way of looking at it…)

So, we get conservatives such as Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds, Sheriff Clarke, Mark Dice, and Breitbart reporters who see their accounts temporarily suspended, or conservatives like Stacy McCain and Milo Yiannopoulos, who see their accounts permanently banned, or conservatives like Kevin Williamson, who lose their job due to the Twitter mob. Stacy was told that his
account was suspended [by the “Trust and Safety Council”?] because it was found to be violating the Twitter Rules (https://twitter.com/rules), specifically our rules around participating in targeted abuse.
Meanwhile, there are rumors that a Senator of the United States and presidential candidate, no less, was shadow-banned (appreciate the openness and the transparency that the left is always boasting about), while a conservative artist like Sabo has been Banished from Twitter Permanently. (Aren't artists supposed to be transgressive, and isn't their art supposed to challenge our boundaries? — or is it only the boundaries of conservatives and their dirty capitalist pig cousins of the decadent bourgeoisie?) Twitter itself says that
Examples of what we do not tolerate includes, but is not limited to behavior that harasses individuals or groups of people with:
  • violent threats;
  • wishes for the physical harm, death, or disease of individuals or groups;
All of this, we (and they) are told — Wikipedia has the full list of the accursed — because their attitudes, their ideas, and their posts are hateful and offensive to people — quite unlike BLM members, leftist comedians, Democrat politicians, Nation of Islam leaders, et al who, with foul language galore, call for the death of Republicans, make threats against or pose with fake severed heads of a president (only when he is a Republican), vilify their deceased wives, vilify and demonize America, or demand totalitarian one-party rule in the United States — oh, wasn't that last one approved of by Jack Dorsey, none other than, uh, Twitter's CEO?!.

Indeed, as Powerline's John Hinderaker writes, Facebook and Twitter have acquired a dangerous ability to suppress conservative speech:
I never actually go on Twitter, in part because Twitter is a cesspool. Profane language is common, I often read about calls by liberals for conservatives to be murdered, and outrageous hate speech like the tweets I wrote about here is common. If you are on the Left, anything goes.

 … I can’t think of any reason why a Twitter employee would question the appropriateness of the tweet by Clear Energy Alliance other than the fact that it promotes a video that criticizes “green” energy cronyism, a sacred cow of the Left.
Whereas the aforementioned Kevin Williamson goes on to say that, even in the mass media with (far) more than 140 (or 280) characters, a liberal news outlet like
New York magazine, in the words of its own editor, prefers a truncated, incomplete account, which is of course easier to distort and to misrepresent. Whatever that is, it isn’t journalism.

A subject to which I expect to be returning in the near future is the way in which social media functions as a tool for the prevention of discourse rather than an instrument enabling it. One of the lessons of the 20th century is that authoritarian movements are happy to use the instruments of liberal democracy as weapons against liberal democracy …

 … social media is purportedly an instrument for the enabling of discourse that is in fact used to prevent actual exchange—and, unhappily, the same desire to preempt genuine dialogue can be found throughout the ordinary news media.
Let us end this first part with the take of The Declination's Thales on "a massive problem":
 … boilerplate Leftism … is seen, even by most Rightists, as the default position. It’s the ‘no thinking required’ setting. If you want to spout some kind of philosophical nonsense to make yourself look smart and cultured while your boob is falling out, you do Leftism. It’s easy rhetoric. Hey look, there’s a man with no fish. Saying “somebody should give him a fish, look he’s starving” is the easy rhetorical answer. Defeating this argument is simple with dialectic, but few people care about dialectic. It’s boring. Nerdy. Too many words. Better to just call somebody a bigot and move on.

Defeating Leftism with rhetoric is much more difficult. For not only must you use a convincing argument, that argument must be truthful and honest. The Leftist may use deceit without remorse, because to him the end justifies the means. You may not. Furthermore, Leftism itself is tailored toward sounding good. Rightism is full of unpleasant truths about human nature and the how things work in the real world. People don’t like to hear these things. …

 … It is the ease of this rhetoric, the reward for it, that really pushes people into Leftism.

 … It is the ease of this rhetoric that must be defeated more than the rhetoric itself.
Read the whole thing (especially since Thales brings up the subject of "bikini girl[s]" and "superficial Instagram would-be porn stars"…)

Okay, enough of that.

