this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2026
237 points (91.0% liked)

Brand New Sentence

199 readers
396 users here now

Showcasing the brazen and nouveau in English communication.

  1. Be cool to each other.
  2. Post title must be the sentence.
  3. Link for context if possible.
  4. Tag NSFW where applicable.

I'm looking for another mod, someone chill. DM me if you're interested.

founded 2 weeks ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AI_toothbrush@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 hours ago

Like i agree but the argument they present is so bad it almost makes you dissagree πŸ’€

[–] plutopos@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

I hate bad arguments for good points. Like yes smut is no problem. This doesn't mean EVERY work of literature is unproblematic

[–] MyVeryRealName@lemmy.world 0 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Idk it's weird to read erotica in public

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

How the hell would anyone seeing you know it's erotica unless they have also read it? It's not like they generally become popular enough to be known by people who haven't, like 50 Shades of Gray did.

Or they have a sexy Fabio guy on the cover. πŸ€”

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 8 points 15 hours ago

Dogshit argument, I refuse to even evaluate if I agree with the conclusion

[–] endless_nameless@lemmy.world 18 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Porn is just pixels so you should have no problem with me watching on the subway with my laptop chuddy

[–] Zozano@aussie.zone 12 points 18 hours ago

Masturbating in public is just vibrating atoms moving together, like everything else. If you dont like watching me crank my hog to Sonic hentai, then maybe you dont respect physics.

[–] Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world 11 points 19 hours ago (3 children)

People in here comparing looking at porn images in public as if it's comparable to a smutty book. I dunno, man. It would take effort to read someone else's book in order to know what it's even saying. But pulling up a pornographic image doesn't take any work to comprehend. One requires hovering over someone's shoulder, getting in their space, and actively trying to figure out what they're reading. The other requires no more than a glance around.

As far as being appropriate in public, they really can't be compared.

[–] ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 7 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

I think part of it is that the idea of viewing content that arouses you in public is a more horrifying idea for men than for women. Women can be aroused without anyone knowing, whereas the same is not generally true for men. So for men it seems more absurd for someone to be intentionally arousing themselves in public

It is, in essence, the same as viewing porn in public if somehow no one else could easily see it. The underlying point is that its still sexual content

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 5 points 18 hours ago

Some of those book covers, though.

[–] sh__@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago

Maybe it has to do with the other commenters point. If you took the polarizer off your screen and put it in your glasses so only you could see it, I still think it would be weird to watch porn in public. It is like a social norms thing for me about not intentionally getting yourself aroused in public.

[–] Sunsofold@lemmings.world 12 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

This is fucking stupid. The moral outrage at smut is also stupid, but this is a monumentally idiotic way to argue that point. The Turner Diaries are also 'just letters,' as are the bible, the CIA's 'enhanced interrogation techniques' manual, the 'Letter From a Birmingham Jail,' Romeo & Juliet, Anti-Oedipus, and your friend's suicide note.

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 4 points 19 hours ago (5 children)

Downvoting your comment only supports your argument. Hilarious.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago

Wow for once this is true!

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] VerilyFemme@lemmy.blahaj.zone 43 points 1 day ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (29 children)

I saw a guy doing moral outrage that men sometimes goon it crazy style in public.

It's pixels. It's thousands of pixels arranged on a screen that make your imagination see a real person.

When people act like it's indecent I'm always like, "oh no the witch pixels have formed the horny configuration"

Just taking the piss btw, read what you want in public it's a damn book. Stores still sell brown paper bags to use as covers, right?

load more comments (29 replies)
[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 18 hours ago

I feel the same way about people putting nsfw warnings on text posts

[–] underscores@lemmy.zip 8 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

you can read whatever you want and I'm not going to judge you but personally my frame of mind when horny is not something I want to experience in public

with this in mind, by extension I understand the viewpoint of "people should not have that frame of mind in public"

that being said I'm not gonna police anyone, and I also don't care if you're rock hard or gooping down there cause of something you're reading. I would just prefer not to be

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] restless@hexbear.net 7 points 21 hours ago

It's literally pixels that just light up different amounts to form colors to make it look like an image, oh no someone's screen just happens to be displaying a magic combination that registers to your brain as a naked person.

(The argument that a piece of media isn't even the sum of its parts, but just an ordered set of the elements that make it up, is extremely disingenuous. I don't even care if people read smut in public but I don't think this is the best line of reasoning for defending it)

[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 11 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

She reads romance novels, someone else look at porn. My thought has always been β€œyou prefer words, they prefer pictures, but fundamentally it’s no different”

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] IAMgROOT@lemmy.wtf 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

this can be applied to anything

theyre guns theyre a hump of firey metal you need to regulate metal? hahahahahahahaaaaha

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 6 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

Are you really going to call me a terrorist just because I want to shoot some neutrons at a cluster of enriched uranium in a populated area? Seriously?

[–] swab148@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 day ago

When my grandma died, she had like a hundred of those books stashed around the house. Also, vodka in Maalox bottles. It was the first time I found out that grandmas can be freaks too lol

[–] usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 day ago (6 children)

It's just four colours of dots arranged to make you imagine Juicy Jugs.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I feel like I know how Diogenese would rebut that logic.

[–] notabot@piefed.social 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Oh no, the cynical philosopher has formed the horny configuration?

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Nah, he'd probably just fuck a dog in the public square and laugh and say that all human morality is an absurd construct used to enslave the minds of the uncritical masses

[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago

Yeah, basically this.

I think he'd also use the extreme liberty of the argument "words can't hurt you, you puritain prudes" to find out how committed to that argument people really were. And I don't think it would take long.

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 5 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

Reminds me of this book series called the Laundry Files. It is a unique mix between Men in Black, Lovecraftian Eldritch and Cosmic Horror, and The Office. In it, magic, monsters, interdimensional beings, eldritch gods, etc. are all real, a constant threat, and kept entirely hidden from the public by secret government organizations made up mostly of conscripted engineers, mathematicians, physicists, etc. who unwittingly discovered some deeper aspect of the universe.

See, math and algorithms describe the rules and logic of the universe, and since the universe is actually filled with the occult, sometimes that math actually taps into aspects of the universe they weren't expecting. Some can generate apparent magical effects. Some touch into realms whose inhabitants want released or don't want to be bothered. Some algorithms have the capability of waking the great old ones that will destroy the world.

So those people who get too close to such discoveries, they are quickly taken into custody, made to understand the secret nature and apocalyptic danger of the universe that they have been unknowningly dabbling with, conscripted into service of the highly bureaucratic Laundry Files to help protect the world from it, and bound with magical wards to prevent them from speaking of any of it with anyone outside of the organization.

Applied mathematics and computer science are the magic spells of this universe. The increasing amount of compute in the world is pulling us ever close to the end of the universe. It's a problem. But also, Susan in finance won't approve a new coffe maker in the break room and a Succubus is your new supervisor. That's the vibe this series brings. I love it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] erotador@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

any decent witch should know that intent is just as important as the method of casting the spell

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago

This comment goes hard

[–] NightFantom@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 day ago

Yeah, this meme is a bit too reductionist to my taste.

[–] BananaOnionJuice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The cover shows a man embracing a woman!

steamy

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί