Amongst other allegations, Courtney Love said they had oral sex when she was just 12 years old.
More about the allegations against him here.
this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
889 points (98.7% liked)
Murdered by Words
401 readers
804 users here now
Responses that completely destroy the original argument in a way that leaves little to no room for reply - a targeted, well-placed response to another person, organization, or group of people.
The following things are not grounds for murder:
- Personal appearance ("You're fat", "You're ugly")
- Posts with little-to-no context
- Posts based on a grammar/spelling error
- Dick jokes, "Yo mama", "No, you" type responses and other low effort insults
- "Your values are bad" without any logcal or factual ways of showing that they are wrong ("I believe in capitalism" - "Well, then you must be evil" or "Fuck you you ignorant asshole")
Rules:
- Be civil and remember the human. No name calling or insults. Swearing in general is fine, but not to insult someone else.
- Discussion is encouraged but arguments are not. Don’t be aggressive and don’t argue for arguments sake.
- No bigotry of any kind.
- Censor the person info of anyone not in the public eye.
- If you break the rules you’ll get one warning before you’re banned.
- Enjoy the community in the light hearted way it’s intended.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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."
From how I see that country regressing, it's been one crap law after another. One side is actively trying to strip minority rights, the other is actively trying to strip the middle and lower class rights, sometimes they switch sides. All guised, of course, as protecting the children or protecting women or protecting trans or protecting the minority or protecting the small business owner, but, in reality, they're actively stripping rights away and people seem to not care. So, again, I am confused by your definition of conservative, when every party has done this same thing ("Anyone that wants to continue forcing harmful laws on human beings that are unlike themselves"). Or, are you saying the USA government is conservative, and you're gathering your definition of the term based on the USA government? Sorry if I am offending. I'm genuinely interested in learning this and I don't mean to be offensive.
One side is actively trying to strip minority rights, both are trying to strip the middle and lower class rights, but the voters on only one side are attempting to get through to their politicians to fix that. But again, they can't because they have a huge pile of "your worst nightmares" to point a finger at.
Which harmful laws are in place under the guise of protecting women, protecting trans, protecting the minority? I'm talking physically threatening laws that individuals need to fear just for existing. Ill placed "equality" laws that never do what they're intended to do are a problem, but not dreadfully dangerous.
So, would they be considered as conservative, too? Or are there specific actions that are considered so? I'd say by your original definition, both sides would be considered conservative, but I'm gathering that I'm mistaken by this assumption. The more we talk about it, the more confused I get, but the more excited I get in learning your view, and breaking what I thought I knew to rebuild something more complete. It's quite enlightening!
E: oh, I forgot to answer your question. Without doing any research on your country, COPPA comes to mind, which claims to protect the privacy of minors online, but actually just strips privacy from minors and adults alike. I know there are more laws and acts, but this is the one that comes to mind first, since it's one of the last ones that I read about.
I left off children from that question on purpose though, I can think of hundreds of examples of that, but I can't think of a law that was passed, by the left, in the name of protecting women, trans, or minorities that actually strip rights away from them or anyone else. Since you're saying both sides do the same things, I think my point was that both parties are corporate shills, so they're both stripping rights of the working class, but the right is the only one doing the other stuff to a degree that strips certain people of basic human rights. I guess if I were to rephrase my original definition it would be "Anyone that's OK with laws that oppress only certain people, just for being a different kind of human." There is overreach in other areas of concern on both sides under those guises, and that's a very big problem, but they effect most citizens equally.
By the way, I'm just a ranting, drunk, stoner. Since you seem genuinely interested in analyzing this stuff, there are far better sources than me :)
That's fair haha!
You gave me a lot to go off of, and I'm using that to target my searches better. Politics have never been my strong suit, so this is confusing to me.
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.
Damn, I guess it's time to bury him too then
"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
Oh boy, this guy. The Motor City Moron strikes again!
Gee, a real "human being", what an "inspiring" example.
These celebrities really needs to find better hobbies than posting on Twitter/X.
Like shitposting on Lemmy.
Also, ew, Ted Nugent.
Fun fact: that's how we get rose bushes.
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 trivial as a “sexual orientation”, then burying your dead body in my garden is as trivial 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!