Amongst other allegations, Courtney Love said they had oral sex when she was just 12 years old.
More about the allegations against him here.
What an awful day to be literate.
🤮
Huh, se he’s one of the reason Courtney Love is that way that she is.
Republicans love him because of course they would.
They are the party of “every allegation is an admission”.
The only other musician that’s firmly in their camp is Kid Rock and I wouldn’t wish that fate on anyone
and kid rock also wrote a song about diddling kids that appeared in the movie Osmosis Jones!
“Young ladies, young ladies, I like 'em underage see Some say that’s statutory (But I say it’s mandatory)”
I try and ignore Kid Rock as much as possible and didn’t think my opinion of him could get any lower. I was wrong, very, very wrong.
My shit pants guy
Most people, conservative or not, could post this image and garner basically no pushback on it whatsoever. Who wants to be the person who’s like “hey pedophiles don’t deserve that.” Like, even if you thought the message was grossly violent, you would scroll past so you don’t have to engage in this dumb bullshit.
Not Ted Nugent, though. One of the few people who can post “I hate pedophiles” and get himself buried.
Conservatives equate all of LGBTQ+ with pedophiles though. That’s why they use the phrase “grooming children” to describe talking about anything even remotely related to it, including the mere existence of it.
Serious question. What constitutes a conservative?
Anyone that wants to continue forcing harmful laws on human beings that are unlike themselves.
Wouldn’t the reps and dems fall under that categorization as well, though? I’m not even being facetious. I’m genuinely wondering how we use the word now.
Can you explain why you believe that?
Sure. But it’s not a belief. User jtk said that conservative people are “Anyone that wants to continue forcing harmful laws on human beings that are unlike themselves.” Both of the parties I mentioned consistently do that, so I made an inference. Maybe the other parties in the USA will do that, too, but they haven’t been given an opportunity to degrade themselves in this manner. By the way, you lot keep downvoting, but I’m legitimately trying to understand. I’m not challenging your beliefs, nor do I take offense to them (though it won’t matter if I did take offense, as that won’t stop me from respecting your beliefs and fighting so that you can keep having them). While I know many who claim to be conservative, none of them fall under the categorization that user jtk defined, so I’m confused as to what being conservative means. By the way, I do not consider myself conservative. Or, at least, I don’t think I am. Again, I honestly don’t understand what that means, but by user jtk’s definition, I definitely am not. (also I’m not dem or rep). I tried googling it, but there were pages and pages of conflicting information, which left me more confused than before.
Thanks for explaining, I think I can see where you are coming from.
Which harmful laws are voting dems attempting to preserve? There are quite a few bad things the voters are attempting to get politicians to act on, e.g. incarceration rates, drugs, police reform, health reform, gun policy, etc. but they keep getting no action because the competing party is loudly fighting hard for the opposite of all those things and all the dems have to do is say “at least we won’t make those problems 1000 times worse.”
not all cons
But the cons at the forefront do. If your one of the ones that doesn’t, consider strongly how the conservative mindset leads so many to that conclusion and/or why they vote republican to further that agenda.
Not every con is a child raping traitor, but every con is okay with child raping traitors. Cons love child rape and treason. The Republican party is the child rape and treason party. The conservative movement is the child rape and treason movement. Quite literally every conservative without exception.
But always a cons
Yes, all conservatives support pedophilia or at least don’t mind it enough that they keep voting for pedophiles like Matt Gaetz.
We’re all talking about how bad of a person he is, but not enough about how stupid he is.
I mean… if I literally wrote a song about wanting to have sex with a 13-year old girl four decades ago you could catch me dead before you see me ever mentioning anything related to minors or pedophilia in the rest of my life. Posting something like this is pretty much asking for people to dig up all the shit you did. Like I never heard about him before this and the first thing I know is that he’s a pedo. Great job I guess?
Like I never heard about him before this
You’re lucky. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Yeah, I knew of him and that he’s generally a pos in terms of his politics just from seeing headlines of posts, but TIL because this shithead had to make a sign. It’s the very same as how I learned that Kid Rock came from a wealthy family because he had to shoot cans of beer. They’re really good at outing themselves.
Link for the lazy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Nugent#Relationships_with_teenage_girls
“Well I don’t care if you’re just thirteen, you look too good to be true” lyrics from Ted Nugent - Jailbait
Oof. I was in the car today and Rick James’s 17 came on and I felt dirty just listening to it.
A little girl came up to me, acting young and shy
A look of curiosity was flashing in her eyes
She had seen my face before and thought she knew me well
So I said “Shall we talk some more, you’ll come to my hotel”
She was only seventeen, seventeen
But she was sexy
I just had this happen too. A month or so ago I heard Young Girls Are My Weakness by Commodores playing at the supermarket 😬
Gross
Damn, I guess it’s time to bury him too then
Oh boy, this guy. The Motor City Moron strikes again!
Gee, a real “human being”, what an “inspiring” example.
Who exactly is this directed at that thinks pedophilia is “just a sexuality?”
