|
On September 18 2012 12:38 starfries wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 12:18 yeastiality wrote:
I still don't see your argument. If someone says "CP" and you don't know what that is, sure you don't evoke the images becasue you're ignorant but once you understand CP refers to Child Pornography then it is no different... X is equal to X, they mean the same thing... You can't argue an acronym desensitized anything because once you expand it in your mind which takes a matter of miliseconds in your mind it is simply the same thing.
Part of the idea is that when people 'expand it in their mind' it does remove some of the meaning associated with the phrase. This is the case with any euphemism - when I read "CP", in my head I hear "CP". I don't picture a mathemagician splitting the letters and then writing 'hild ornography' next to them. We might be different here, though. I still want to know why everyday people (for instance, in newspapers/books/television/academia) do not say "CP". Why is it exclusive to internet people? Find me a sociology paper that says "CP" and isn't about 4chan or reddit. Everyday people don't say LOL either (although it's starting to change) but I don't see how that says anything about the laughter habits of people online. You might have an argument that people online are desensitized but citing the term "CP" is not a good example. Show nested quote +
my argument which related to the thread and how everyone is trashing reddit is that Reddit is a free forum, whether you talk about raping monkeys to the election the idea of freedom is inherent with relation to laws (note the closing of CP threads). Whether you agree with the freedom to discuss topics is not up for debate at all so I don't see why this is even being brought up.
It's not up for debate because the internet has never been policed properly, and cocky nerds take this to mean that they've found the ultimate bastion of FREEDOM!!!!!!11 It's being debated because it's the cornerstone of this whole topic. The fact that reddit can be all cutesy about freedom and democratized aggregation and stuff doesn't excuse them allowing things to be glorified that could not be in any other sector of our society. The reddit admins only censor material that they think will cause them trouble legally, and that's their prerogative. I don't really understand why you're so angry. We can all agree there's nasty stuff on reddit, but it's a consequence of American laws that it's allowed. I don't think reddit specifically chose to do this in order to provide a safe haven for unsavoury types of people.
My uneducated guess would be, that arguing against windmills got this poster riled up, because some people in this thread are not able to show even the slightest degree of understanding. Your analogy between LOL and CP is poor by the way. The term "CP" is infact a good example of desentisizing as it dismantles the antagonism between child and pornography which the whole term contains. LOL describes a positive act, laughing, it has no negative connotation or antagonism, thus your analogy is poor.
Freedom to discuss topics is not up for debate, that's right but go to your working place and start talking about raping monkeys and see where it gets you "but it is legal" won't save your ass. That is because behavioural norms come into play, they exist apart from a legal framework. As an intelligent human being you should really be able grasp this concept.
|
Uhh are you sure you didn't get reddit mixed up with 4chan? Jk though I didn't know that site actually had all that shit 0_o
|
This is foolish, a good analogy to this would be something on the lines of "Since child porn is sent through the internet, we should blame the ISP's for allowing this to happen!" I mean you can go on and on with similar analogies. Shouldn't villainize the site, but go after the people who do this.
|
On September 18 2012 12:58 peekn wrote:
This is foolish, a good analogy to this would be something on the lines of "Since child porn is sent through the internet, we should blame the ISP's for allowing this to happen!" I mean you can go on and on with similar analogies. Shouldn't villainize the site, but go after the people who do this.
cu@highschool
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Russian Federation266 Posts
Here we are, discussing whether it's appropriate to use the acronym CP or not in the thread about reddit, while there is no child porn there. And someone even wages a moral crusade against the defenders of beatingtrannies, while no one actually said that this subreddit is any good.
|
On September 18 2012 13:03 Evilmystic wrote:
Here we are, discussing whether it's appropriate to use the acronym CP or not in the thread about reddit, while there is no child porn there. And someone even wages a moral crusade against the defenders of beatingtrannies, while no one actually said that this subreddit is any good.
