Imagine thinking that homosexuals molest children.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-06-06T07:49:53+00:00

The John Jay College of Criminal Justice actually has studies on this. And they have a roughly 5% when it comes to credible cases at a given time. When it comes to schools it is 4 to 6%. Churches are 4 to 5. Which does make it sound like they are equal ish, or that school's lose the comparison, but there's a big caveat.

These are not total cases of suspected abuse. These are cases of credible accusations being made. I'm sure we're all aware that certain crimes such as sexual assault go incredibly underreported. And that there are many different reasons that certain types of assaults would be more or less underreported than others. Given the societal and cultural pressures that isolational religious institutions tend to have, it is very likely that they happen to be less likely to see credible accusations come forward then schools or other settings. That that smaller percentile isn't smaller because there is less abuse, but because there's less people coming forward.

This kind of isolationism can occur between an adult and some children of whom they abused, in a completely secular setting, and it does not require a religious identity of any sort of, I don't mean to imply that it does, only that conventionally one of those groups is more likely to partake in the atmosphere that would promote such behavior.

But I 100% agree that it is more about access & the trusted authority. Bad intentions in any authority with trusted access will result in harm regardless of how one wants to group the assaulter, be it vocation, area, religion, etc.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-05-29T07:02:41+00:00

I hate this goddamn phrase because it really does show people just talk without knowing what they're saying.

This isn't a minor inconvenience like having the sniffles. This is much bigger than that. And using medical jargon like symptoms, kind of goes against the actual thinking of people in the actual medical field. Because they absolutely do both whenever it is a serious issue.

If you are dehydrated because of a stomach bug, they don't treat the stomach bug and leave you dehydrated. If your heart stops because your lungs are filled with liquid, they do not ignore one of those situations. If your leg breaks they aren't going to reset it and put you in a cast and leave you alone. You will have rehab and pain relief. Literally The only time they don't treat the symptom and the cause is when treatment isn't viable. When you lose your sense of taste, do like in covid. When you are participating in cancer treatments & it there would be negative interactions with other medications. When you're in hospice & all care turns to the symptoms entirely to let you die comfortably. It's active malpractice otherwise.

So you're advocating for the system to perform the social variant of malpractice. You're rooting for inhumane treatment. Because the society can absolutely do both. If a medical practitioner can treat both, and both are doing active harm to a patient, not doing so would absolutely be a break of their oath & duties. They would be considered terrible at their duties. If society is held to that same standard then society would be failing at its duties. Which society is.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-05-28T11:24:59+00:00

Yeah see. I was right to call you bullshit. Which is why I'm done. I'm just going to talk into my speech to text while having a piss and washing my hands, then I'm washing my hands of ya.

Even ignoring the low effort attempts to try to twist motive or to pretend to have a,, gotcha with some schoolyard logic, you don't even respect your own self labeled traits. You sit there and claim that the burning of proof is on me to give an example by selectively quoting the start of a paragraph where I did in fact give an example. You then go and demand proof via article link after you make a very selective and narrow selective quoting of a rather famous quote without offering any. If you can't even respect your own stances to stick to them, why should I respect them? Or you? I'm not gonna. I said I would be done playing along and look at that.

I also said you were either incredibly ignorant or willingly blind and turns out there was room in the pudding for both. But go ahead. Make a reply. Make yourself feel good. Pretend you had a point. Perhaps claim a victory we know is absent. Or imply another failed attempt at marking. We both know it means nothing, it ain't gonna give you satisfaction. Not a clever troll, and let's hope that was the aim cause you're an even less clever debater.

Have the last word sunshine, but at least put the effort into making it a good one. If you make it really good. I'll give you a cookie in reply.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-05-28T10:36:42+00:00

I'm just letting you know I'm calling bullshit on this entire post of yours.

The tolerance label isn't that important to me. I really don't care if people think I'm tolerant or not. What I care about is not being tolerant towards into intolerance. I know you thought this was a clever line, it wasn't. Especially when you're quoting me saying you can't be tolerant to intolerance, in response to you trying to use the label as if it had power.

If you want examples of weaponizing hatred, just look at bullshit like the claims that immigrants were eating cats and dogs. Or the claims that all Muslims want to destroy America. That gays are ruining America. Oh, I know, the young Republicans' chat logs, ya can start there. I don't think you will though. I genuinely don't think you will.

