Topic: Legalizing prostitution unecessarily benefits sex workers.

Dick Minichan™ !Memes4aSuc started this discussion 3 years ago #106,079

It forces them out of their second worst option, which isn't better or it wouldn't be the second option to start with.

Let that sink in.

(Edited 1 minute later.)

Poll option	Votes	Percentage	Graph
Agree.	1	25%
Can't disagree.	3	75%

Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 11 minutes later[^] [v] #1,192,324

KITOFTPAT

Dick Minichan™ !Memes4aSuc (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,325

@previous (B)
Are you having a stroke?

Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 13 seconds later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,326

don't be rworded, decriminalization has always been an option. fixes probably 80-90% of all the safety issues and nobody has to approve of anything or create a legal framework for hookers to buy tax stamps

Anonymous C double-posted this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,327

also, nice contrarian posting @OP 🙄

Anonymous B replied with this 3 years ago, 25 seconds later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,328

@1,192,326 (C)
But what if men visit professionals instead of dedicating all their energy to me in exchange for sporadic or nonexistent sex?

Lets decide these women have no agency and force them to sell their plasma and give all their time to the retail industry instead. Thats real compassion, and anyone who disagrees is a chud misogynist.

(Edited 22 seconds later.)

Dick Minichan™ !Memes4aSuc (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,329

@1,192,327 (C)
It's a question worth asking. Is the penny dropping yet?

Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 53 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,337

@previous (Dick Minichan™ !Memes4aSuc)
try harder, it might go in

dw !p9hU6ckyqw joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 3 hours later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,364

Here it has only lead to more swx trafficking

Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 6 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,365

@previous (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
The Netherlands never legalized sex trafficking, they legalized legalized consentual sex work.

What evidence is there that legalizing consentual sex work increased nonconsentual sex work?

dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 3 years ago, 8 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,367

@previous (E)
It's common knowledge lol

https://eclj.org/geopolitics/eu/legal-prostitution-and-human-trafficking-in-the-netherlands

https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-trafficking-in-persons-report/netherlands/#report-tocexec-summary

https://www.nationaalrapporteur.nl/publicaties/rapporten/2021/01/21/dadermonitor-mensenhandel-2015-2019

(Edited 2 minutes later.)

Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,369

@1,192,365 (E)
Yeah it turns out that the demand is always higher than the supply

Anonymous E replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,370

@1,192,367 (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)

A belief being widely held doesn’t make it true.

Those links are from liberal feminist institutions that want to keep sex in short supply to control men.

Legalizing consentual acts does not mean you cannot prosecute sex traffickers.

If a brothel is forcing someone to sell sex against their will, arrest them.

How does criminalizing sex workers and johns not hurting anyone somehow benefit sex trafficking victims?

(Edited 1 minute later.)

Anonymous E double-posted this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,371

@1,192,369 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
How does banning consentual sex work solve that?

If anything that opens up more business for the sex traffickers.

dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,372

@1,192,370 (E)
It's not a belief it's statistics

Anonymous E replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,373

@previous (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
You sound like a white supremacist talking about crime stats.

If these stats are true, what’s the theory behind why this happens?

If the police raid a brothel and arrest people exclusively involved in consentual sex work how does that help sex trafficking victims who never interact with the johns at the consentual brothel?

dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,376

@previous (E)
the theory is probably explained in the several articles I linked.

All I'm saying is legal prostitution has been proven to increase human trafficking. Like that us gov article said legalisation increases demand without increasing supply (at least in a 1st world country) so you need to increase police capacity adequately which we haven't and won't

Anonymous E replied with this 3 years ago, 11 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,377

@previous (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
You shouldn’t be allowed to buy cars because some people steal cars.

It’s wrong to take someone’s car against their will, so you shouldnt be allowed to take it with their consent either. QED

Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,378

@1,192,371 (E)
No because when it's fully legal, more money can be made from it. And because not enough women want to do it, women are trafficked in

Also "by force" is not the way to look at it

Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 3 years ago, 26 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,379

@1,192,373 (E)
Ugh don't being up White supremacy. He isn't a racist

Anonymous E replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,380

@1,192,378 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> No because when it's fully legal, more money can be made from it.