This thread isn't about logic or sense, it's about senseless moral outrage at everything wrong with the world. You can tell there's a clear division between the people posting emotionally and those posting rationally, and nothing will ever bridge the gap between emotion and reason.
|
On September 18 2012 12:51 AngryMag wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 12:38 starfries wrote:On September 18 2012 12:18 yeastiality wrote:
I still don't see your argument. If someone says "CP" and you don't know what that is, sure you don't evoke the images becasue you're ignorant but once you understand CP refers to Child Pornography then it is no different... X is equal to X, they mean the same thing... You can't argue an acronym desensitized anything because once you expand it in your mind which takes a matter of miliseconds in your mind it is simply the same thing.
Part of the idea is that when people 'expand it in their mind' it does remove some of the meaning associated with the phrase. This is the case with any euphemism - when I read "CP", in my head I hear "CP". I don't picture a mathemagician splitting the letters and then writing 'hild ornography' next to them. We might be different here, though. I still want to know why everyday people (for instance, in newspapers/books/television/academia) do not say "CP". Why is it exclusive to internet people? Find me a sociology paper that says "CP" and isn't about 4chan or reddit. Everyday people don't say LOL either (although it's starting to change) but I don't see how that says anything about the laughter habits of people online. You might have an argument that people online are desensitized but citing the term "CP" is not a good example.
my argument which related to the thread and how everyone is trashing reddit is that Reddit is a free forum, whether you talk about raping monkeys to the election the idea of freedom is inherent with relation to laws (note the closing of CP threads). Whether you agree with the freedom to discuss topics is not up for debate at all so I don't see why this is even being brought up.
It's not up for debate because the internet has never been policed properly, and cocky nerds take this to mean that they've found the ultimate bastion of FREEDOM!!!!!!11 It's being debated because it's the cornerstone of this whole topic. The fact that reddit can be all cutesy about freedom and democratized aggregation and stuff doesn't excuse them allowing things to be glorified that could not be in any other sector of our society. The reddit admins only censor material that they think will cause them trouble legally, and that's their prerogative. I don't really understand why you're so angry. We can all agree there's nasty stuff on reddit, but it's a consequence of American laws that it's allowed. I don't think reddit specifically chose to do this in order to provide a safe haven for unsavoury types of people. My uneducated guess would be, that arguing against windmills got this poster riled up, because some people in this thread are not able to show even the slightest degree of understanding. Your analogy between LOL and CP is poor by the way. The term "CP" is infact a good example of desentisizing as it dismantles the antagonism between child and pornography which the whole term contains. LOL describes a positive act, laughing, it has no negative connotation or antagonism, thus your analogy is poor. Freedom to discuss topics is not up for debate, that's right but go to your working place and start talking about raping monkeys and see where it gets you "but it is legal" won't save your ass. That is because behavioural norms come into play, they exist apart from a legal framework. As an intelligent human being you should really be able grasp this concept.
I think the point of the analogy is just that there are other terms used online or in certain sub-groups for no real intended purpose. Things like "pwn" came about just because of a common mispelling. Nothing to do with whether the term is good bad, or whether the abbreviation is good or bad. It's just a simple example that shows that there exist terms used in online instances which aren't used elsewhere. Sometimes words/abbreviations pop up and get used and not necessarily because of any intent of the people it originates from. Yeastly is saying that CP is for sure an internet "codeword" used to diminish the harshness of "child porn". It may be true that it indeed does that, but that's quite possibly an unintended consequence of the people that started using it originally.
|
On September 18 2012 12:53 Headshothank wrote:
Uhh are you sure you didn't get reddit mixed up with 4chan? Jk though I didn't know that site actually had all that shit 0_o
Have you ever actually been to 4chan? 4chan is INCREDIBLY strict with removing and reporting any child porn to the police.
4chan is one of the best communities on the internet because they don't give a shit.