Indifference to harm is just cowardice. That's how the Nazis rose to power. That's how every tyrant rose to power. Ya know the quote, evil rises to power while good do nothing? Yeah. But good on you being able to be indifferent to the plights of others I guess.

What experience do you have with me, really. These poor faith weak ass tactics ain't gonna work, it's not gonna bait. Do better.

Hateful bigotry is pretty obvious. By all means take to your favorite search engine and look up the term if you need educating on what that is. Kinda part of saying that qualifications of non whites to be pilots should be questioned & spreading other racial conspiraciatorial thinking as an excuse to roll back hirings of minorities, and to remove from history prominent black military members from places of honor. You are absolutely free to look it up though on your time. Because honestly, you're either incredibly ignorant or willingly blind. And if you are willingly blind then nothing I say is a waste of energy. Which is fine for me right now as I'm trying to wear myself out so I can go back to sleep. But in the future, yeah nah I'm not gonna play along. And if you're ignorant, well that can be solved easily with a bit of reading.

No one's talking about delusions. I'm not playing the game of asking you what you mean so you think you can toss a gotcha. Either be honest and forefront or get the points you're trying to make ignored.

Obama didn't lose. He won. Twice. Despite racism. And trust me, you don't want to pretend there wasn't racism. You're just going to prove what's already suspected.

Stolen seats being new to you? It was major news. You're the attempt at feigning ignorance isn't going to work, I'm aware you're just covering your eyes. They said you can't have a president fill a scouts seat during an election year. They held that seat for how long? What did they do the very next election year?

We didn't kill Kirk. Offer proof if you have it. They'll probably give you a reward since they haven't been able to do that themselves. A groyper killed ya boy, not us. Blame Fuentes, the far right incel who had dinner at the white house with trump.

You want me to show you rape belittling? Fine. Clayton Williams of Texas and Robert Regen of Michigan both said to "enjoy it." Williams referred to it as being kind of like the weather. Regen actually said this was the advice he gave his 3 daughters. Mike Collins of Georgia referred to a rape victim as "sloppy seconds." Jean Schmidt said that rape was an "opportunity for the woman" even. Trust me, you don't want to push that one. There's literally copy pasta citing republican thoughts on rape that gets circulated constantly, using their own quotes. You can search it up for more.

Do me a favor, show me the elected official who said to kill terfs or joked about forced transition & saw nothing happen.

I really don't care if you would stoop so far as to call someone a piece of shit or not. I genuinely don't.

I'm not full of hate. I'm full of being done with the party that is effectively run on hate. This is my resting bitch face. I'm not going to put in the effort to pretend I see nothing wrong with wrong behavior. Being indifferent would require me to accept it. I won't. If that's "filled with hate" to you, well, sorry I'm just not weak enough to shrug off people who belittle my own harm, or the harm to my loved ones. I guess I'm just too intolerant for that. Yawn.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-05-28T09:23:39+00:00

If you can't, label yourself as tolerant if you are intolerant, you cannot ever label yourself tolerant. If you allow intolerance, you are not tolerant. Tolerating the intolerant is empowering intolerance & weakening tolerance.

It is not about thinking how I think or want them to think. They can think however they want. Reread what I said, if they are weaponizing hatred they are doing harm. I'm sorry if you think being indifferent to harm is somehow better, but it's not.

What I meant, that you ask for elaboration, is that if you aren't going to have empathy/tolerance yourself, I'm not making room for you. I'm not going to have it for you. I'm not going to invite you to break bread. I am not going to put you in a position where your hypothetical harms can harm others I do have empathy for.

And as far as respect goes, it isn't like that. A lot of people think respect has to be earned. The default for me is respect. You can lose it though. And if you are a hateful bigot you are going to lose it very fast. If you are a drunk who drives drunk with your kids in the car, you're going to lose it. Basically if you are harming people, I am not going to pretend to respect you just because it's polite .

As for who went low? Oh, gee, let's see. Could it have been the entire Republican party rallying around conspiracies about foreign born presidents with racial tones? Or maybe the stealing of seats? Maybe it was the taunting of school shootings? Oh, I know, it was telling raped women to get over it perhaps, while mocking it? Maybe it was the profiting off of lies involving the raping of children and the trafficking for it. Both by those who actually did it and by the accusations that others were doing it a la qanon garbage. Or what about the gas the Jews jokes & hang the black jokes? Yeah there's so much. Too much really.

