That was my initial thought too. What he means is – imagine the picture was of a little girl and an older man instead. And the picture is itself an ad for Verizon and Apple.
Okay, I don’t take everything literally, but that’s how I understood it both on first reading and after puzzling over it for a while. Maybe it could have been a little better worded?
Like “Now imagine the one on the right is much older, but the one on the left isn’t.” Talking about “getting older” implies movement through time, and why wouldn’t they both be moving through time, if that’s how it’s worded?
The only sense it made to me is that if a little girl is accustomed from early childhood to not having a sense of gender modesty/privacy, she will not have a problem with unisex locker rooms. Later on, this could potentially lead to her being accosted in unpleasant ways (or the boy being accosted in unpleasant ways, given what some girls are like these days). Or, they will accost each other in ways they find all too pleasant, and which render the locker room a Near Occasion of Sin. Hence the relevance of the Apple. But, inventive as I try… Read more »
They are beginning to normalize gender neutrality, wrapping it in the innocence of children…fully dressed in a locker room. The next step is to normalize pedophilia, to encase it in the same kind of innocence, just another lifestyle choice, and anyone who might object is obviously just a hater who wants to stand in the way of love. Actually this has been going on for a long time, it’s just that it’s really starting to hit the mainstream.
Can someone explain this? I have no idea whatsoever what’s going on here.
“Gender=neutral” locker rooms. For more info see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmveYgGcpew
I took it to mean that what is safe for children is not safe for a little girl and a grown man.
Okay, that makes sense, but why would the little girl not get older? Is she in a time warp? And what’s the deal with Apple and Verizon?
That was my initial thought too. What he means is – imagine the picture was of a little girl and an older man instead. And the picture is itself an ad for Verizon and Apple.
Thanks, that makes sense.
Oh for Pete’s sake, Miz Take-everything-for-literal! ;-)
Okay, I don’t take everything literally, but that’s how I understood it both on first reading and after puzzling over it for a while. Maybe it could have been a little better worded?
Like “Now imagine the one on the right is much older, but the one on the left isn’t.” Talking about “getting older” implies movement through time, and why wouldn’t they both be moving through time, if that’s how it’s worded?
The only sense it made to me is that if a little girl is accustomed from early childhood to not having a sense of gender modesty/privacy, she will not have a problem with unisex locker rooms. Later on, this could potentially lead to her being accosted in unpleasant ways (or the boy being accosted in unpleasant ways, given what some girls are like these days). Or, they will accost each other in ways they find all too pleasant, and which render the locker room a Near Occasion of Sin. Hence the relevance of the Apple. But, inventive as I try… Read more »
Um, what? That’s not a very clear scan. Is there a link to a clearer view of the ad?
They are beginning to normalize gender neutrality, wrapping it in the innocence of children…fully dressed in a locker room. The next step is to normalize pedophilia, to encase it in the same kind of innocence, just another lifestyle choice, and anyone who might object is obviously just a hater who wants to stand in the way of love. Actually this has been going on for a long time, it’s just that it’s really starting to hit the mainstream.
Someone should re-shoot this with an older man wrapped in a towel. I think that would be effective to anyone not completely brainwashed.