Reddit is terrible, I don't get why people continue to support them in any way. They have the least likeable hivemind of any large internet "community"
|
On September 18 2012 13:05 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 13:03 Evilmystic wrote:
Here we are, discussing whether it's appropriate to use the acronym CP or not in the thread about reddit, while there is no child porn there. And someone even wages a moral crusade against the defenders of beatingtrannies, while no one actually said that this subreddit is any good. This thread isn't about logic or sense, it's about senseless moral outrage at everything wrong with the world. You can tell there's a clear division between the people posting emotionally and those posting rationally, and nothing will ever bridge the gap between emotion and reason.
dawkins style
On September 18 2012 13:11 GogoKodo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 12:51 AngryMag wrote:On September 18 2012 12:38 starfries wrote:On September 18 2012 12:18 yeastiality wrote:
I still don't see your argument. If someone says "CP" and you don't know what that is, sure you don't evoke the images becasue you're ignorant but once you understand CP refers to Child Pornography then it is no different... X is equal to X, they mean the same thing... You can't argue an acronym desensitized anything because once you expand it in your mind which takes a matter of miliseconds in your mind it is simply the same thing.
Part of the idea is that when people 'expand it in their mind' it does remove some of the meaning associated with the phrase. This is the case with any euphemism - when I read "CP", in my head I hear "CP". I don't picture a mathemagician splitting the letters and then writing 'hild ornography' next to them. We might be different here, though. I still want to know why everyday people (for instance, in newspapers/books/television/academia) do not say "CP". Why is it exclusive to internet people? Find me a sociology paper that says "CP" and isn't about 4chan or reddit. Everyday people don't say LOL either (although it's starting to change) but I don't see how that says anything about the laughter habits of people online. You might have an argument that people online are desensitized but citing the term "CP" is not a good example.
my argument which related to the thread and how everyone is trashing reddit is that Reddit is a free forum, whether you talk about raping monkeys to the election the idea of freedom is inherent with relation to laws (note the closing of CP threads). Whether you agree with the freedom to discuss topics is not up for debate at all so I don't see why this is even being brought up.
It's not up for debate because the internet has never been policed properly, and cocky nerds take this to mean that they've found the ultimate bastion of FREEDOM!!!!!!11 It's being debated because it's the cornerstone of this whole topic. The fact that reddit can be all cutesy about freedom and democratized aggregation and stuff doesn't excuse them allowing things to be glorified that could not be in any other sector of our society. The reddit admins only censor material that they think will cause them trouble legally, and that's their prerogative. I don't really understand why you're so angry. We can all agree there's nasty stuff on reddit, but it's a consequence of American laws that it's allowed. I don't think reddit specifically chose to do this in order to provide a safe haven for unsavoury types of people. My uneducated guess would be, that arguing against windmills got this poster riled up, because some people in this thread are not able to show even the slightest degree of understanding. Your analogy between LOL and CP is poor by the way. The term "CP" is infact a good example of desentisizing as it dismantles the antagonism between child and pornography which the whole term contains. LOL describes a positive act, laughing, it has no negative connotation or antagonism, thus your analogy is poor. Freedom to discuss topics is not up for debate, that's right but go to your working place and start talking about raping monkeys and see where it gets you "but it is legal" won't save your ass. That is because behavioural norms come into play, they exist apart from a legal framework. As an intelligent human being you should really be able grasp this concept. It may be true that it indeed does that, but that's quite possibly an unintended consequence of the people that started using it originally.
why couldn't they just say child pornography?
why invent a codeword?
|
On September 18 2012 12:58 peekn wrote:
This is foolish, a good analogy to this would be something on the lines of "Since child porn is sent through the internet, we should blame the ISP's for allowing this to happen!" I mean you can go on and on with similar analogies. Shouldn't villainize the site, but go after the people who do this.
I actually disagree. Because a website is different than the internet in general (that is, it is privately owned) it is well within the moral rational, I believe, to discontinue use and advocate against a website because you disagree with its limitations (or lack there of) on content.
To use an analogy (probably not the best, but give me a bit of slack here) it would be like a Cafe that allowed its employees to do something that you dislike (leaving this ambiguous, be it racism, sexism, whatever.) It would be acceptable, I believe, if you ceased to go to that Cafe because of the lack of action by the business owners to adequately police their staff.
