NATSOC'S BTFO

holy fuck ancoms btfo

Porn was 100% legalized in the USSR

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_by_region

Right wingers cucked again!

What?

How can we make porn okay for iceland

Is this, dare I say, dialectics?

Did you post the wrong link or something?
There is no mention of the USSR in there.

Sex itself should be illegal there.
It's a 200000 people country where you have to be very careful to not fuck a relative by accident.

It was illegal you dumbass:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_Soviet_Union#Censorship_of_pornographic_images

Don't they have an app specifically for that though? Seems good enough to me.

Nothing wrong with sex, but reproduction should be illegal world-wide.

...

no

Is that muffet?

come on nigga! You were cool!

No this is muffet
That was rachnera

reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2mka3j/so_what_was_porn_like_in_the_soviet_union/

Read a book

At least it was legal in yugoslavia

Read your own sourses dumbass

You'd be surprised to how few people read the sources hey post themselves

Read your own sources dumbass

I've read it. A sex scene is not pornography you fucking retard

why tho ?

...

Legal under Lenin

Why not? Shes hot. Didnt even play the damn game.

Right wingers hate facts, its pretty funny.

Soviet erotic alphabet from 1931. (Stalinist era)

Facts hurt the right.

whoopsie, spoiler plz

You need to be shot

fuck you too man

Porn was outlawed in the late 30s or early 40s if I remember correctly

Those are from a private collection, they were never published. Do you even read your own sources? Pathetic.

web.archive.org/web/20161121143231/www.raruss.ru/erotic/974-russian-alphabet.html

thecharnelhouse.org/2013/03/31/soviet-era-erotic-alphabet-book-from-1931-советская-эротическая-азбук/

Try somthing that isn't right wing propaganda cucko

...

...

Whoa some drawings, such porn whoa!
Do you have any actual porn from that time, like, pictures of people fucking each other?

Read the comments

Porn was illegal in the USSR your alternative facts won't change it

Read the fucking sourse

You were the real subhumans all along. Porn was 100 legal. Facts win again.

raruss.ru/images/flippingbook/flipping-book/mercurov.html
Porn was 100% illegal and you can go back to reddit with this
bullshit

...

...

pleb
fish wife>spider wife

Tankies get the bullet too

Pretty much, but not quite. Some soft porn was actually allowed. Weimar Republic hardcore shit wasn't though.
Maybe they changed it later, but in the beginning it was illegal for sure. Even erotica was confiscated.

It was illegal during Stalin's time. You're just setting up muh horseshoe bullshit for radical centrists to wank over.

Tankies never cease to disappoint.

Other way around
It was completely legal under Lenin and got banned later

I'm not saying that porn should be banned. But I don't see the appeal in anything besides just naked chicks.

...

>The Soviets Jews legalized porn.
>Just like they did in the US and everywhere else they are!
n-nazis B-BTFO!! r-right?

mensheviks had more jews among their ranks than the bolsheviks did :^)

you do know that's all faked right

PORN WAS ILLAGAL IN THE USSR, IGNORE WHAT THE DELUSIONAL RETARDS ARE SPOUTING

2D grils are fake, but their orgasms are no more fake than anything else about them.

PORN WAS ALWAYS 100% LEGAL IN ANY CAPITALIST COUNTRY

Why are tankies so fucking cringeworthy.

Requesting Alunya lewds pls.

Checkmate.

wouldn't that be more impetus to legalize porn then?

I thought you were talking about the robo-dog from the original Galactica at first. Feel old, man. It's Rachnera from Monmusume.

stop posting anytime

The nazi's wanted to create a society that was a mandatory bootcamp with a life-long subscription and nearly succeeded, the soviets wanted the same and failed miserably; creating the new soviet man.

Selling Porn turns sex into a commodity.

East Germany was right.

Communists had better sex.

Not when someone else is making it happen. It's pathetic.

No, that's liberals.

I know I'm bout to get called a newfag/tripfag/whateverfag for posting this, but ain't porn by it's nature exploitation? Say if I film a girl fingering herself, pay her a flat sum and then make a profit off selling tapes of her diddling herself ain't I the same as Porky when he pays a bunch of women to sow piles of clothes for him in a factory which he makes millions in profit from?

Did the Soviets exploit girls for their orgasms, comrades?

ACTSHOOALLY nothing is by its nature exploitation. It BECOMES exploitation, once it becomes an industry, capitalism, alienation and so on.

Amateur porn that is made because you wanted to do it and want to share it with the world for free is not exploitation.
Porn as a poduct that is made for profit and has rules, patterns and so on is the epitome of exploitation and how it alienates us.
Here dailymotion.com/video/x222wl0_do-communists-have-better-sex_shortfilms

So Soviet Russia had a thriving webcam and amateur porn industry? That could work…

>Here dailymotion.com/video/x222wl0_do-communists-have-better-sex_shortfilms

Making sex into a mechanical act; a politcally correct one at that. Talk about alienation…

Jesus fucking Christ, you faggots still haven't learned it despite the tips I've dropped the last 100 times on these threads.
Porn connoisseur here. The correct term for what you described is actually "Homemade" porn. "Amateur" porn still can be made by a studio in a "professional" way that panders to retards who don't realize that all porn is fake independently of if it is purely made "because you wanted to do it" or not.

