Where can I protest THIS?

[Cartoondude135]

the author is genuinely Autistic

See? Like these parents of their own 8 year old daughter: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitc...ter-topless-girl-8-told-to-cover-up-1.3124762, I too am genuinely outraged by this type of treatment towards the female human regardless of their race and age! That includes those other female individuals that got snubbed for being "disturbing" or "too revealing" in public.

It took a little time - a little longer than anticipated to find that news article, but eventually, I found it! - The article (and witnesses) I need to prove I am on a genuine mission to prove a point.

But no matter what I try, still no one will buy it! Now I wish I used a burner account name when I first joined Lemmy after that unfortunate "event" on reddit.

I'll ask you once more: Do you think Manneken Pis and Jeanneke Pis along with other nude ststues from EVERYWHERE around the world (this includes Pampers and Huggies diaper boxes we see in supermarkets everyday) are trying to promote pedos?

It was Inside Edition's along with that photographer's and the disposable diaper manufacturer's idea to publicly publish: Napalm Girl when she was 9 years old, that topless little girl in her living room during that fire incident, and those topless kids plastered onto those diaper boxes. So can you really - you know, hurl insults at them?

But with YouTube's new ghosting algorithm ghosting certain-to-random comments I make on any video, I felt forced to take more drastic measures to get my message across. And you guessed it, every website I try to explain to about this stuff I'm witnessing via YouTube have been anything but helpful.

And I mean it, these people are paranoid! Like... all I was doing was searching for sound effects to download for my personal homemade animation projects just like any person in need of resources to make my animations a hit, and I just stepped into a new realm, a sector in fact, in terms of sound effects after a whopping 8 years of trial and error searching and I finally catch a break thanks to a tip on YouTube. But out of the blue, these guys snub me as some full-out criminal.

And I mean it. Like... on another site, I was denied registration because I "spammed the same help message elsewhere on the internet and now that I'm banned on this site, I'll have a much harder time searching for the resources".

Try to think of this like the Chowder episode "Banned from the Stand" where Gazpacho constantly bans Mung from every stand in the market due to the "Code of the Fruit Vendors".


Are some of these people completely out of their mind?!?! They can view your activity via your reddit profile and that's what sets them into "cuckoo" mode. Are some people that willing to demand that an individual ceases and disists what they're currently doing as... a... WHOLE?!?! Even if that individual decides to try and succeed on their mission ELSEWHERE?!


Didn't some of these people ever learn the most important lesson of life: "If at first you don't succeed, try try again!"? That's exactly what that individual is trying to do on their mission! But they demand that individual ceases and disists what they're currently doing as... a... WHOLE because what they're trying to accomplish is "illegal"!

 

[Cartoondude135]

Now this.

Again, why SMH on the female human - regardless of race and age?

 

[Mungri]

Now this.

Again, why SMH on the female human - regardless of race and age?

This has very little to nothing to do with your original issues, as others pointed out, your autism is driving you into single focus mode, pointing at any loosely related incidents to the same topic.

This was simply an older prudish woman harassing a younger woman. The younger woman was also still 19 so an adult, legally she can wear what she wants and be as sexual as she wants.

This has no correlation to the 'sexualisation' of minors, other than the barely loosely related point of 'children might see'. Bitch have you even seen the obscene levels of gross public nudity and sexual acts that go on during lgbt crap that liberal parents keep taking their 4 year old kids to watch? There are far greater societal issues than the exceptionally weak arguments that you keep putting forward.

Your 'self assuredness' in your campaign is weak and not being supported by either compelling evidence nor convincing assertiveness. Your mode of action only works when your points you are trying to make are 100% valid, and you can assertively convince others of your opinions and actions. Currently you are maybe at most 20% convincing, and your persistence comes accross as belligerent, frustrating and irritating rather than assertively.

 

[Golbez]

 

[Cartoondude135]

This has very little to nothing to do with your original issues, as others pointed out, your autism is driving you into single focus mode, pointing at any loosely related incidents to the same topic.

This was simply an older prudish woman harassing a younger woman. The younger woman was also still 19 so an adult, legally she can wear what she wants and be as sexual as she wants.

This has no correlation to the 'sexualisation' of minors, other than the barely loosely related point of 'children might see'. Bitch have you even seen the obscene levels of gross public nudity and sexual acts that go on during lgbt crap that liberal parents keep taking their 4 year old kids to watch? There are far greater societal issues than the exceptionally weak arguments that you keep putting forward.

Your 'self assuredness' in your campaign is weak and not being supported by either compelling evidence nor convincing assertiveness. Your mode of action only works when your points you are trying to make are 100% valid, and you can assertively convince others of your opinions and actions. Currently you are maybe at most 20% convincing, and your persistence comes accross as belligerent, frustrating and irritating rather than assertively.