As such, I think villainizing it would be fine if you find something objectable about it and wished to discontinue going there. It would be sad to not consider the positive aspects of it as well in your decision ( science, worldnews, etc that are very informative) but that does not allow you to disagree with the website owners moderation decisions.
|
On September 18 2012 10:44 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I quit reading the article completely after about the third time it called jailbait "child pornography." Nice hit piece though. People need to grow up and live their own lives, quit placating your own meaningless and insecurity with misplaced judgment and self-righteousness. Using pictures of children (even clothed) for erotic stimulation is morally questionable behavior, even if it's not 'child pornography.' Also, 'hacking' photobucket/facebook for suggestive photos of people is also bad.
Wrong. Find my post in this thread earlier about us being biologically driven to desire teenage girls. You think you're so evolved that you've never seen a hot 16 year old and admitted that you would hit it given the chance? It's biology vs some arbitrary man made restriction on sexual activity. I'm not saying this restriction is bad. In fact quite the opposite. It fits our goals as a society. Education, jobs, etc before having children and continuing our species. But acting all outraged because people want to fap to a 16 year old in a bikini is just fucking ignorant.
|
On September 18 2012 12:51 AngryMag wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 12:38 starfries wrote:On September 18 2012 12:18 yeastiality wrote:
I still don't see your argument. If someone says "CP" and you don't know what that is, sure you don't evoke the images becasue you're ignorant but once you understand CP refers to Child Pornography then it is no different... X is equal to X, they mean the same thing... You can't argue an acronym desensitized anything because once you expand it in your mind which takes a matter of miliseconds in your mind it is simply the same thing.
Part of the idea is that when people 'expand it in their mind' it does remove some of the meaning associated with the phrase. This is the case with any euphemism - when I read "CP", in my head I hear "CP". I don't picture a mathemagician splitting the letters and then writing 'hild ornography' next to them. We might be different here, though. I still want to know why everyday people (for instance, in newspapers/books/television/academia) do not say "CP". Why is it exclusive to internet people? Find me a sociology paper that says "CP" and isn't about 4chan or reddit. Everyday people don't say LOL either (although it's starting to change) but I don't see how that says anything about the laughter habits of people online. You might have an argument that people online are desensitized but citing the term "CP" is not a good example.
my argument which related to the thread and how everyone is trashing reddit is that Reddit is a free forum, whether you talk about raping monkeys to the election the idea of freedom is inherent with relation to laws (note the closing of CP threads). Whether you agree with the freedom to discuss topics is not up for debate at all so I don't see why this is even being brought up.
It's not up for debate because the internet has never been policed properly, and cocky nerds take this to mean that they've found the ultimate bastion of FREEDOM!!!!!!11 It's being debated because it's the cornerstone of this whole topic. The fact that reddit can be all cutesy about freedom and democratized aggregation and stuff doesn't excuse them allowing things to be glorified that could not be in any other sector of our society. The reddit admins only censor material that they think will cause them trouble legally, and that's their prerogative. I don't really understand why you're so angry. We can all agree there's nasty stuff on reddit, but it's a consequence of American laws that it's allowed. I don't think reddit specifically chose to do this in order to provide a safe haven for unsavoury types of people. My uneducated guess would be, that arguing against windmills can get you riled up, if they are not able to show even the slightest degree of understanding. Your analogy between LOL and CP is poor by the way. The term "CP" is infact a good example of desentisizing as it dismantles the antagonism between child and pornography which the whole term contains. LOL describes a positive act, laughing, it has no negative connotation or antagonism, thus your analogy is poor. Freedom to discuss topics is not up for debate, that's right but go to your working place and start talking about raping monkeys and see where it gets you "but it is legal" won't save your ass. That is because behavioural norms come into play, they exist apart from a legal framework. As an intelligent human being you should really grasp this concept.
I would contend that the source of my revulsion for child pornography is not the "antagonism" between the words but what it actually IS.
