At the risk of being trite:
Yet no one does… which is why there is a pedo president. No one actually cares
Removed by mod
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.
People say the exact same thing about “nazi” too, though they’ve been awfully quiet since Elon did the salute.
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.
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.
I don’t feel the need to parrot the answer to a deliberately glib and disgusting question just to virtue signal to you that we’re on the same “team.” Label me however you wish, you have a right to your narrow, angry and incorrect opinion. But know this: you’re alienating potential allies and possibly contributing to abuse by diluting its definition.
We want the same thing, we just disagree as to how it can be, or should be done. Not everyone you disagree with is a pedophile.
You’re not an ally. You’re a pedo simp. No one wants your kind—except maybe the republicans. Go back to where you belong, a MAGA rally.
And you are a closed minded fool too blinded by your impotent rage to even participate in a real conversation, or to see another point of view that may help even when it’s laid out in front of you. All you have are insults, because you’re all out of ideas other than to scream the word ”pedo” at everything and everyone you don’t like.
It’s not working, you said it yourself: “no one cares.” Why do you think that is? Try something else. ICE is murdering citizens in the street. The US is about to invade a NATO ally. Trump just used the military to steal Venezuela’s oil for himself. The federal government is operating concentration camps. You’re focused on the wrong thing, and it’s by design.
But hey, at least that sense of righteous indignation about how you “saved the children” will keep you warm and fuzzy while nuclear winter sets in.
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.
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.
Remind me why journalists need X? I know it’s an oft-cited reason for being on X but… surely it’s possible to be a journalist without it.
Nobody still on that site has any principles mate, sexual abuse content is not going to be anybody’s “final straw”. Very naive.
X is a hive of scum and villainy
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.
