lazy libs

:projection:

Had read the removed wall of text in the modlog before seeing this comment, which would definitely ensure it was not read. The disclosure of privately holding TAJ accountable is a point in your favour. Essentially saying 'I've done nothing wrong, will not apologise, and am in fact owed an apology by everyone here', however, is not doing you any favours.

You have been publicly defending a misogynist, transmisic person who has been arguing for the decriminalisation of using technology to turn actual pictures of children into abuse material. In a hostile way, attacking people critical of it as 'lazy lib chauvinists'.

Certainly, it is upsetting for charges of actual child abuse to be levied at people. Being a dismissive, hostile asshole about it only fans the flames you preportedly want to cool. You and TAJ have mentioned that such accusations can be weaponised against innocent targets by anti-communists and such. True.

You and nutomic have defended TAJ saying using AI to remove the clothing of actual photos of real children should not be a crime. That by saying it should be a civil matter is condemning it enough. In addition to accusations of child abuse being used as a cudgel, accusations of sexual assault or framing someone for murder are used. Also bad. If someone were to say 'sexual assault and murder can be weaponised against the left, so they should be decriminalised and only a civil matter' one would hope you could see how the argument is bad. Decriminalising using an algorithm to turn pictures of actual children into abuse material, decriminalising sexual assault, and decriminalising murder are not proposals that deserve any amount of defense.

Do you want to continue to pedantically argue that calling the decriminalisation of AI depictions of child abuse should not be refered to as "defending paedophilia"? Calling any of you actual child abusers without evidence is egregious. Stating that there is enabling and defending of child abusers by supporting decriminalising of photorealistic machine-generated abuse materials, and coming to the defense of those calling for such, is not.

(Using 'decriminalisation' assuming that in the spirit of whatever current laws exist to protect victims, the topic would be considered a crime. If any pedants would like to point out that technically it is not currently a crime in [country], imagine the loophole has already been closed. Or smugly pat yourself on the back for dismantling this wall of text, knowing that a good use of your time is to come to the defense of someone coming to the defense of someone claiming that manipulating photos of children to bully and harass them is not criminal behaviour.)