I don't see where you're going with your example of talking about "raping monkeys" on the job. My employer can fire me for making offensive comments, and that's his decision. TL can ban me for making offensive posts, and that's their decision. Reddit chooses not to, and that's their decision. You can argue that reddit is a worse community for it, but ultimately it's up to them whether it needs to be addressed through moderation.
|
On September 18 2012 13:12 Alay wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 12:58 peekn wrote:
This is foolish, a good analogy to this would be something on the lines of "Since child porn is sent through the internet, we should blame the ISP's for allowing this to happen!" I mean you can go on and on with similar analogies. Shouldn't villainize the site, but go after the people who do this. I actually disagree. Because a website is different than the internet in general (that is, it is privately owned) it is well within the moral rational, I believe, to discontinue use and advocate against a website because you disagree with its limitations (or lack there of) on content. To use an analogy (probably not the best, but give me a bit of slack here) it would be like a Cafe that allowed its employees to do something that you dislike (leaving this ambiguous, be it racism, sexism, whatever.) It would be acceptable, I believe, if you ceased to go to that Cafe because of the lack of action by the business owners to adequately police their staff. As such, I think villainizing it would be fine if you find something objectable about it and wished to discontinue going there. It would be sad to not consider the positive aspects of it as well in your decision ( science, worldnews, etc that are very informative) but that does not allow you to disagree with the website owners moderation decisions.
Ya that analogy is off. The people who post disgusting stuff on reddit are not employees, they would be more akin to customers. Now I suppose you could complain to the manager, but imagine being the manager and having millions of customers. You can't police all of that.
Anyway the whole argument is silly. If you want to use a website analogy, just look at Google. If we should ban reddit because it gives access to inappropriate links then we should do the same for google because it does the same thing
|
On September 18 2012 13:21 starfries wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 12:51 AngryMag wrote:On September 18 2012 12:38 starfries wrote:On September 18 2012 12:18 yeastiality wrote:
I still don't see your argument. If someone says "CP" and you don't know what that is, sure you don't evoke the images becasue you're ignorant but once you understand CP refers to Child Pornography then it is no different... X is equal to X, they mean the same thing... You can't argue an acronym desensitized anything because once you expand it in your mind which takes a matter of miliseconds in your mind it is simply the same thing.
Part of the idea is that when people 'expand it in their mind' it does remove some of the meaning associated with the phrase. This is the case with any euphemism - when I read "CP", in my head I hear "CP". I don't picture a mathemagician splitting the letters and then writing 'hild ornography' next to them. We might be different here, though. I still want to know why everyday people (for instance, in newspapers/books/television/academia) do not say "CP". Why is it exclusive to internet people? Find me a sociology paper that says "CP" and isn't about 4chan or reddit. Everyday people don't say LOL either (although it's starting to change) but I don't see how that says anything about the laughter habits of people online. You might have an argument that people online are desensitized but citing the term "CP" is not a good example.
my argument which related to the thread and how everyone is trashing reddit is that Reddit is a free forum, whether you talk about raping monkeys to the election the idea of freedom is inherent with relation to laws (note the closing of CP threads). Whether you agree with the freedom to discuss topics is not up for debate at all so I don't see why this is even being brought up.
It's not up for debate because the internet has never been policed properly, and cocky nerds take this to mean that they've found the ultimate bastion of FREEDOM!!!!!!11 It's being debated because it's the cornerstone of this whole topic. The fact that reddit can be all cutesy about freedom and democratized aggregation and stuff doesn't excuse them allowing things to be glorified that could not be in any other sector of our society. The reddit admins only censor material that they think will cause them trouble legally, and that's their prerogative. I don't really understand why you're so angry. We can all agree there's nasty stuff on reddit, but it's a consequence of American laws that it's allowed. I don't think reddit specifically chose to do this in order to provide a safe haven for unsavoury types of people. My uneducated guess would be, that arguing against windmills can get you riled up, if they are not able to show even the slightest degree of understanding. Your analogy between LOL and CP is poor by the way. The term "CP" is infact a good example of desentisizing as it dismantles the antagonism between child and pornography which the whole term contains. LOL describes a positive act, laughing, it has no negative connotation or antagonism, thus your analogy is poor. Freedom to discuss topics is not up for debate, that's right but go to your working place and start talking about raping monkeys and see where it gets you "but it is legal" won't save your ass. That is because behavioural norms come into play, they exist apart from a legal framework. As an intelligent human being you should really grasp this concept. I would contend that the source of my revulsion for child pornography is not the "antagonism" between the words but what it actually IS. I don't see where you're going with your example of talking about "raping monkeys" on the job. My employer can fire me for making offensive comments, and that's his decision. TL can ban me for making offensive posts, and that's their decision. Reddit chooses not to, and that's their decision. You can argue that reddit is a worse community for it, but ultimately it's up to them whether it needs to be addressed through moderation.
