User Controls
'anyone I don't like personally is a nonce'
-
2023-10-04 at 2:21 AM UTCyou fucking nonce
-
2023-10-04 at 2:32 AM UTCshut up nonce
-
2023-10-04 at 3:58 AM UTCYeah probably like you supposedly like me and I'm not a nonce so it stands to reason that anyone you don't like must differ from me somehow.
-
2023-10-04 at 4:56 AM UTCanyone who doesnt support liberal and unrestrained censorship is supporters and owners of child pornography.
-
2023-10-04 at 5:18 AM UTCnonce!
-
2023-10-04 at 5:36 AM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny anyone who doesnt support liberal and unrestrained censorship is supporters and owners of child pornography.
Well, I'd say the censorship is fairly restrained if it's limited to CSE materials, but I do see your point about it being censorious. But we can still say it's wrong on the same ethical basis that publishing a phone conversation without permission from your interlocutor is unethical, at the very least. I do not support radical child liberationism, so there's nothing terribly hypocritical about me thinking children are too retarded to consent to things like having naked pictures of them floating about being distributed on the internet (or for profit, if it were to be legal - it'd be fucked up for all the same reasons that child actors are fucked up in the world we currently inhabit).
Essentially, it's not a matter of suppressing your speech/expression, it's a matter of protecting the privacy rights of people too vulnerable to exploitation for it to be ethical for the claim that they signed those rights away to hold legal weight. 🤔 -
2023-10-04 at 5:41 AM UTCI think it's funny they use the terms CSAM or CSEM these last few years because they're obviously trying to rehabilitate the negative connotations of the term 'pornography', same as they're 'sex workers' now rather than whores or prostitutes.
truth is though, that the negative connotations developed because of the intrinsic traits of the things they describe.
take retarded people for example - they were mongoloids, then that was deemed insulting so it became retards or spastics, which were later deemed insulting and softened to 'special' but you can't even say that anymore without people assuming you're using it as an insult.
some things are just not good (I'm talking about developmental disorders in that case, rather than the people), and anything you use to describe them will eventually carry negative connotations. -
2023-10-04 at 5:44 AM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai Well, I'd say the censorship is fairly restrained if it's limited to CSE materials, but I do see your point about it being censorious. But we can still say it's wrong on the same ethical basis that publishing a phone conversation without permission from your interlocutor is unethical, at the very least. I do not support radical child liberationism, so there's nothing terribly hypocritical about me thinking children are too retarded to consent to things like having naked pictures of them floating about being distributed on the internet (or for profit, if it were to be legal - it'd be fucked up for all the same reasons that child actors are fucked up in the world we currently inhabit).
Essentially, it's not a matter of suppressing your speech/expression, it's a matter of protecting the privacy rights of people too vulnerable to exploitation for it to be ethical for the claim that they signed those rights away to hold legal weight. 🤔
if pictures of children can be posted without their consent, then ALL pictures of children should be freely distributable and reproduceable irregardless of the amount of skin exposed.
do you really believe they consented to this ?
hmmmmmm ? -
2023-10-04 at 5:54 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra I think it's funny they use the terms CSAM or CSEM these last few years because they're obviously trying to rehabilitate the negative connotations of the term 'pornography', same as they're 'sex workers' now rather than whores or prostitutes.
truth is though, that the negative connotations developed because of the intrinsic traits of the things they describe.
take retarded people for example - they were mongoloids, then that was deemed insulting so it became retards or spastics, which were later deemed insulting and softened to 'special' but you can't even say that anymore without people assuming you're using it as an insult.
some things are just not good (I'm talking about developmental disorders in that case, rather than the people), and anything you use to describe them will eventually carry negative connotations.
Alternatively: Even well-adjusted people, back when "pornography" had connotations, found the pornographically indecent... titillating. If someone masturbated to pictures of mutilated dead bodies, they'd say "that freak masturbates to pics of chopped up corpses"; they wouldn't call it "hardcore corpse pornography". Why? Because even countenancing the idea that someone could consider such things "pornographic" is disgusting. People these days are just doing the same with pics of kids being raped - the idea being that it's purely an act of barbaric violence, like footage of people being murdered, and therefore isn't pornographic (no matter how titillating some psychos find it). -
2023-10-04 at 5:59 AM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny if pictures of children can be posted without their consent, then ALL pictures of children should be freely distributable and reproduceable irregardless of the amount of skin exposed.
do you really believe they consented to this ?
hmmmmmm ?
No... I don't think they did, and I don't think children should have any place on the internet. Either posting things themselves, or in pictures. 😤
And kids shouldn't be making or recieving it.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2023-10-04 at 5:59 AM UTCyou just assume every sex acts involving children are rapes
-
2023-10-04 at 6 AM UTC
-
2023-10-04 at 6 AM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai Alternatively: Even well-adjusted people, back when "pornography" had connotations, found the pornographically indecent… titillating. If someone masturbated to pictures of mutilated dead bodies, they'd say "that freak masturbates to pics of chopped up corpses"; they wouldn't call it "hardcore corpse pornography". Why? Because even countenancing the idea that someone could consider such things "pornographic" is disgusting. People these days are just doing the same with pics of kids being raped - the idea being that it's purely an act of barbaric violence, like footage of people being murdered, and therefore isn't pornographic (no matter how titillating some psychos find it).
and here you are trying to redefine away the negative connotations, just like I said -
2023-10-04 at 6:04 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra and here you are trying to redefine away the negative connotations, just like I said
I'm not: I'm saying it has already functionally lost all negative connotations, as a result of its widespread proliferation over the internet. (Although really, this conception of "pornographic" was already falling out of the public mind back in the 70s when Playboy was king.) -
2023-10-04 at 6:06 AM UTCIt's less about redefining "pornographic" and more about redefining "putting your dick in a 12 year old" as violent (as opposed to sexual).
-
2023-10-04 at 6:08 AM UTC
-
2023-10-04 at 6:11 AM UTC
-
2023-10-04 at 6:16 AM UTC(Well, me saying kids shouldn't be on the internet at all is prescriptive, but I fully stand by that - I'm old now and just want these damn kids off my digital lawn.)
-
2023-10-04 at 6:19 AM UTC
-
2023-10-04 at 6:22 AM UTC(Also if kids didn't know what a youtuber/influencer was, maybe they'd go back to wanting to be fucking astronauts and shit instead of being mouthbreathing retards who read at an elementary school level in high school. So many reasons to banish children from the internet in their entirety, wiping out child porn in the process is just a happy by-product.)
