At the risk of being trite:
You may head to Instagram instead, or give Threads an honest go, or start writing down your thoughts on smooth rocks then throwing them at various windows across your neighbourhood. It doesn’t matter.
Recommending Instagram as an alternative to X is sort of like recommending Mussolini as an alternative to Hitler. It does matter. Of those ideas, the rock throwing will probably do the least damage.
Yet no one does… which is why there is a pedo president. No one actually cares
Removed by mod
So, when a person fucks a child, is that a pedophile?
I leave review of the definition up to you. All I’m trying to do is agree that no one cares, and add that I think that it’s because the label is not working to dissuade people from the Trump regime’s policy because it has become overused and obtuse. I’m sorry for my lack of clarity, but it’s pretty tiring to open the news every day to “so and so is a pedophile” while American citizens are being executed in the streets.
I mean, you still don’t answer. This is probably because you’re a MAGAT and you don’t think Trump fucking kids is a bad thing. So, I’m gonna tag you “MAGAT PEDO SIMP” and just be sure to remind you of who you are whenever I see your name. Which I’m sure won’t bother you at all.
Are you trying to say that Epstein’s best friend isn’t a pedophile?
No, that is not what I’m trying to say. I just think the term is being overused to little effect.
Did they use pedo incorrectly?
I leave the definition and use of the term up to them. I just think it’s not really working anymore.
If you’re still on that shitty site and you aren’t someone who needs it for professional reasons, like journalists, I don’t want you in any of the spaces where I am. Stay there.
Nobody still on that site has any principles mate, sexual abuse content is not going to be anybody’s “final straw”. Very naive.
Referring to fiction produced without sexual abuse as sexual abuse content is an abuse of language akin to referring to fictious depictions of murder as snuff film.
That logic would make sense if we were talking about, say, someone writing or drawing or animating a fictitious depiction of rape or something. To my understanding though the controversy here is the AI being used to produce images of real people in a sexualized context, or transform images of them into that, which isnt quite the same thing as a depiction of a fictional character (or for that matter, a portrayal of a fictional act by consenting actors). The reason its getting called sexual abuse content isnt so much that the images are pictures of sexual abuse, but more the notion that the creation of the images is a form of sexual abuse, because the people depicted did not consent to be portrayed that way.
To be more precise, the reason it’s getting called “sexual abuse” is that this has proven effective in affecting people’s emotions and forestalling any annoyingly controversial philosophical nitpicking about whether or not creating images resembling some real person counts as abuse of that person even if they know nothing about it. Since this form of it is a new thing we don’t have a better name for it yet.
X is a hive of scum and villainy