Sex trafficking is illegal before and after the legalization of consentual sex work.

If its illegal before and after, how do they make more money after?

> And because not enough women want to do it, women are trafficked in

Women can be trafficked in before legalization too, so what changes?

(Edited 1 minute later.)

Anonymous E double-posted this 3 years ago, 52 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,381

@1,192,379 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
No, but he is using the same justification they use.

Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,382

@1,192,380 (E)
Because more men go to prostitutes because they don't get prosecuted

And trafficking is hard to prove

(Edited 53 seconds later.)

Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,383

@1,192,381 (E)
I don't see how that's so

Anonymous E replied with this 3 years ago, 35 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,384

@1,192,382 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Men get prosecuted for raping sex trafficking victims before and after legalization of consentual sex work. Abusing sex trafficking victims does not suddenly become legal, why imply that changes?

The men that can break the law scot free after legalization were getting away with it before too.

Anonymous E double-posted this 3 years ago, 32 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,385

@1,192,383 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Both quote government stats to defend their stance.

dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 3 years ago, 24 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,387

@1,192,377 (E)
You shouldn't be allowed to purchase sex from women if it can't be reasonably guaranteed that that woman isn't a trafficking victim

Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 37 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,388

@1,192,381 (E)
oh no, anything but using facts and statistics to back up your statements!

(Edited 44 seconds later.)

Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 50 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,390

ITT, Anon E is shown statistics that contradict his worldview, dismisses them as "liberal feminist" propaganda because he cannot refute them.

Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 15 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,391

@1,192,384 (E)
There is less risk and more reward for trafficking when less people are prosecuted, because so many more men become buyers

Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 3 years ago, 36 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,392

@1,192,385 (E)
Ummmm so you can compare any type of crime statistic to white supremacy?

Anonymous E replied with this 3 years ago, 29 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,393

@1,192,387 (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
Which is why legalization has only ever been about legalizing exactly that.

Anonymous E double-posted this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,394

@1,192,391 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Why would fewer men be prosecuted for sex trafficking if it stays illegal?

thats like saying allowing the selling of cars increases car theft because you allow more more people to “take” cars without being prosecuted.

you are conflating consentual and nonconsentual acts to make it seem like nonconsentual acts are no longer being prosecuted.

Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 43 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,395

@1,192,393 (E)
there's no point in legalization. what has buying a tax stamp ever done for anyone?

Anonymous G replied with this 3 years ago, 13 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,396

@1,192,394 (E)
Do you use prostitutes often?

Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 25 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,397

@1,192,394 (E)
Because johns aren't generally prosecuted because they have no way of knowing who is a trafficked victim

Anonymous E replied with this 3 years ago, 2 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,398

@1,192,392 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Or accept that data can be manipulated by governments with agendas.

Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,399

@previous (E)
I don't see why those governments would want to manipulate that data

Anonymous E replied with this 3 years ago, 35 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,400

@1,192,396 (G)
Everyone sells their body under capitalism.

Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 57 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,401

@previous (E)
Comparing sex work to nearly any other type of work seems very dishonest

Anonymous E replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,402

@1,192,399 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
governments serve interests groups.

Women hate when the market for their most lucrative service becomes saturated. they want to charge a high price and elect leaders who get this done.

Politicians just need to ignore the obvious fact that forcing someone to their second best choice harms them. then they can enrich their female constituents.

Anonymous E double-posted this 3 years ago, 29 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,403

@1,192,401 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Sex work pays better and is much less harsh on the body than many other jobs.

Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 39 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,404

@1,192,402 (E)
it's already been pointed out to you that the market does not become saturated, the opposite is true in fact

Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 45 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,405

@1,192,402 (E)
So you think that a government that legalized prostitution, fixed the data to make it seem like they fucked up?

Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 3 years ago, 26 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,406

@1,192,403 (E)
Not the type of prostitution we're talking about. This isn't some cam girl shit

Anonymous E replied with this 3 years ago, 36 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,407

@1,192,404 (C)
It becomes relatively saturated conpared to prohibition of sex work.