Admit it:

you want to get to the naughty parts.

Let's do it!

If you're like me, you would imagine (insofar as you think about the subject at all) that, sure, a porn star on a public website like Twitter would have some titillating images, but some that aren't much worse (or much better, if you prefer) than the risqué bikini photos that supermodels (or teenagers!) regularly post on Instagram ("posing provocatively, generally with the juicy bits only barely covered enough to avoid attracting the attention of the censors," writes Thales), or, at worst (at best?), stronger images (full frontal nudity, sex acts, etc?) with perhaps the naughty parts blurred or concealed by a smiley or something…

How naïve you are!

What a riot you are!

No, not every (ex?)porn star is like whose page, at first glance, seems pretty tame and who even retweets !

To be fair, the main purpose of most of the posts is to redirect visitors to links to porn websites (often for pay) — ain't it a business, after all? — but it turns out the actresses have Twitter images, GIFs, and trailers that show the worst of the worst (or the best of the best).

How does Twitter approach this?
We consider adult content to be any media that is pornographic and/or may be intended to cause sexual arousal. … Twitter allows some forms of graphic violence and/or adult content in Tweets marked as containing sensitive media.
The social media adds that 
Some examples include, but are not limited to, depictions of: full or partial nudity (including close-ups of genitals, buttocks, or breasts) … exceptions may be made for artistic, medical, health, or educational content.
Well, that's good to know. Be forewarned: I cannot embed what they consider "some forms of … adult content" here or this blog is likely to get banned
. They are eye-opening (yes, in every sense of the word) :) they leave little, if anything, to the imagination, and they include such things as money shots (if you don't know what that expression means, just click on one of the links below). In the list below, they go from relatively tame to progressively worse (or, depending on your take, progressively better).

Just remember not to worry: the good news is that neither you nor anyone else, as per Twitter's rules, will feel any kind of sexual arousal while peeking at the following NSFW photos. (Yeah, right…)

Warning: Did I mention that the best description for all the links below is "pornographic" and that they are NSFW?!
  1. I've been a baaaaad girl this week..
First, we have Wifey's World, in which we learn that, uh, "Wifey" (or Kate) is Having a little fun on a Friday night or has been (Uh-oh) a NAUGHTY girl (or a a NAUGHTY NAUGHTY girl) or has taken on one of the biggest [I believe this word needs to be redacted] I've sever seen or meets up with the MasterBlaster (what a MESS) or has been blasted with one of the biggest [perhaps it would be better to redact this word as well] ever seen on film (I was floored by his 12 shot output!!). Of course, Wifey did something REALLY naughty in the latest update (I hope my Hubby understands…).



Warning: Did I remember to tell you to watch out before clicking on the links that follow, since they are NSFW?!

Then there is Red MILF (My Hot Taboo Clips, For Your Stroking Pleasure), whose posts go from least raunchy — via one X-rated post after another after another after another after another (with GIFs) after another (with really hot GIFs) — to outright XXX-rated, with X-rated GIFs that leave little to the imagination, including one in which the GIF "cuts" appear so close to one another in time that they look like a colorized Charlie Chaplin movie (okay, not really) from the silent era.

Oh, wait, I finally did manage to find a film — not GIFs, real film, and with sound! — or, rather, the trailer (NSFW!!!) for a film ("The most brilliant casting job ever," thanks to PornMegaGold) that as far as I can tell does show just about everything, but that's OK, y'know, because it comes with a warning, one which says "If you are not of legal age you must close this now."

So, listen, to be frank, I live in Europe and these images don't bother me per se. (Hey! Admit it! Wifey and Rachel and Brenda are hot!)

Plus, I am not in favor of censorship.

Again: I'm NOT asking that anybody get outraged, I am NOT asking that anybody complain to Twitter, I do NOT demand to have anyone's twitter handle cancelled, or any of their posts censored (that, after all, is what leftists — see (cough) Twitter — are wont to do)… 

What I AM asking is for Twitter to admit to their double standards — the website's record in the matter is egregious enough without the addition of the porn examples, which for the record I consider little more than a distraction — or to at least stop (ab)using them. Once and for all…

No comments:

Post a Comment