/townhall/ - Townhall

>Is it generally acceptable to share explicit media that shows something that you're opposing as a matter of education,
Of course.
Evidence is vital, after all. Showing what you are speaking of is important.

>or does this simply function as an excuse to post highly immoral media as long as one throws in a 'Don't do this!' at the end?
Someone could use it as an excuse, but that's an entirely different matter, and one I'm inclined to doubt occurs often.

>>The general rule aside, what specifically should happen with media relating to child sexual abuse shared on Twitter or elsewhere online?
Depends heavily on what we mean by "relating to".
My stance, if the materiel itself is not explicit, there ought be no issues, really.

I doubt you could show someone's brain being blown out, for instance. Nor do I really think that gore like that ought be kept so public, just for decency's sake. But, it might be quite reasonable to show the events leading up to that, and a blurred or blocked screen when that particular action happens, to show the cause. Police use of force being the most obvious example.

>>Is it fundamentally damaging to you to witness this media in any context
Possibly.
But damage is not inherently immoral.
Rage, disgust, or horror can be vital feelings for instituting change, after all.
Sequestering information away to prevent those feelings doesn't mean the cause no longer happens. It just means people don't see it.

>>Do you relate to people like me that just find it all too much to debate about, specifically maybe agreeing with me leaving Twitter?
Honestly, I have no idea why you'd leave Twitter over something like this. It seems a tad silly to me.
But I can't speak to your personal perspectives.
For myself, I wouldn't leave a site just because they've rescinded a ban on someone else.
Not without a particular personal connection, anyhow.

>>12264
Are you really not able to understand that child sexual abuse is a difficult topic for people to deal with?

Your view that it's all glib and silly is hard for me to comprehend.

>>12261
I think that Aella is right AI-generated CP will reduce sexual abuse of children.

>>12268
I don't consider it to be a commonplace topic that is so hard to ignore.
Surely there are alternatives to leaving the platform over it.
Besides that, even, there's the block function.
Leaving is equivalent to sawing your arm off to spite a papercut.

>>12274
>>12275
To be honest, I find the general attitude on Ponyville.us and other parts of the internet to be something that I can't relate to. Why people here and elsewhere believe as a matter of absolute conviction, that cannot be argued against, that looking at sexual images of children that's drawn or otherwise artificially created, as with AI technology, is a good thing that's fine to do. I recognize that it's a separate matter, inherently, to actual children going through things. Yet I don't really see why it should be considered all well and good to find preteen bodies sexually attractive in the first place, absolutely, with me and others being unable to criticize that attraction.

Many don't see the matter as so casual and simple. Given that I don't, I guess, I suppose there's not a point in engaging in these discussions at all ever again on Ponyville.us, really. Or on different other websites.

Admittedly, I suppose it's a matter of innate mental orientation. If I had the condition to where I just generally found preteen bodies sexually attractive and thought about that constantly, I'd just be born that way, maybe. I still think, however, that such feelings can be condemned (or not condemned) even if you find it natural for you, the same as any other innate desire to do anything at all can be critiqued. Just because feelings strongly push one to want something doesn't make it inherently right (or wrong), even if we recognize feelings are not the same as actions. Everything can be criticized if need be.

>>12278
>Yet I don't really see why it should be considered all well and good to find preteen bodies sexually attractive in the first place
I conjecture that a majority of pedophiles would be happy to take a pill that cured them of pedophilia and made them attracted to post-pubescent women instead.  Unfortunately, we don't have the tech to do this.
See also distinction between meta-preferences and urges in https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/01/15/contra-contra-contra-caplan-on-psych/

>>12278
>is a good thing that's fine to do
Who said it was "good"?
Not everything is so black and white, nor would I be inclined to argue such material is healthy even outside the moral aspect.

Perhaps your issue with understanding people here, the difficulty you find in relating to them, is because of these presumptions.

>>12290
>>12291
At a fundamental level, I wonder frankly why I'm not allowed to condemn the labeling of preteen bodies as sexually attractive. I think that I and others alike should be able to fiercely oppose this.

>>12298
Who said you aren't?
I do not believe a single person has suggested otherwise.
I'm afraid you're jumping at ghosts, here.

>>12298
Huh?  If a pedophile is asked to label body types with his sexual attraction to them, you would condemn him for answering truthfully (and presumably not condemn him for lying)?

>>12278
I for one also feel entirely uncomfortable with people perusing child porn, even if it's "fictional".