site banner

Friday Fun Thread for October 2, 2026

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

1
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I don't think its unreasonable to expect Friday Fun to omit the sexualization of middle schoolers.

You did the previously did this where you highlighted legal cases of child sex abuse, with some 'legal' interest that you shared with us; several times over weeks. This seems like the same schtick with 'LLM related prompts' and no shielding text blocks instead.

Why are you so bothered by it? Just ignore it.

I don't think its unreasonable to expect Friday Fun to omit the sexualization of middle-schoolers.

I don't watch horror movies, but it's my understanding that, in the context of horror, sexualization of children is reasonably commonplace. See The Exorcist (whose novelization I have read).

You previously did this where you highlighted legal cases of child sex abuse, with some 'legal' interest that you shared with us, several times over weeks. This seems like the same schtick with 'LLM related prompts' and no shielding text blocks instead.

It is pure coincidence that I have seen zero interesting or funny child sex abuse cases recently to post in my own Friday Fun Thread top-level comment (since August 21). In fact, for this week's Friday top-level comment, despite checking New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and (with much less diligence) federal opinions on a daily basis, I found zero interesting or funny court decisions at all, other than the one that I posted in the culture-war thread as linked above. (The one found via the Institute for Justice doesn't count.)

Note that I posted these two prompts not unprompted (no pun intended) in my own Friday top-level comment, but in response to someone else's Friday top-level comment that drew attention to bulges in an interesting and funny court opinion.

The Exorcist is based on a novel by William Peter Blatty, it doesn't have a novelisation.

  • First I misinterpreted "Blatty adapted his own 1971 novel" as implying a 2001 situation, where the movie version and the book version are equally canonical.

  • And then I somehow miswrote "novelization" instead of "novel version".

I don't know what came over me.

I'm not convinced by your protestations. Some people might think shitting in a pool is funny, and then without standards we're left with a shitty pool. The main post topic doesn't lead to the mention of a middle schoolers bulge, that's all you buddy. Your choices to return to this topic time and time again and, your obvious desire to return to this topic in the future I think are more suitable to some other place. I think everyone loves your citations and links, its your repeated insistence on this topic that I think makes your gosh me defense fail. While I predict you flailing your arms to the impossibly of compartmentalization I think its best solution.

Is it too much to ask for hidden text privacy blocks for when you post with/about/pertaining to the sexualization of children?

Is it too much to ask for hidden text privacy blocks for when you post with/about/pertaining to the sexualization of children?

Yes. This is a forum for posting controversial opinions and that includes controversial opinions that you personally find disgusting enough to warrant "privacy blocks" to avoid. The sidebar is a more than sufficient trigger warning that you may encounter such topics here.

I will put on my best Chad impersonation and say that I just don't care. I didn't even post any actual LLM-generated stories—I posted only the prompts. If you can assault my eyes with bad punctuation, I can assault your eyes with AO3-level story ideas. The gooning will continue until morale improves o algo.