You see no problem with this study explicitly about CSAM casually lumping in… drawings.
The only reason you said shit to me in the first place was to smugly assert that they belong together. You declared confidently that the entire world was on your side, which does raise questions of who exactly is hosting and using these servers full of drawings you don’t like.
But the issue is the false equivalence.
The only issue is the false equivalence.
Sounding the alarm about child rape shouldn’t fucking include drawings for the same reason reports of a murder epidemic at the local park shouldn’t throw in “and also someone pissed in the pond.” Bit of a difference there! Kind of important! Negative one and negative one billion are both negative, but they’re plainly not as negative, are they? They don’t belong in the same sentence without a very narrow context. Glibly chastising someone, for pointing out that gulf, is the polar opposite of helpful, to anyone.
Saying ‘so what, they’re both bad’ is false equivalence. It’s dangerous nonsense that enables far-reaching abuse of power. What you’re doing is the textbook basis for unjustifiable surveillance laws, censorship, and general moral policing. If your kneejerk reaction when someone belabors the difference between “we have to stop this proliferation of child rape!” and “we have to stop this proliferation of drawings we don’t like!” is to insist you don’t like either and you’d expect them to be treated the same - you are the problem.
I mean, not as much of a problem as child rape, but nonetheless, shut up already.
You’re really mad that a US based study is using the US definition of CSAM while also clearly stating the definition of CSAM they’re using, aren’t you?
Sure buddy, it’s a “false equivalence”, they’re totally stating it’s the same. It’s not just your reading comprehension
I don’t believe you’re physically capable of self-consistently stating what you think your point is. You’re somehow not equating these things you just said are defined as the same thing. You’re sneering as if noticing that definition - which you block-quoted - is some kind of delusion.
All while projecting emotion in a way that’s almost as ironic as your constant parroting of the phrase “reading comprehension.”
Is it difficult to use the internet without object permanence?
You’ve absolutely treated them the same.
You see no problem with this study explicitly about CSAM casually lumping in… drawings.
The only reason you said shit to me in the first place was to smugly assert that they belong together. You declared confidently that the entire world was on your side, which does raise questions of who exactly is hosting and using these servers full of drawings you don’t like.
But the issue is the false equivalence.
The only issue is the false equivalence.
Sounding the alarm about child rape shouldn’t fucking include drawings for the same reason reports of a murder epidemic at the local park shouldn’t throw in “and also someone pissed in the pond.” Bit of a difference there! Kind of important! Negative one and negative one billion are both negative, but they’re plainly not as negative, are they? They don’t belong in the same sentence without a very narrow context. Glibly chastising someone, for pointing out that gulf, is the polar opposite of helpful, to anyone.
Saying ‘so what, they’re both bad’ is false equivalence. It’s dangerous nonsense that enables far-reaching abuse of power. What you’re doing is the textbook basis for unjustifiable surveillance laws, censorship, and general moral policing. If your kneejerk reaction when someone belabors the difference between “we have to stop this proliferation of child rape!” and “we have to stop this proliferation of drawings we don’t like!” is to insist you don’t like either and you’d expect them to be treated the same - you are the problem.
I mean, not as much of a problem as child rape, but nonetheless, shut up already.
The study is transparent about their definition of CSAM. At this point, if you don’t get it, you don’t get it. Sorry dude.
“They’re up-front about the false equivalence,” says chronic clue-dodger.
You’re really mad that a US based study is using the US definition of CSAM while also clearly stating the definition of CSAM they’re using, aren’t you?
Sure buddy, it’s a “false equivalence”, they’re totally stating it’s the same. It’s not just your reading comprehension
I don’t believe you’re physically capable of self-consistently stating what you think your point is. You’re somehow not equating these things you just said are defined as the same thing. You’re sneering as if noticing that definition - which you block-quoted - is some kind of delusion.
All while projecting emotion in a way that’s almost as ironic as your constant parroting of the phrase “reading comprehension.”
Is it difficult to use the internet without object permanence?
Step up the reading comprehension please :)