Seems like he’s just trying to sew the seed that LGBT activists support pedophilia, which they don’tI occasionally see someone cite the term “minor attracted person” in the wild, which IIRC was invented in a 4chan thread some years back.
Chan fascists inventing fascist concepts, throwing them out into society, then acting surprised to see them:
They’ve done quite a few successful attempts at this. Like the #cuttingforbieber trend.
No, the guy holding the poster is saying that paedophilla is NOT a sexuality. And if you think paedophilla is a trivial as sexuality (I.e you’re paedophile or enabler/minimiser), then burying your body in my garden is as trivial as gardening.
Nugent retweeted this like he agreed that paedophilla is absolutely not a sexuality and (it’s implied) if you think it is, we can to bury your body and call it gardening. The hypocrisy being that Ted Nugent is a paedophile.
That’s what I’m saying. Who is the supposed target? Show me the guy saying “I stand up for pedophile rights, actually!” I don’t believe they exist in any meaningful quantity that you have to “protest” about them.
I mean songs about having sex with underage girls are pretty common. Aside from Ted Nugent, there’s kid rock, the Beatles, the knack, the police, winger, R Kelly, nirvana, korn…. So so many. Then there’s everyone named in operation yewtree and the me too allegations. Plenty of those people would claim it’s just who they’re sexually attracted to, and it’s not paedophilia. I don’t think you have to dig too deep to find straight people who commit these crimes or try to minimise their impact.
We’re not claiming pedophilia doesn’t exist, we’re pointing out a dogwhistle that’s been pushed by fash for at least a decade now, which tries to do an equivocation attack on queer people using pedophilia. It started on 4chan and has since spread to high level government.
As you probably know, we use the term “dogwhistle” because these attacks are meant to seem innocuous to average people but convey deeper meaning to those “in the know”. It’s a fascist tactic that’s been used forever, see Sartre’s analysis of antisemites for a concise description.
This type of thing is a manipulation of signifiers (words and symbols) to obfuscate and confuse concepts (the actual ideas words are supposed to represent). Fascists will dance around with signifiers, making it difficult to pin down and explain their meaning to laypeople who aren’t invested or haven’t spent the disproportionate effort it takes to keep up. This allows them to avoid rebuttal (because there’s no coherent essence behind their words) and hide in plain sight.
So the signifier “I want to kill pedophiles” is particularly insidious, because it’s something the average person is already sympathetic towards for obvious reasons. But to a growing demographic of people, it signifies a deeper concept: “I want to kill pedophiles=groomers=queer people”. Which is a wild leap of logic, but it’s what we’re directly observing right now, particularly in red states.
The red flag or smoking gun or hint at this being the case here is the fact that no average person really disagrees with the gist of the sign, so like, who is he speaking to? It’s got a distinctly different vibe than MeToo and anti-Epstien sentiment. “If pedophilia is just a sexuality”-- who’s saying this? It suggests the existence of a archetypal person in this guy’s mind, an Other concept that can be mapped onto whomever.
See also that new Q movie that’s so popular, that portrays a mythical version of human trafficking that’s dialed right into the rightwing consciousness.
Like, just the fact that it took me this long to poorly attempt to explain this, is part of why it’s so effective. I have to very carefully and in depth try to explain the context for why a “good” statement actually means a “bad” thing, making me look at best hypersensitive. Seriously, read the Sartre thing, he’s way better with words than I am. I’ll try to find it and post it below.
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
I mean, you’ve never heard of NAMBLA?
ah well you see unlike you and me who when we say paedophiles mean people who have sexual relationships with children he means gay people for reasons of being a terrible person
These celebrities really needs to find better hobbies than posting on Twitter/X.
Like shitposting on Lemmy.
Also, ew, Ted Nugent.
deleted by creator
Ok but how are sexualities and plants related? I understand the joke is “kill pedos” but I’m missing something, can anyone help connect the dots?
Have you ever had an IQ test or similar? You sometimes get questions like “A car is to transport, what a fork is to ___” with the answer being “cutlery”. It’s not that transport/cutlery or cars/forks have anything in common, it’s about their relationship to the group.
So in the post it’s saying that “if you think paedophilla is just a type of sexuality, then murdering someone and burying their body is just a type of gardening”. It’s not exactly a flawless comparison, but that’s what they were going for.
…so I understand where you’re going with this, but I think it is such a poor attempt on his part that I’m still trying to understand it lmao. I guess you’re right, what else could it be really? Still makes no sense to me though.
Like I said, it’s not the best example but it’s also not the worst one of these I’ve heard, they can get really really obscure. Maybe this is a better explanation/translation:
“If paedophilla is as innocent as a “sexual orientation”, then burying your dead body in my garden is as innocent as “gardening.”
OH ok yeah your rephrasing here connected the dots, thanks. Hell it’s definitely one of the dumbest I’ve seen, I do not envy you lmao. Thanks for the help on that!
No problem, sorry I didn’t make it clearer the first time. Like you said, it’s not the easiest example to (tenuously) explain!
Fun fact: that’s how we get rose bushes.
Removed by mod
To the lovely mod that removed my comment saying teddy should get what he’s asking for, I wish you a very merry
