These are all worn voluntarily. This issue isn’t about the equivalent of scandalously clad young girls, it’s like if girls were being involuntarily stripped of their clothing by their classmates. It’s not about modesty standards it’s about sexual abuse.

Hm. I wasn’t expecting the pro-child porn argument. All I can say is that’s absolutely legally and morally CSAM, and you’re fuckin nasty. Oof. Not really gonna bother with the rest because, well, yikes.

Yeah there’s some nasty shit here. Big yikes, Lemmy.

Are you OK with sexually explicit photos of children taken without their knowledge? They’re not being actively put in a sexual situation if you’re snapping photos with a hidden camera in a locker room, for example. You ok with that?

The harm is:

• Those photos now exist in the world and can lead to direct harm to the victim by their exposure
• it normalizes pedophilia and creates a culture of trading images, leading to more abuse to meet demand for more images
• The people sharing those photos learn to treat people like objects for their sexual gratification, ignoring their consent and agency. They are more likely to mistreat people they have learned to objectify.
• your body should not be used for the profit or gratification of others without your consent. In my mind this includes taking or using your picture without your consent.

I don’t know where you’re getting this “thought crime” stuff. They’re talking about boys distributing deepfake nudes of their classmates. They’re not talking about individuals fantasizing in the privacy of their own homes. You have to read all of the words in the sentences, my friend.

Yes, it’s sexual abuse of a child, the same way taking surreptitious locker room photos would be. There’s nothing magical about a photograph of real skin vs a fake. The impact to the victim is the same. The impact to the viewer of the image is the same. Arguing over the semantic definition of “abuse” is getting people tangled up here. If we used the older term, “child porn” people wouldn’t be so hesitant to call this what it is.

How is it different for the victim? What if they can’t tell if it’s a deepfake or a real photo of them?

They may be little sociopaths, but they don’t run around murdering each other. Our culture hammers it into their brains that murder is wrong and they will be severely punished for it. We need to build a culture where little boys are afraid to distribute naked photos of their classmates. Where their friends will turn them in for fear of repercussions. You do that by treating it like a crime, not by saying “boys will be boys” and ignoring the issue.

Treat it like a crime, and address separately the issue of children being tried as adults and facing lifelong consequences. The reforms needed to our juvenile justice system go beyond this particular crime.

Thank you. Focusing on the harm the victims is the right way to understand this issue. Too many people in here hunting for a semantic loophole.

If someone put a camera in the girls’ locker room and distributed photos from that, would you consider it CSAM? No contact would have taken place so the kids would be unaware when they were photographed, is it still abuse?

If so, how is the psychological effect of a convincing deepfake any different?

I can vouch for Longmont municipal fiber. Blazing fast, and the price is locked in at $50 per month for life. We’ve never had an outage. There are absolutely no downsides, it has even forced Comcast to improve their own infrastructure and pricing in the area to compete.

I never pretended to be a bride. I didn’t see many weddings as a kid, so probably not a lot of reason to latch onto that. Plus, pretending to be a princess is much better! Fancy dress, but more color options and you also get to boss people around. Also, no lame boys needed.

You were too nice to minorities. Hate harder next time so the bigots will like us.

Brought to you by Carl’s Jr.

Yeah, it’s definitely a powerful metaphor for greed. The image of something constantly starving, never satiated no matter how much it eats, miserable and ravenous and destructive is clearly not something to strive for. I was reading that in some legends Wendigo just grow in proportion to how much they consume, so they never feel less hungry, they just get bigger. Kinda reminds one of how corporations function, with a constant drive to acquire and grow, but they never reach a point of satisfaction, where they’re big enough. They just take and take as much as they’re capable of.

Wendigo

It’s an Algonquin cryptid / monster with an insatiable hunger for human flesh and a love of murder. Generally greedy and evil. Also known to smell bad.

Honors our native heritage and says something about our beloved country’s strength of character.

What are you doing when you save something? You’re keeping it in its current state, held in stasis, to be retrieved later. Maybe using freezing imagery (like a snowflake) could get that concept across, and it would retain its meaning over time.

Another way to think of saving is storage - putting something in a convenient location for later access. A safe might be a useful image, but it implies security. Other types of storage devices seem too likely to change with time. Maybe a pocket? If there was a way to graphically represent putting something in your pocket that would be a fairly universal and durable image.

He looks like Zuckerberg fucked Ellen DeGeneres.

Wealth redistribution I can get behind, even if it doesn’t stop him.

Can’t decide if I like this better as a “he’s on his high horse” joke or a “horse’s ass” joke. Well done!