Same for oil. OPEC constrains supply even though their would be more demand than supply no matter what. it doesn’t matter, restraining supply increases prices in both cases.

Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 35 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,408

@previous (E)
it's obvious that you didn't read any of the links posted ITT

Anonymous E replied with this 3 years ago, 31 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,409

@1,192,405 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
The people pushing these stats are not the same that got prostitution legalized. many policies are instituted by different administrations and do not change overnight. likewise there are multiple interests groups exerting influence in different ways.

Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 50 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,410

@previous (E)
Do you have any proof of this?

Anonymous E replied with this 3 years ago, 22 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,411

@1,192,408 (C)
It’s obvious that the main beneficiary of increasing the price of a service is those thag supply the service.

women want as much cash as possible per fuck, and prohibition is the easiest way to increase prices.

Anonymous E double-posted this 3 years ago, 56 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,412

@1,192,410 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Prostitution was legalized decades ago, and those stats were recent from lib administrations that were elected much later than legalization.

it’s not the same people who did both.

Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 21 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,413

@1,192,411 (E)
you're dumb as hell, enjoy your retarded fantasy

Anonymous E replied with this 3 years ago, 53 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,415

@previous (C)
My fantasy is for women to make this choice themselves.

Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 1 second later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,416

@1,192,412 (E)
Maybe people didn't care to research it, because men were enjoying getting laid

Anonymous E replied with this 3 years ago, 16 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,417

@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
and women were enjoying getting paid.

Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 28 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,418

@previous (E)
Most of the time, they don't even see that money

Anonymous E replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,419

@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Then why would they consent?

If you are referring to nonconsentual sex work, that is just as illegal as before.

Anonymous E double-posted this 3 years ago, 23 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,420

“Legalizing the sale of cars would increase the demand for cars, thus increasing car thefts”

same logic

Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,421

@1,192,419 (E)
We are arguing different things

Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 3 years ago, 40 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,422

@1,192,420 (E)
That would only be a thing if car supplies didn't meet demand

Anonymous E replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,423

@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
If car supplies didnt meet demand how would legalizing car sales increase car thefts?

Or in the gwneral form: How does voluntary transaction of X increase involuntary transactions of X ?

Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 6 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,424

@1,192,420 (E)
legalizing cars reduces demand, since you've got to pay a yearly tax for your tags and license! 😬 and the car dealerships have got to pay their license fees, too... raising prices

(Edited 30 seconds later.)

Anonymous E replied with this 3 years ago, 33 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,425

@previous (C)
Legalizing prostitution must decrease demand because you have to pay taxes.

Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,426

@previous (E)
hmm, there must be different factors in play then, since it doesn't 🤔

(Edited 11 seconds later.)

Anonymous E replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,427

@previous (C)
Demand stays the same regardless of legalization.

Legalization only increases the proportion of that demand that is for voluntary transactions.

Hard left feminist dutch statisticians will manipulate the data so their boyfriends have to pay a larger portion of the rent.

(Edited 16 seconds later.)

Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 13 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,428

@previous (E)
false

Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 19 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,429

@1,192,423 (E)
Because demand outweighs supply. And traffickers like making money

Anonymous E replied with this 3 years ago, 3 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,430

@1,192,428 (C)
Your statement claiming my statement is false, is itself false.

Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 40 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,431

@previous (E)
no u retard

Anonymous E replied with this 3 years ago, 1 second later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,432

@1,192,429 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
I’ve said a few times demand outstrips supply even before legalization, so what changes?

You keep ignoring that.

Anonymous E double-posted this 3 years ago, 40 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,433

@1,192,431 (C)
Disparaging the differently abled to make the case that women shouldn’t be able to make choices about their own bodies, not a good look.

Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 32 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,434

@1,192,432 (E)
Because demand is so high, that traffickers are willing to risk prosecution, because the money they earn will increase

Anonymous E replied with this 3 years ago, 54 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,435

@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Isn’t that true before legalization of consentual sex work?

Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 13 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,436

@1,192,433 (E)
You're the one who has just disparaged them

Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,437

@1,192,435 (E)
It's higher because there are more customers now

Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 15 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,438

@1,192,433 (E)

> to make the case that women shouldn’t be able to make choices about their own bodies, not a good look.

Scroll up, you'll see that has never been my position. You should get some rest

dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 3 years ago, 7 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,439

@1,192,407 (E)
that is the opposite of true

dw !p9hU6ckyqw double-posted this 3 years ago, 36 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,441

Also you are a crazed misogynist

Anonymous E replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,443

@1,192,437 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
You could say that of legalizing any scarce product or service.

But for any other service no one thinks legalization increases involuntary theft of that service, except in the case of sex work.

dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 3 years ago, 46 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,444

@previous (E)
What are you talking about theft of service we're talking about theft of people

Anonymous E replied with this 3 years ago, 19 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,445

@1,192,441 (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
I’m a crazed misogynist for thinking women should have a right to choose how they make money?

How does forcing a woman to her second best option help her?

Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 1 second later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,446

@1,192,443 (E)
But not every service is equivalent. And so comparing them isn't always relevant

Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 15 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,447

@1,192,443 (E)
why do you want the government involved in your sex life? that's what you're asking for by advocating for legalization. decriminalizing it should be enough

Anonymous E replied with this 3 years ago, 15 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,448

@1,192,444 (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
Either legalizing something increases theft or not, them being people doesnt somehow affect the inderlying logic being used here.

Anonymous E double-posted this 3 years ago, 50 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,449

@1,192,446 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Sure, but what would affect the market differently here?

It’s different, but what difference would make legalized consentual interactions generate nonconsentual interactions?

dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 3 years ago, 1 second later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,450

@1,192,445 (E)
No you're a crazed misogynist for your crazy misogynist rants

Anonymous E replied with this 3 years ago, 39 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,451

@previous (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
Nothing about giving women a choice is hateful towards women.

It’s hateful towards women to decide they can’t make the choice themselves.

dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 3 years ago, 52 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,452

@1,192,448 (E)
legalising prostition increases demand increases human trafficking

Anonymous E replied with this 3 years ago, 40 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,453

@1,192,447 (C)
The government is already involved in every aspect of our lives, and I’m not advocating for decriminalization or legalization specifically.

I am pointing out that the government targetting a prostitute and her john engaged in consentual relations does nothing at all to help sex trafficking victims. all it does it divert resources away from those victims.

Anonymous E double-posted this 3 years ago, 15 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,454

@1,192,452 (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
No.

Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 44 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,455

@1,192,453 (E)
and why do you need a legal framework and tax stamps for your vision to come to fruition??

Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,458

@1,192,449 (E)
1. Because it's a service with a horrible stigma attached

2. It's dangerous

3. It pays little

4. People need to be tricked and threatened to do it. Most would never do it unless they are truly desperate

When it becomes legal, the customers for this product increases a hundred fold

Where to get this product??

Traffickers (who were already doing illegal things) are now doing those things on a much larger scale

They can get much more money for a crime they were already committing

Anonymous E replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,459

@1,192,455 (C)
I don’t, I just want police to focus on nonconsentual sex.

Joran want the police distracted with consentual encounters in the jope they dont have the resources to catch him in his nonconsentual misogynistic encounters.

Anonymous E double-posted this 3 years ago, 51 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,460

@1,192,458 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
That’s true its a shit job.

Which means their second choice for a job is even worse.

Forcingn someone out of a bad job, into an even worse job is not compassion.

Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 9 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,461

@1,192,459 (E)
So decriminalizing prostitution should be all you're asking for... why are you insisting upon legalizing it?

Anonymous E replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,462

@previous (C)

I’m using legalization to mean the end of prohibition, nothing else.

Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,463

@previous (E)
that's not what it means

Anonymous E replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,464

@previous (C)
I doubt most people make the distinction, but sure your terms are more accurate.

I am talking about decriminalization to be clear.

dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 3 years ago, 2 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,192,471

@1,192,454 (E)
great refutal