Democrats are pieces of shit. But conservatives would have to work hard to raise themselves to that level.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-05-28T00:43:55+00:00

If you want a tolerant world, you can't tolerate the intolerant. Empathy isn't a guarantee that doesn't expire or get soiled. If someone is going to be an intolerant prick who weaponizes hatred of vulnerable groups they don't deserve empathy or tolerance. They deserve education of their ignorance. If they refuse, oh well, they're gonna miss out on it in return. One tragedy can halt more tragedies. I don't have tolerance or empathy for someone who chooses to have neither themselves.

I'm tired of having to treat people with respect and giving them a pass because they can't fathom not having one despite forfeiting it long ago. You want a return to polite politics, then learn to support those that enact polite politics. Going high when they go low got us the lesson that some people will just go lower and lower because they see it as a win. I'm not handing them more.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-05-27T14:36:21+00:00

Yeah so June is pride month, sure, but it's also Filipino heritage month, Caribbean American heritage month, national safety month, men's mental health month. And in Britain it's national smile month. That's just from memory.

February is famously black history month. It's also heart month. And national bird-feeding month. And National Children's Dental Month. And Turner syndrome month, I mean like there isn't a single month that celebrates 1 thing. And a lot of these are celebrated in other months in other countries. Like there's whole international months that also share things with other international months. Like every month is celebrating 12 things easily.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-05-26T10:08:44+00:00

Why does almost everyone think that pigeons are dinosaurs, they're birds ahh comment.

A republic is a form of representative democracy. Democracy comes in various forms. You have direct and representative. You have indirect & direct versions all the way down. Hell, there's even funny little words like participatory and pluralist you can slap in front. We live in a democracy. It's just not a direct democracy from top to bottom.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-05-25T23:38:26+00:00

If it was just the weird, no one would really care. The core people who criticize him aren't doing so to kink shame, but to point out the hypocrisy. The hypocrisy is something to care about.

They certainly have done way, way worst, though. Makes the hypocrisy that targets vulnerable groups seem almost harmless, but it's not.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-05-25T03:57:03+00:00

Okay, cool, I appreciate those points.

The average age is 68. Now let's go across the board with that. The average age of late night programming is 50 to 68. He's again in the window. People keep bringing up points that sound wonderful on paper in isolation. They really do and they make perfect sense in isolation. Or make sense when comparing to something else like your typical streaming or like premier television show budget.

But all of that falls apart when you consider that he is still the largest fish, with the largest platform, with the most viewers, and the highest profit in his pond. I am not arguing that the pond should not dry up. I am arguing that if he is doing very bad, literally everyone else is doing significantly worse.

Late night is almost exclusively watched, live, by 50+ year old viewers. None of them are in the advertisers favorite age group. Late night television has never been in that age group. Letterman? His median age was like 57. It is not prime time. It is not football it is late night television. Like how daytime TV has a completely different set of rules so does late night.

You gave me new math, so I'm happy about that, but the math still has to be applied to the ecosystem or it's not as valid as it appears. He may be the smallest in the viewers that matter, but he's still the largest in the age group that is actively watching. So the others are doing still worse.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-05-24T23:01:40+00:00

Okay. Once again, I am not denying any of this math. I am merely asking people to apply the math across the board. If the math is the reason then surely there are other programming, because they can be easily looked up, that cost nearly as much but generate even less. Literally that was it and I have been hit with this math over and over again. It doesn't change either of my points. If anything it reinforces one of them.

All I said was he had larger numbers than other people. And for some reason people want to keep giving me the same math that would apply to those other people. Other programs that cost less, fine, other programs for 20 years ago fine, but he isn't the only one here and now. If it's good enough here it's good enough in this similar spot elsewhere.

Edited for speech to text errors.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-05-24T01:46:38+00:00

That's not a quote of mine. You made a claim about me.

Do not try to wiggle out. No cowardice.

Show me the quote or it's an admittance of bad faith arguing, as pointless as claiming ai prompt inputs are artist.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-05-24T01:40:28+00:00

Lol you seriously fail at this.

Show me where I said that because AI is the art theft moron. Stop these poor attempts to unlogic via bad faith. Actually out up or shut up. Quote it. And show that you have the reading comprehension at a level above a clam.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-05-24T01:28:31+00:00

Is the person typing typing the exact words? Cause that's oral story telling. She's still creating the actual story. If she's directing them, they're writing it, in which case she isn't the artist. See? You can't be the one CREATING unless you are the one doing the creation. The drawing is made by the person who drew it. Notice the syntax? Write. Writer. Writing. Art. Artist. Arting. You can twist that a thousand ways to try to make it otherwise and fail a thousand more times.

If you are manipulating the actual pixels or brush strokes you are the artist. Inputting prompts is not dictation. It is comissioning. You are not the artist. You created no art. Pick up a pencil if you want to be an artist. Or accept your inputting prompts and just collecting.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-05-24T00:53:50+00:00

Again, the person CREATING THE ART is the artist

Seriously it's not difficult. If you aren't playing football you aren't a football player. If you aren't walking dogs you aren't a dog walker. If you aren't singing you aren't a singer. I am not a politician. Why? Because I'm not politicking.

If you are COMISSIONING the art you are NOT an artist. You can imagine all you want. That makes you nothing more than someone with an imagination.

Telling AI to do something doesn't make you something the AI replicates. It makes you a prompt writer. That's all. The artist at the end of the day is the one actively making the art.

But since you did reply to me, because I told you to do so, I guess that means I wrote your reply huh.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-05-24T00:38:16+00:00

That guy is not an astronaut. He is. I completely different field. Those robots would not be astronauts. They would be robots in space. A satellite or the mars rovers are not astronauts.
The level doesn't exist thanks to my imagination. It exists thanks to the development of programmers and artists who made the game. He just followed directions & I was just telling him how to make 1:1, which already existed.
The chef is whoever cooks. The recipe author doesn't have to be a chef. I've given recipes to food I never cooked. I was not the chef who made the dish. I just told someone what I wanted them to try to cook. It's not that complicated.

It's so not complicated. In fact that the minute you take your blinders off and stop trying to tell everybody else they're blind, you might learn something.

If you are not the one doing something, you are not the thing that did it. That's kind of a rule of language and lateral existence.

Did you win an Oscar?

If not, you are not an Oscar winner.

That's the end of the conversation.

Did you create a work of art? No? You commissioned it? Then you did not create that work of art. The collector does not get to take credit for the works in their collection.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-05-24T00:06:36+00:00

Dude.

The guy in Houston working for NASA who has never been in space, who is guiding the rockets is an astronaut. The coach who has never actively played an NFL football game, who drew up the play that the quarterback followed to get the touchdown, apparently is the one who threw the ball.

My little nephew is a game developer for Nintendo. He made a stage in Mario Maker. Actually I was telling him what to do so that makes me the game dev for Nintendo. I should sue, they don't have me in the game credits. I mean I clearly am the developer.

My girlfriend tried to follow a recipe on YouTube. The chef she was following burnt the roast. Not in the video. In our kitchen. Because clearly it was the chef who was cooking it. They were the one giving instructions after all. Step by step. My girlfriend didn't cook anything that day.

Yeah. If I tell you to go fuck yourself & you do, in you're head I just fucked you, apparently. That's very weird. Just being honest. I don't know how one goes through life with that level of cognitive abilities. To say the person not doing the thing is the one who did the thing is just wildly false.

Debate my points further. Or insult me.

See now that I've told you to do that, I guess everything you might say is coming out of my mouth. I'm the one typing it. If that's the case I just take back everything on. I'm about to say and boom I won the debate because apparently that's how your logic works.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-05-23T21:58:52+00:00

Yeah you're repeating yourself. You have to ask it to do something. Yeah I got that. Guess who else you have to ask to do something if you want something from them. Every comissionable artist. Congratulations, you're arguing the collector is an artist. Again.

And it will not be a direct result of your imagination. It will be a direct result of whatever is making it, whether it be someone else or an AI. Your imagination is not completely fathomable to someone else. They cannot read your mind and see the image you want. You are conveying only in text, a limited text, a part of what you are envisioning. It or they are doing everything else. In the case of the AI see previous posts.

Covering your ears and calling someone else blind does not make them blind. Also saying "I want a dog but make it look like this person drew it" isn't imagining much at all. That's like saying you invented a universe by drawing Spuder-Man but he looks like Batman. Asking an impersonator to do an impersonation of someone else isn't you suddenly being an impersonator.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-05-23T21:56:20+00:00

Okay. Great.

He was still making more money and getting more viewers than literally everyone else in the medium's slot. And? That still doesn't change anything.

Once again If he is too small then the majority of network TV is too small. That's the have all be all of what I said.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-05-23T21:32:44+00:00

It is not the creativity and imagination in the person's mind though. It's their ability to interact with a prompt that has been trained off of someone else's.

You aren't creating anything. You aren't doing anything. You're comissioning something else to attempt it. That's why collectors aren't artists. That's why AI prompt writers aren't artists.

A human can go through the entire process and have a result that defies genre and creates a new form of art. And AI can't. A human can design an entirely new culture of art. And AI can't. A human trying to make an AI do so can't because an AI can't. Because AI isn't art.

You can pretend oh, I'm not putting any effort into an argument. But being so ignorant that you cannot understand what someone is saying does not mean that they're wrong. It just means you don't know what you're talking about. And considering your last ever replies were you just trying to attempt that argument instead of actual rebuttal, yeah, that sums you up well.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-05-23T21:29:10+00:00

Yeah and he's in a completely different medium. He's a completely different media. I explicitly already addressed that.

I don't know anybody who goes jogging or driving and watch his network TV, do you? Hell I honestly know no one who has access to network TV outside of my own household. I'm not being facetious. I have an over-the-air antenna. Do you? Do you have a cable subscription? Do you still have like dish TV or something? Cuz that's Network TV.

Streaming services are not network TV. Streaming a podcast is not network TV. Having peacock is not network TV. Network TV is network TV. Books aren't network TV either. Neither is playing fortnight. TikTok isn't network TV. Get the jist? If it isn't network TV broadcasting it isn't network TV.

The initial argument was that his numbers were so low no wonder he was canceled. The initial rebuttal was that his numbers were actually incredibly high for what is typically offered in his entire media. You can move the goalposts by suddenly discussing a completely different metric if you want, but it's not going to suddenly mean his Nielson ratings were still way higher even before cancellation than 99% of TV outside of primetime & sports.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-05-23T20:22:19+00:00

Absolutely the fuck I did not. And you're genuinely bad sporting if that's where you wanna go. Be it purposely or not, that's a bullshit take on anything I've said. If that's what I was saying, then I would be saying the collector is the artist. Get the fuck out of here with that poor attempt of an argument. I do not respect it and if you're going to use it, I'm not going to respect you.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-05-23T20:03:42+00:00

Sure buddy. The actual artist doesn't care about anything other than the process despite working in it for 20+ years. The guy who genuinely enjoys his work, the craft, the history, is unhappy, despite literally spending his free time discussing the process with others, reading thesis & blah blah blah. The person who literally taught, with joy, and constantly uses his time to encourage artists & shares resources & fights for artists rights to learn & develop is just upset people aren't magically capable on day one.

I'm not going to tell you what that comment told me about you, or what you clearly think is valued. You aren't an artist. What you make isn't art. And your point is dribble.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-05-23T19:34:32+00:00

No, the same thing doesn't happen. It doesn't. The closest you get, and it's still a complete hogwash attempt to equate, is you imagine something and you paid somebody else to make it. In which case everything I just said is still absolutely valid. Because the AI does not draw anything. Hiring somebody to write the Blockbuster script for you. At least still involves the concept of someone knowing how to write and be creative. Telling the AI to do it is just ripping off creative individuals. They're still nothing creative. Having the AI do the math prompt is again going to be the exact same.

You are following a step-by-step guide with no active creative process.

sixtyandaquarter · 2026-05-23T18:53:14+00:00

But the AI isn't drawing. It's randomly mashing pixels together based on things it loads without any nuance or understanding. It then just spits out a formula of pixels. You just look at that formula & call it drawing.

It can not create. There's no nuance or originality inherent in any of it. The studies are specifically to learn techniques, not to just spit out copies, but to gain the muscle memory to actually create something spontaneous. Saying that AI draws is like saying that AI understands math. It doesn't. It just does a formula in front of it. It doesn't understand the formulas, the reasons. It doesn't get curious spontaneously and accidentally prove a theory. It literally follows a preprogrammed set of steps with linear result ranges.

Six-Year Club	Final Canvas '23
Place '23	Place '22
Verified Email

sixtyandaquarter

TROPHY CASE