- Why do you have an account on xhitter, the site where Ellmon Grosk generates pedo images?
this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2026
848 points (99.0% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
15375 readers
1917 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article
--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I was called "young woman" when I was 15, maybe earlier. Is this abnormal?
No, they want to get you in the adult mindset as soon as possible, so they can make money off your work 😞
It would have been if they weren't using young, like in the post
Well someone who is 18 is also a "young woman." So someone who is 17 would be an "underage young woman." But that's clunky -- thus, "underage woman." IDK why people think this is a psy-op, seems like natural English to me.
It’s not incorrect language, but it is a deliberate choice to use language that minimizes the offense. They could describe the victims as children , teens, minors, girls, etc. They are deliberately saying “underage woman” instead of “15 (or 13) year old girl” because their editors will pull it for being too inflammatory, sensational or unprofessional (as if that is a regular concern in the modern press).
A similar thing happens when the police kill someone. All of a sudden all of the rules about using active voice for good writing go out the window and it’s “man dies in police involved shooting” rather than “Police shot man.” People who study journalism and writing in school and are full time career writers and journalists absolutely think about word choice so I have a hard time believing that this is accidental.
On the Epstein files:
- People keep posting on a site that directly finances someone featuring prominently in the Epstein files.
This is about the invisible oligarch elite. They exist on the left and the right, but this isn't about a single person. They believe they exist above the law. Bullets disagree, but I won't be the one to start shooting. Maybe I'd join in later if the cause was just.
Age of consent varies by country with many developed nations having it at 16. If these women were 16 or 17, the far greater crime is the trafficking and coercion.
I agree with her comments. It’s not close, but something like when Dick Cheney promoted the term “Climate change” to replace “Global warming”. Minimizing…
Not sure it's the same. The problem with "Global Warming" is that it it ignores the entire weather system is affected. Yes it's warmer, but for some regions that means brutal winters or torrential rainy seasons.
And it's those areas that the deniers point to as proof "global warming" is not real.
Climate change covers all the changes.
Sanewashing is the act of minimizing the perceived radical aspects of a person or idea in order to make them appear more acceptable to a wider audience. The term was initially coined in online discussions about defunding the police in 2020, but it has come to greater prominence in critique of media practices relating to Donald Trump in the 2024 United States presidential election.
right wing grifters are in a panic trying to sanewash people on the epstein files, roegan, megan,,,etc.
Is that really surprising ? Media owner name are on the list even if it not out yet
most of hollywood execs,or directors are likely on it too, considering how many actors have been blackballed by hollywood over thier allegations.
Not surprising, but important to point out.
I don't want to be a "this is a distraction" guy, but debating the particulars of language used by a news source when the folks on record as being pedophiles still aren't being prosecuted feels like a fucking distraction to me.
Like, they aren't even going to Lock Up the Clintons. The one thing that almost everyone in America can agree on is Bill Clinton being a pedophile. He's not someone Trump needs to protect. He's not someone the DNC wants to carry water for anymore. He's practically on death's door anyway, I don't know if even he would mind. And Trump's DOJ still won't lift a fucking finger.
It's embarrassing to see a country this obsessed with "War on Crime" bullshit refuse to touch ex-Presidents caught absolutely dead to rights doing crimes. All we can do is language-police the billionaire(pedophile)-owned outlets from the cheap seats.
Only so far as the Epstein files themselves were a distraction that gave false hope that people would change their beliefs. It's only a language for frustration; a way for people to justify themselves turning away from ideologies that no longer serve them. Some Trumpians might turn from him, some neoliberals might rethink their support of our old system, but they'll only care about Epstein because their personal wallets and rights were jeopardized.
120 Days of Sodom was written in 1785 on the eve of the French revolution. It was adapted into the film Salò, which set the story in German occupied Italy. None of this depravity by untouchable elites is new. People with so much institutional power will always do shit like this. The only solution is to resist the power no matter if it's unpopular, no matter if they send goons to kill you for calling the system what it is. They are replaceable villains, thus the only thing to fight is anyone's ability to be above us mortals.