Let me start over from the beginning to clear that noggin of yours:

It all began when I first stumbled upon Inside Edition's videos of women - that's WOMEN getting slammed, insulted, and blasted for "showing too much of their body (with kids around)". Then it escalates further when they show a school is photoshopping out women's cleavages to make them look "modest" for their yearbook. I feel this type of treatment towards the female human is all wrong! Like, can't anybody learn to appreciate and look at the female body without censoring it in any way? Can't you let ANYBODY, including kids, get a chance to learn about the differences between the male and female human bodies????

Then comes along... you guessed it. That one video Inside Edition publishes. And after seeing her top blurred, my inner voice in my head: "That's the last straw!" Like, can't some of us get a chance to learn something new that just aroused our curiosity? Such as how the human body changes with time in terms of both genders? Like, now, I can finally visualiuze myself (my whole body) from little boy to fully grown man. But when Inside Edition published that footage, the new question that took me by storm is: what would a female look like from little girl to fully grown woman?

But with YouTube's broken comment system GHOSTING certain-to-random comments, even on my backup account, I can't seem to get ANY messages across!

Speaking of which, when I tried to post this on r/Feminism and r/AskFeminists, they BOTH perma-banned me for NO REASON and muted me from talking to their mods for 28 days!

Why do I say "no reason"?

"Hello, You have been permanently banned from participating in this subreddit because your post violates this community's rules. You won't be able to post or comment, but you can still view and subscribe to it.
If you have a question regarding your ban, you can contact the moderator team by replying to this message.
Reminder from the Reddit staff: If you use another account to circumvent this subreddit ban, that will be considered a violation of the Content Policy and can result in your account being suspended from the site as a whole."

As you can see, there is no specific reason listed in the message above. So this is why I claim or what I mean by "banned from a sub for 'no reason'. - Even for something that was never officially listed on that sub's rule board.

Once more, I, along with these parents of their own daughter proved one major point: if a male can go topless/show their body, then so can a female - regardless of age!

Can't I get a chance to learn something new? Some evolution/development processes for certain things can be a little more complicated then you originally first thought.

 

[Joe King]

Then comes along... you guessed it. That one video Inside Edition publishes. And after seeing her top blurred, my inner voice in my head: "That's the last straw!" Like, can't some of us get a chance to learn something new that just aroused our curiosity? Such as how the human body changes with time in terms of both genders? Like, now, I can finally visualiuze myself (my whole body) from little boy to fully grown man. But when Inside Edition published that footage, the new question that took me by storm is: what would a female look like from little girl to fully grown woman?

I already explained to you on page #1 why it is that way.

But I'll tell you again.

As for the 9yo blurred out in the last vid, what the OP needs to remember is that in most jurisdictions it is unlawful for a female to be topless in public, and the vid taken inside the home became "public" once it was made publicly available. So you can't really complain about Inside Edition blurring out the girl's chest. Had they not done that and still aired the vid, they very likely would have already gotten into trouble over it.

Is it really too difficult for you to understand that?


If you don't want it blurred out, the proper course of action would be to work within the Legislative process to get those laws overturned.

Ie: Go lobby the gov to change the laws regarding females being topless in public.

 

[Cartoondude135]

I already explained to you on page #1 why it is that way.

But I'll tell you again.

As for the 9yo blurred out in the last vid, what the OP needs to remember is that in most jurisdictions it is unlawful for a female to be topless in public, and the vid taken inside the home became "public" once it was made publicly available. So you can't really complain about Inside Edition blurring out the girl's chest. Had they not done that and still aired the vid, they very likely would have already gotten into trouble over it.

Is it really too difficult for you to understand that?


If you don't want it blurred out, the proper course of action would be to work within the Legislative process to get those laws overturned.

Ie: Go lobby the gov to change the laws regarding females being topless in public.

I know, but the videos I watched, those women involved in those videos - the victims, they were doing nothing wrong! They were just minding their own business. Then, out of the blue, some random person(s) demands they "cover up" (to "protect the kids").

When I comment "Can't these guys learn to appreciate one's female appearance?", it gets ghosted by YouTube's blasted comment moderating system. That just fuels my rage as due to that combined with getting (permanently) banned from subreddits makes me feel this world is getting more and more paranoid. I've never felt so shunned from the internet in all my life! I can't seem to get any messages across at this rate!

And after that one video Inside Edition posted, I felt there might be more like this out here somewhere. I just have to get lucky I find it. Then, out of a random thought - after viewing the napalm article on Wikipedia, "Napalm Girl" was the next subject that took me by storm. And sure enough, there was one of the picture of her unedited - on one site, and another - from another site with her chest blurred. That got me into setting this female nudity rights protest into motion.

And while dumping some trash in a dumpster, I found a discarded disposable diaper box by the outside right side of the dumpster and noticed that there was a topless little girl plastered onto it. That was just the evidence I need to show everyone that the censorship regulations involving the female human body are inconsistent. That, along with nude statues - artwork of naked people.

They blast a living person, but not a statue or a disposable diaper box! - Or even something that's news media approved!