Kind of? It makes you more likely to moderate, stop earlier, do less atrocities if you think the public won’t like it or is ashamed of it.

A three-star restaurant on Tabelog is life-changing cuisine. I’m not sure what you’d have to do to earn four, but it’s probably illegal.

I want food, I want sex, I want to go home.

This isn’t a news comm, it’s crazy videos. This is a perfect place for it.

Wet ass pantry

He hucked himself right in the woodchipper!

This is a really unempathetic response. I know shit’s tough right now and there are a lot of fools out there, but I beg you to at least try to give the benefit of the doubt and try to think through why people might do the things they do, especially when it’s someone enduring a personal tragedy that’s being publicly scrutinized. Think about the poor old woman who had hot coffee spilled on her crotch at a drive through and endured agonizing disfiguring burns - McDonald’s ran a campaign to paint her as a scammer and opportunist when she had done nothing wrong at all.

Most people don’t intentionally endanger themselves or their loved ones and they are usually very deferential to authority, especially in medical settings. There’s nothing to indicate this was any more than a miscommunication involving a heavily blinged-out guy who did nothing wrong. The MRI folks didn’t think to brief him because he wasn’t in the danger zone. His wife called for help. Maybe a very observant doctor could have noticed the guy’s jewelry and gave him a warning. Maybe the wife could have recalled that her husband was wearing metal before calling for him. Maybe the doctors could have better screening procedures for people in the waiting area, or better procedures to control access to the MRI room. I can’t say based on the available information that anyone lacks self awareness or did anything obviously wrong here. Sometimes a lot of coincidences line up to make something terrible happen.

Moo deng noooooooo!

Default juice… so white grape? The juice they use to water down every other type of juice with a discernible flavor so they can still call it “100% juice”?

Fuck you I want to taste the guava. Fuck your fucking grapes.

No u

Who taught grandpa how to use Lemmy?

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.