Most of us can actually both call out the reporting for proper terminology and call for locking up the perpetrators. It's not one or the other...
Right. You can call for things.
Those are crimes of the past. We have to look to the future.
I'm willing to give the news some benefit of the doubt here because there actually are rational and non-evil reasons to do this.
Socially, we have at least two related, but distinct forms of sexual atrocity.
One is sex with children. There's extensive evidence that sex before puberty leads to all kinds of long term negative effects for the victim.
The other is non-consent. No matter what the age of the people involved, non-consent has serious negative consequences for the victim.
The Epstein victims all seem to be extremely young post-adolescents. We generally wouldn't care at all if they were getting it on with their high-school sweethearts.
The problem with the Epstein victims was primarily one of consent. There was a vast human trafficking network and many of our leaders were active participants. The whole thing was so horrible that normal people are sickened by it happening to anyone, not just children.
The reason we may want to be sticklers on this point is that this form of abuse is extremely common and really needs a spotlight on it. We don't want people to come out the other end of this thing and think, "Sure pedophilia is bad but this guy is just pressuring his 18 year old secretary into sex and then making money passing her around to his buddies."
I'm willing to give the news some benefit of the doubt here because there actually are rational and non-evil reasons to do this.
I'm not. They've been bending the narrative with this wishy washy rhetoric so much recently that they need the backlash. Even if incompetence, it's been an persistent pattern on their part. Trump is a fascist dictator, nothing he does is legally justified or anything near our old standard of "normal", and yet they have been pretending that we still live in a stable world because they don't want their interests threatened.
Also, this whole "they were post-adolescent" distinction is a waste of time. This shit is evil and anyone litigating nuance isn't worth serious debate. It's all delay tactics. Words are only tools to them.
I’ve seen some mention of prepubescent kids in the file dump. IDK if any of it has been substantiated but people willing to abduct 13 year olds are probably OK with abducting 10 year olds if that’s what they or their friends are into.
Of course, minors can’t consent but there are a lot of accusations of brutal violence, coercion and murder, in addition to the sexual assault. There is a lot of truly repulsive and vile shit in the files and we ought to have a justice system that brings it all to light and punishes anyone who committed crimes. In light of all of that, handwringing over whether it’s misleading to call a 13 year old rape victim a child is some weak sauce. Try hitting on a 13 year old in front of their parents and see how the “if there’s grass on the field” defense plays out.
See it positively: you instantly know where you're at with that "news"-site. Helps to boycott.
Same for those referring to the Kennedy Center using Trump's illegal name change as well. USA Today is doing that.
The dum dums will never make that connection
Fair point 🫤
It's not for them, it's for you and I to make better decisions. Seems there are more dum dums though.
Was beginning to think it was just me that was seeing this carefully worded language designed to minimise the severity of the crimes. I'm not crazy!
They've been sane washing all of the heinous bullshit for a while now.
Think of the recent events like this: they are trying to normalize pedophilia.
Next thing you know, Trump passes a law to allow "sex" with children.
I wonder if that will be enough for americans to finally do something?
How is "sex with children" sugarcoating it? That seems to be a literal interpretation of what's going on?
The other two I can understand as reductive language but this is just calling a spade a spade no? Is "sex with a child" not just as bad as "child abuse" or are there people who see that as a better way of phrasing it?
The nuance is that “sex” requires consent, because sex without consent is rape. So sex with a non-consenting person (including all children) can’t exist, because it’s actually raping children.
It’s more of a nitpicky difference than the others because I’d bet your average adult doesn’t bother thinking about that nuance, but it does carry a different subconscious weight. One is considered fun, happy, and almost everyone does it; the other is a monstrous act that has no justification.
Okay that makes more sense, I think my autism just got me too bogged down in the semantics of it all, thank you
I don't think that your definition of the term "sex" is universal.