>>>/mlpol/

Ok, secretery of language.
Homemade porn for public destribution.
Happy now?

You do understand we are talking about the 60s, right?

I don't have anything that hasn't probably been posted a million times already.

triggered

Savage af

The only good goat, that is

shut up fag

So the solution is to take from those who have water and give to those who don't have water? Or take medicine and give it to the dying? Have you considered the faculties of the peoples? Perhaps it is by their own hand that they come across diseases. Barring genetic diseases, of course. But any death by disease just because people are poor does not mean that it is outside of their own ability. Imagine how many people would be alive if people in poor regions stopped having children.

wtf I love Nazis now

Funny how the black book of communism allows for no such distinctions when it comes to counting deaths by communism and yet here you are fighting for it when the same rules apply to capitalism.

Of course. There is a dynamic difference between actively and passively killing somebody. Starvation isn't an active act of execution if it involves free trade. Just because you buy my crops and eat it while somebody else doesn't and dies doesn't mean I killed them. But if I have my secret police go out and kill somebody, that's active murder. All the kulak executions or the Red Revolution is actively killing people. Removing free trade and embargoing your own nation because fuck exploitation is an active act of murder. Embargoes work, just ask the Japanese.

Needs more thicc.

Hoarding water and food and denying access to it to any who won't pay your price in the off chance that you *might* profit from it IS an active act of murder. Hell it's even common practice to destroy food under capitalism rather than give it to those in need just so that you can artificially reduce supply to increase price.

Freedom from 'x' exists, you know. I can choose to sell you something or choose not to. There does not exist a massive company that has water, you know. Unless you can prove it other than just making a statement. US embargo on the Japanese was their right to do so. You are making an emotional argument that the US was somehow obligated to trade to the Japanese because they have very little to work with in regards to oil production. So it would be criminal to deny them this, only if your point is valid (that it is criminal to abstain from trade).
Who determines if they are needy? The needy? Why are they poor to begin with? What makes you think just feeding the problem will make it go away? Like I said, abstaining from trade is a right, too. If I choose not to give food to the homeless, I am not actively murdering them. If I hold a company that produces fast food, choosing to not give out my products for free just because of emotional arguments is not only rational, but is an exercise of my freedom from 'x'.

You have the right to not be capitalist scum so that I don't actively kill you. Think of it as a voluntary agreement between two consenting parties :^)

Extending your emotions as purpose for your murder is actively killing somebody for poor justification.
Do you know what the definition of voluntary means? All it takes is my dismissal of the exchange to make it involuntary from my perspective.

You're acting as if rights magically just existing is rational and not based on emotions to begin with. Also acting as if a computer would decide it's somehow more rational to hoard food rather than give it away or vice versa. Bringing up emotions to disregard arguments at all in politics is hilarious as even choosing to survive is based on emotions. It just makes your whole argument laughable and it's hard to take you seriously when the best you've got is "I don't agree with something therefore it must be emotions and I am the champion of reason". Tell me what is so rational to think there's a difference between denying people food so they die and shooting somebody so they die. I would honestly prefer to die by shooting compared to death by starvation for one thing. It's quicker, less painful, and more humane of the murderer.

If you choose to deny the gift of life it's up to you, death by gulag it is comrade.

Actually, my claims exist outside of the necessity for rights, they simply make reference to how one would operate given their existence. Never once did I make any indication to the existence of said rights (it was only postulated). In fact, you don't even have my opinion on the existence of rights. Rights exist and are enforced by the rule of law which is enforced by violence. Rights are arbitrary and are not some magical creation predating our existence; to summarize, rights aren't cosmic, but created out of necessity when one wishes to have them exist.
But you didn't wait for my explanation, you just took postulation as an argument I was making for some universal code of rights. My point was concerned with the freedom from provided these freedoms exist to begin with, not that they exist outside of our interactions (i.e. cosmically). I'd love to be as intellectually dishonest as you are and put words in your mouth so that I can attack them, though.
Computers don't have cosmic moral codes, either. Only what they would want. It's specific to each computer.
Again, I never claimed that humans are not emotional beings. But using your emotions to justify policies isn't rational: that was what I claimed. You can't say "hey, you aren't trading with Japan; you have to do that now because otherwise they wouldn't have what you have" without relying on emotions instead of, say, pragmatism.
Many human inventions and actions operate outside of emotions. Not all, but many. Things that are not subjective, but objective.
Glad to hear your emotions, yet again. But just stating how funny you think something is doesn't really create a substantive and non-emotional point as to why it is wrong. Besides, I wasn't the one who made the first claim. I responded to an image making an emotional point about the millions who died. I stated that some of the deaths are just from disease (somehow relates to the free market, I guess) and some are as a result from choosing to not trade with people, which is not an obligation (and that if the postulation is correct, people have the freedom to not trade, too).
It's not that my disagreement is the sole reason why it is emotional. That's not what I claimed, but keep on attacking that strawman. I'm stating that it is emotional because you observe the have-nots, dismiss faculty, and state that their dilapidation is worthy of welfare and abolishing freedoms when you feel upset at the state of the poor.

Read my points above here:
"There is a dynamic difference between actively and passively killing somebody. Starvation isn't an active act of execution if it involves free trade. Just because you buy my crops and eat it while somebody else doesn't and dies doesn't mean I killed them. But if I have my secret police go out and kill somebody, that's active murder. All the kulak executions or the Red Revolution is actively killing people. Removing free trade and embargoing your own nation because fuck exploitation is an active act of murder. Embargoes work, just ask the Japanese."
Emphasis on the last point which you must have glossed over. "Removing free trade and embargoing your own nation because fuck exploitation is an active act of murder."
I would agree, as it is quicker and that's the most logical point to take. But I never asked for what you thought was faster, so your anecdote is irrelevant.
Sounds like you took that from a fortune cookie. I can extend the same "feel bad about 'x'" statement to you: if you choose to deny the freedom to abstain from trade, it's up to you.

And if the rule of law says that capitalists will be killed? Seems like under your definition there was nothing wrong with deaths by communism under communism, just as there is nothing wrong with deaths by capitalism under capitalism. Might makes right correct? So why feel the need to blame deaths under communism but not deaths under capitalism?
I fail to see how pragmatism lies outside the realm of emotions. You need emotions to determine if something is pragmatic or not. There is no inherent use in anything without a value system and value systems come from emotions.
They did not conform to communism, they chose not to conform to communism, and so they died. They did not conform to capitalism, they chose not to conform to capitalism, and so they died. You somehow see a distinction here where there is none.
My post here simply outed your hypocrisy and yet you still won't own up to it.

But porn makes people complacent with the issues of today.

If they're distracted by porn and don't pursue a meaningful relationship because their sexual desires are being fulfilled elsewhere it won't wake up the common masses to the fact that they no longer reasonably afford the family-centric lifestyle of their mothers and fathers.

Porn is acting as the opium of the people in the 21st century as well as other major forms of escapism like video games.

Pure Ideology.

Assertion depends on proof. Where is this law in action today? Why mention it if you cannot link its existence?
It surely can exist, but does it? Where is this law? More baseless claims.
The entire point was that they are not "deaths" because of the categories of active deaths and passive deaths. Reread my posts if you're having a hard time keeping up.
Never hinted towards this, either, but my personal input is irrelevant because I can't combat those who want 'x' to be true: it simply is because they make it so. Do you think the Siege of Baghdad would not have occurred if the Mongols took a time to stop and have the cosmic forces of human rights stop them?
Because they aren't equivalent. You are deliberately conflating apples to be oranges. Freedom from 'x' is not equivalent to killing squads. There are no such killing squads in a capitalist system that go out and kill people. No such system exists today.
If I trade my crops to you and you eat it, I'm not killing the guy who I didn't potentially trade to. On the same point, if you undercut his offer for my crops, by your own logic, you are also guilty of his murder, which is now equivalent to secret police murdering kulaks.
To be pragmatic, one must be realistic. Realistically approaching a problem may coincide with emotionally approaching problems, but the two are, again, not mutually exclusive.
There is a difference between reaching a conclusion from emotional judgement and having emotions, but reaching conclusions that are not dependent on said emotions. The whole point is that emotions are subjective and will vary: just because you have emotions does not mean they will necessarily determine/influence your problem-solving skills, which may often be determined by the most realistic approach.
For example, you can observe millions dying of starvation and claim that these people need food right away because "appeal to emotion". I can state that it is not realistic to give away crops for free as the supply of crops will no sustain itself without a farmer (who will not sit idly by as his goods are taken on the basis of appeals to emotion). They will not grow by themselves (objective statement, not based on emotions). I didn't use emotions to reach my conclusion, I just stated that, without the farmer, the crops will not grow. Taking the crops from the farmer by force will make it so that the farmer will no longer produce crops. That is a realistic approach because I don't assume the farmer will have the same subjective emotions as you do.

we dont

The poor did not conform to communism, so they died? They died because they were shot or the same authoritative figures you despise happened to exercise their monopolies on crops to limit the accessibility, creating starvations that could have been avoidable. Collectivization and all that.
Except the difference between trading with one nation over another versus seizing crops with the intention of collectivization. Just because the US trades with the UK over France because the Brits offered a better price does not mean that the US is guilty of all starvation deaths in France. But if the US forcibly seized crops from its own citizenry, the deaths that result in that action could have been avoided had they decided not to seize the crops in the first place.
My posts here debunk your hypocrisy: