...are, right here; they're visible and in conflict, see: this is also a woman who is being portrayed as a villian by top actresses in high budget productions, level, vilified without, so far as I am aware, any, argument or complaint that this is immoral; it's not, probably, is it?

I don't know, the ethics here are so....

I don't want to bias the answers, and, it's not that I don't see angles, I see so many that I'm reluctant to say one out of a concern that I'd definitely have to defend the converse and obverse as equally possible and then, there we go, this goes on for three hours and it's an unintelligible manifesto, when,

"Well what if was a person who hadn't treated other people's sanctity of self very kindly, what if she had been enormously more privileged than anyone's gaze comes from, what if and if that does change anything then isn't it all paternalism with it's usual back-end, that, don't deserve is easily flipped around to be the marginal, contrary-case, that, I mean, Is It by defining something as innapropriate because, you know, creepshot of teenager, that one validates, like, appropriate because one of these women, who,

I am absolutely certain that this is an significant epidemic of abuse of state authority which won't get brought up anytime soon, not, as if it should be taken seriously; there aren't about to be any marches for these women but I don't think that it's correct to....

Mary Kay Loutearneau said that she didn't even know that it was against the law; Foucault makes the convincing claim, "No, the past was not more prudish, the puritanical stuff started when there was terminology for it to be discussed in a low-context cultural environment," e.g. you don't have, any, term for Homosexuality, until you do, in the late 19th century, and it's a couple decades before that leads to mass murder; once Sex Teacher is reified, that's, o.k. should we or should we not be hunting the pedophile teachers, wow sounds like we should be, should we be using State Security Agents to Hunt for Teachers involved with their students romantically, what do I mean, like, in a boffriend girlfriend way, no like, when they touch each other, well, when their penises and vaginas are out probably or maybe handjobs or something hunting for those yah that sounds fucking crazy; are we sufficiently policingour hotwves?

I don't know; what do you think?

Real Broad Ask, really, anything that's...you know, comes up, for you, about these subjects; I'm not a puritan, no, hell no, I agree with Emma Goldman, on that number, it's just that...

I'm empathetic to moral arguments that come from a good, rather than a bad place, and I know that some of the, I know that some of the arguments against the sexualization of others on the internet certainly do, even if they aren't universal, in fact, my argument, if I have one, is that one should recall the

Star Wars Kid, right, that was, once, really embarassing public behavior, and, inasmuch as the name still sticks, still is; I think that it was innapropriate to kick Alyssa Rosales off of Facebook, or, to censor her, when, She didn't invite Zuckerburg and a warehouse full of trafficked middle aged low-wage laborers to moderate her content; did she?

The Inital Facebook Log-in?

Yes, "the Best Adults-only-filter on the entire internet," says one voice,

"The College Id's Mean, no, think about it, either these people are the people who must deal with the entire world as it actually is, or, no one who is entitled to can be expected to and no one who is expected to is entitled to do anything about it," non-figuratively, that is literal, we're talking top-colleges in the United States; you even let them not know; or, opt out of seeing what they think they know, and, Boy Howdy,

You End Up With Their Dogmas Policing the World

Boy would that suck, right?

Well, we'll never know how close this absolutely-best-ever uncensored-because-there-literally-is-no-ethical or utilitarian argument for it's censorship being permitted, at all, best ever semi-public academic discourse environment was to having, been, some Historian with Zuckerburg's library records will know, someday, I'd guess, roughly...relating to, I mean, Simone Weil, think he read her work?

You know, gahlee, can you feel it with me, the, dissapointment, literally, that where his head was at,

"Obviously, next step: Expand to High School Girls, Boys if necessary," right, gah-lee.

It's the...'not even wrong,' of being very wrong, you know?

Equally, i think it may be less-like "shrug," and more like, "an uh-oh on the level of our inability to distinguish theft from Walmart and theft from an individual," in the sense of, what did he do, when the question is more like, what's up, that,

Sexualization of individuals by individuals, put in one hand, the fact that...I mean,

What the corporations call data, or content, the individuals at the corporations know absolutely 100% to be valuable because it's dead-to-rights extortion material and teen foot pics and stuff; it's like, hardly, the Enron Transcripts and those are from a Criminal Trial, ha, right?

I don't know, I think, that, I literally have a migraine but....I think it's actually in knowing that I probably won't be seeing these things from this skew, or, even, that I would 90% of the time be able to eliminate the dissonance and, care to, see the audience I was writing to and all kinds of things...an elequent overture to discourse being something that I could replicate, this, less so?

....and so, yah, what does come back when it's triggering attribution errors left and right and popping dadaist heuristics and mmmm etc, you know?

I'm not sure that I do; maybe you do, though, tell me about it?

You didn't, feel nothing, react to nothing, in this,

That I'm sure of,

Your Friend,

Jonathan Phillip Fox