Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

1.4K

I'm shadowbanned or out right banned everywhereeeeeee.

Everything I say is deeply upsetting to gaywads I guess.

So the latest thing I tried to say was a response to this post on normiebook. Someone said George Lucas seemed kinda sketchy. So I tried to link and quote this one article:

https://www.insidehook.com/film/indiana-jones-pedophile

The transcript of the 1978 story meetings for the film between George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Lawrence Kasdan reveal that the three men considered making Marion as young as 11 at the time of her “affair” with the action hero. Check out a snippet of that conversation below:

Lawrence Kasdan: I like it if they already had a relationship at one point. Because then you don’t have to build it.

George Lucas: I was thinking that this old guy could have been [her] mentor. He could have known this little girl when she was just a kid. Had an affair with her when she was eleven.

Kasdan: And he was forty-two.

Lucas: He hasn’t seen her in twelve years. Now she’s twenty-two. It’s a real strange relationship.

Spielberg: She had better be older than twenty-two.

Lucas: He’s thirty-five, and he knew her ten years ago when he was twenty-five and she was only twelve.

Lucas: It would be amusing to make her slightly young at the time.

Spielberg: And promiscuous. She came onto him.

Lucas: Fifteen is right on the edge. I know it’s an outrageous idea, but it is interesting. Once she’s sixteen or seventeen it’s not interesting anymore. But if she was fifteen and he was twenty-five and they actually had an affair the last time they met.

The whole thing is vile. It’s victim-blaming at its worst. (We’re really going to call a 12-year-old kid “promiscuous” and go with the idea that “she came onto him” to explain why our hero was engaged in some sort of physical relationship with her when she was still potentially too young to have even gotten her first period?) Note how Lucas asserts that her being 16 or 17 “isn’t interesting anymore”; the implication is that so many full-grown men were sleeping with underage teenagers back then that it’d be too boring unless her character was made to be even younger.

I'm preaching to the choir by telling you guys stuff but I can't say anything any place else.

I'm shadowbanned or out right banned everywhereeeeeee. Everything I say is deeply upsetting to gaywads I guess. So the latest thing I tried to say was a response to this post on normiebook. Someone said George Lucas seemed kinda sketchy. So I tried to link and quote this one article: https://www.insidehook.com/film/indiana-jones-pedophile >The transcript of the 1978 story meetings for the film between George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Lawrence Kasdan reveal that the three men considered making Marion as young as 11 at the time of her “affair” with the action hero. Check out a snippet of that conversation below: >Lawrence Kasdan: I like it if they already had a relationship at one point. Because then you don’t have to build it. >George Lucas: I was thinking that this old guy could have been [her] mentor. He could have known this little girl when she was just a kid. Had an affair with her when she was eleven. >Kasdan: And he was forty-two. >Lucas: He hasn’t seen her in twelve years. Now she’s twenty-two. It’s a real strange relationship. >Spielberg: She had better be older than twenty-two. >Lucas: He’s thirty-five, and he knew her ten years ago when he was twenty-five and she was only twelve. >Lucas: It would be amusing to make her slightly young at the time. >Spielberg: And promiscuous. She came onto him. >Lucas: Fifteen is right on the edge. I know it’s an outrageous idea, but it is interesting. Once she’s sixteen or seventeen it’s not interesting anymore. But if she was fifteen and he was twenty-five and they actually had an affair the last time they met. >The whole thing is vile. It’s victim-blaming at its worst. (We’re really going to call a 12-year-old kid “promiscuous” and go with the idea that “she came onto him” to explain why our hero was engaged in some sort of physical relationship with her when she was still potentially too young to have even gotten her first period?) Note how Lucas asserts that her being 16 or 17 “isn’t interesting anymore”; the implication is that so many full-grown men were sleeping with underage teenagers back then that it’d be too boring unless her character was made to be even younger. I'm preaching to the choir by telling you guys stuff but I can't say anything any place else.
You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (6).
[–] [Sticky] • 1 pt

So you're saying Poal allows for pedophile adjacent posts? I get the point of pointing out there's proof these jews and their goy were pedophiles but I think this is slippery slope material.

@AOU

[–] • 2 pts

PEDOPHILIA:

All images, videos or depictions of any kind that show sexually explicit or suggestive content involving children (whether virtual or real) is strictly prohibited.

Sexually oriented discussions (including memes, jokes, sarcasm, sexual innuendoes, stories...) involving children is strictly prohibited.

Content or communications seeking to solicit, lure or entice minors into sexual activity or lewd behavior is strictly prohibited.

Promoting, normalizing or making the apology of pedophilia in any form will get you instantly and permanently banned, that includes accounts who upvoted such content.

If you think someone is breaking the ToS, don't hesitate to report them and explain the reason. Poal has a zero tolerance policy regarding pedophilia.

[–] • 1 pt

As far as Poal goes if I can't extensively quote the Hollywood monsters when they're saying stuff like this, then it's fine in a pragmatic sense.

I don't have to present overwhelming evidence to the people here. Everyone here already knows what's up.

As far as the reddit retards and Facebook normies I would argue that I actually do have a pressing need to put fucked up stuff in front of them.

It was like this with the fucking pet eating Haitians thing. I still have videos somewhere of them breaking a cat's neck and taking a bite out of it but I couldn't post it anywhere on Facebook. At the same time the libtards were all over saying its a myth as often and loudly as they could.

BUT I HAVE THE GOD DAMN VIDEOS OF THEM EATING CATS

I should be able to refute libtards with proof if I have it. If I can't then why is anyone going to believe there's a problem and change their behavior? Just vote Kamala and go spend money on the latest Hollywood slop. Where's the down side? If there is one, no one is showing it.

I hate this little game of: 'we cause/allow XYZ atrocities to happen but they're actually so fucked up that it's against the rules for you to present evidence of them.'

The left does this crap over and over.

I'm glad you got me thinking about this. I have new ideas about how to eye rape libtards next election cycle.

If you guys don't want me psychologically damaging people on poal then I'll respect that but I won't have any chill against people who are part of the problem and I feel zero remorse about it.

[–] • 0 pt

I hear you 100% and agree filth needs to be called out, but again, it's a slippery slope.