WASHINGTON—Doing her best to appear elated while a large, throbbing vein protruded from her forehead, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she was ‘really, really, really happy’ for Vice President Kamala Harris as she shook the presumptive Democratic nominee’s hand and refused to let go of it. “So, so, so proud of you for this huge accomplishment—there is no one more deserving of this than you,” said a stock-still, unblinking Clinton, who, when panicked advisors quietly asking her to release the presidential candidate’s hand, only widened her smile and clamped her fingers tighter, causing Harris’ bones to audibly crack. “Oh, don’t worry about us. We’re just two strong women having a great time. Ha ha ha. Girl power! Right, Kamala? Just think, you could become the first woman elected to the American presidency! What could possibly be better than that?” At press time, Clinton was reportedly being dragged away after pulling Harris in for a hug and attempting to snap her neck.

I found this satire piece to be absolutely delightful, capturing the potential rage that Hilary kept under wraps after it was announced that Trump won. It was a disappointing time, as that orange clown got the better of a far more fit person to serve in office.

  • captainlezbian@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    3 months ago

    I get that, and I can respect a “you’re free to do it but certain content needs a bead curtain style barrier”, but additionally I think we need to develop a cultural reminder that distaste is not a justification for such strict restrictions.

    In short my main issue is that we live in an era where the stakes keep raising, and everything remains gratuitous to the point I dislike it and yet the responses only restrict that which is behind the bead curtain. We have saw movies but nsfw communities on the internet are being whittled away by credit card companies. The blue social space is dying for family friendly spaces while politicians remain vulgar. I demand my right to smut but I don’t want it on a billboard

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      3 months ago

      I think we need to develop a cultural reminder that distaste is not a justification for such strict restrictions.

      I don’t think the issue is simple distaste. It goes to the aggressiveness of solicitation. If my mailbox is overflowing with beaded curtains, I would still consider that a problem.

      We have saw movies but nsfw communities on the internet are being whittled away by credit card companies.

      That’s more market consolidation than censorship. Bigger and more profit-oriented pornographers can survive this rule in a way small fries can’t. Even then, the so-called deregulated corners of the internet are the absolute worst of the lot when it comes to invasive advertising. Hell, the harshest criticisms of Google/Facebook/Microsoft atm is in how they’ve begun to adopt the advertising style of low-rent porn sites.

      I agree that the Tipper/Hilary/Lieberman pearl clutching of the 80s and 90s was awful. And I’ll happily spot you how attempts to censor and de-sexualize inevitably cultivated a class character (Skinamax and high end escorts are fine, but god forbid a poor person see a nipple during the Superbowl or get a BJ at a truck stop). We’re seeing that come around again with the folks screaming “Pedophile” at every LGBTQ organizer. And I think Clinton herself has lived to regret the hysteria she helped fuel, after the Comet Pingpong hoax.

      I demand my right to smut but I don’t want it on a billboard

      I’m right there with you. And I can’t help but think the calls to End Smut would be curtailed significantly if billboards were - generally speaking - dismantled and made illegal.