ObjectivityIncarnate

Let the other losers on Twitter call it out if they want their cringy drama-fest.

This is not news. Making a random weird comment that is obviously in jest (and is very, VERY obviously not a REAL threat to do anything, as anyone with two brain cells to rub together can figure out) is absolutely NOT worthy of “the news cycle”.

Only people who truly have no life have the desire to spend any time giving a shit about this. This is barely worthy of an eye roll.

publicly threatening to rape

???

lol

This is not news, who gives a shit?

That’s because you’re a textbook example of the infantile minds infecting areas where actual discourse has a chance to happen.

That’s definitely going to happen organically, especially since this is a genie that is definitely never going back in the bottle. It’s only going to become more convincing, more accessible, and more widespread, even for simply ‘self-contained’ use, especially by hormone-flooded teenagers.

Your claim that it’s victimless is, of course, false since real children are used in the training data without consent.

Your assumption, but there are a ton of royalty-free images that contain children out there, more than enough for an AI to ‘learn’ proportions etc. Combine with adult nudity, and a generative AI can ‘bridge the gap’ create images of people that don’t exist (hence the word “generative”).

This also ignores the fact that the result is child porn

That’s not a fact. “Child porn” requires a child–pixels on a screen depicting the likeness of a person, and a person that does not actually exist in the real world to boot, is not a child.

Lastly, your claim that any of this results in any reduction in child abuse is spurious and unsubstantiated.

I’m just making a reasonable guess based on what’s been found about other things in the same subcategory (Japanese research found that those who have actually molested a kid were less likely to have consumed porn comics depicting that subject matter, than the general population), and in other sex categories, like how the prevalence of rape fantasy porn online correlates with a massive reduction of real-life rape.

Seems pretty unlikely that this is going to be the one and only exception to date where a fictional facsimile doesn’t ‘satiate’ the urge to offend in real life, and instead encourages the ‘consumer’ to offend.

That’s not how it works. The “generative” in “generative AI” is there for a reason.

Do we know that AI child porn is bad? I could believe it would get them in the mood for the real thing and make them do it more, and I could believe it would make them go “ok, itch scratched”, and tank the demand for the real stuff.

From bits/articles I’ve seen here and there over the years about other things that are kind of in the same category (porn comics with child characters in them, child-shaped sex dolls), the latter seems to be more the case.

I’m reminded of when people were arguing that when Internet porn became widespread, the incidence of rape would go through the roof. And then literally the opposite happened. So…that pushes me toward hypothesizing that the latter is more likely to be the case, as well.

You’re arguing against a victimless outlet that there is significant evidence would reduce the incidence of actual child molestation.

So let’s use your ‘logic’/argumentation: why are you against reducing child molestation? Why are you against fake pictures but not actual child molestation? Why do you want children to be molested?

You’re just projecting your unwillingness to ever take a stance that doesn’t personally benefit you.

Some people can think about things objectively and draw a conclusion that makes sense to them without personal benefit being a primary determinant of said conclusion.

When you’re playing a FPS, the intent is to watch people being murdered.

How is this argument any different?

Downloading and possession of CSAM seems to be a common first step in a person initiating communication with a minor with the intent to meet up and abuse them.

But this is like the arguments used to say that weed is a “gateway drug” by talking about how people strung out on harder drugs almost always have done weed as well, ignoring everyone who uses only weed. But this is even hazier because we literally have no real idea how many people consume that stuff but don’t ‘escalate’.

I remember reading once in some research out of Japan that child molesters consume less porn overall than the average citizen, which seems counter-intuitive, but may not be, if you consider the possibility that maybe it (in this case, they were talking primarily about manga with anime-style drawings of kids in sexual situations) is actually curbing the incidence of the ‘real thing’, since the ones actually touching kids in the real world are reading those mangas less.

I’m also reminded of people talking about sex dolls that look like kids, and if that’s a possible ‘solution’ for pedophiles, or if it would ‘egg on’ actual molestation.

I think I lean on the side of ‘satiation’, from the limited bits of idle research I’ve done here and there. And if that IS in fact the case, then regardless of if it grosses me out, I can’t in good conscience oppose something that actually reduces the number of children who actually get abused, you know?

I don’t know if it’s still a thing, but I’m reminded of some law or regulation that was passed a while back in Australia, iirc, that barred women with A-cup busts from working in porn, the “reasoning” being that their flatter chests made them look too similar to prepubescent girls, lol…

Not only stupid but also quite insulting to women, imo.

Okay, so you don’t know what “irony” means, either, lol.

(emphasis added)

Men aren’t allowed to discuss their feelings because men have created a society that looks at them as losers for doing so.

The implication here, that societal norms are created and maintained by only men, and therefore any aspects of it that affect men negatively deserve to be blamed on them, is one of the most pervasive anti-male sentiments that people try to fly under the radar with. Women have at least as much (arguably more) influence on societal norms and conventions, as men do.

This entire comment is teeming with this undertone; that is, until the end, when they come out and just say ‘all the bad stuff is men’s fault’ at the end, lol.

Everyone loves building strawmen. If you think only “they” do it, it’s because you’re unquestioningly accepting the ones that confirm your biases.

The only joke is the economically-ignorant thinking billionaires are the reason poverty exists, lol

Like why are you comparing something that appreciated in value to billionaires?

Because that’s how billionaires become billionaires. They buy stuff (or pieces of it, e.g. shares of stock) and continue to own it while it appreciates in value.

This is why it’s possible for a billionaire’s net worth to swing up and down so wildly: net worth is a valuation, a price tag. It’s NOT an amount of cash money.

Facts without sources are untrustworthy and more akin to opinions than facts.

First off, stop using “opinion” wrong. An assertion can either be true or false. Opinions are subjective, in another category entirely. Facts and opinions are not opposites. This is grade school stuff.

Secondly, give me an example of an assertion I made that you don’t “trust”. Bet I can back it up with very little Google time.

Your logic dictates that if I buy a rookie baseball card for $5, the player has a great season and now my card is worth $100, that $95 must have been taken from one or more other people, because you believe that increases in net worth cannot occur without theft.

Pointing out that this makes no sense doesn’t require trust, just functioning logical thought processes.

in a lifetime, 15% of Americans have witnessed a shooting, 25% have been threatened with a gun, 12% have been shot at, and 4% have been shot.

You’re not actually suggesting ‘once in a lifetime’ falls under “normal occurrence”, are you?

This is also a partial goalpost move, since the original sentiment responded to was asserting that “being shot at” was normal, and you’re now citing other things like ‘seeing someone else shoot someone’, obviously an event that’s much more common relatively speaking (but still nowhere near “normal” for the average American).