that's fine, but in the real world outside forces address stupid things that go on for too long
this is part of why countries with long-term genocides and other state-supported human rights abuses generally get blown up by someone representing a coalition of developed countries
reddit is different because, as I said, no one knows how to police the internet properly
if reddit was a torrent site it would be gone. if there was a major industrial power that had a stake in monetizing child pornography they would be all over you guys.
On September 18 2012 13:25 happyness wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 13:12 Alay wrote:On September 18 2012 12:58 peekn wrote:
This is foolish, a good analogy to this would be something on the lines of "Since child porn is sent through the internet, we should blame the ISP's for allowing this to happen!" I mean you can go on and on with similar analogies. Shouldn't villainize the site, but go after the people who do this. I actually disagree. Because a website is different than the internet in general (that is, it is privately owned) it is well within the moral rational, I believe, to discontinue use and advocate against a website because you disagree with its limitations (or lack there of) on content. To use an analogy (probably not the best, but give me a bit of slack here) it would be like a Cafe that allowed its employees to do something that you dislike (leaving this ambiguous, be it racism, sexism, whatever.) It would be acceptable, I believe, if you ceased to go to that Cafe because of the lack of action by the business owners to adequately police their staff. As such, I think villainizing it would be fine if you find something objectable about it and wished to discontinue going there. It would be sad to not consider the positive aspects of it as well in your decision ( science, worldnews, etc that are very informative) but that does not allow you to disagree with the website owners moderation decisions. Anyway the whole argument is silly. If you want to use a website analogy, just look at Google. If we should ban reddit because it gives access to inappropriate links then we should do the same for google because it does the same thing
actually, YOUR argument is silly
you know google is a search engine, and reddit is more than a search engine. you know this. everyone knows this.
pleeeeeease.
|
On September 18 2012 11:34 yeastiality wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 11:32 skipgamer wrote:On September 18 2012 11:29 yeastiality wrote:On September 18 2012 11:26 skipgamer wrote:On September 18 2012 11:21 yeastiality wrote:On September 18 2012 11:20 skipgamer wrote:
K, continue your witch-hunt of kids/young adults who might have some minor interest in seeing young genitalia.
Meanwhile on freenet/tor hundreds of thousands of videos of real child abuse are being shared freely.
I don't condone it, but it's out there. Those are the sites / people that should be vilified, not reddit. Aren't both groups symptomatic of the same problem? The fact that bad things are on "freenet/tor" doesn't let reddit off the hook. No. Very different problems. If you have looked around (and I have, just because I think people should know.) on many freent/tor sites you have actual people who are abusing children through prostitution rings and the like, and sharing it. Reddit/4chan/etc are a very, very different ecosystem. Most of the "paedophiles" there would never touch a child. Let alone actually produce hard core child pornography. okay, skip the children part for a moment /r/BeatingTrannies - are these people doing horrible things and gloating about it, or are they reposting gore that was on rotten.com in 1998 and making idiotic meme images? remember: this question is extremely straightforward. I wouldn't know, to be honest. I've never looked in to beating trannies fortunately. take a look at it. it's there and you're defending it with incredibly immature thinking.
What immature thinking? I did not address beating transsexuals/transvestites because I have 0 experience with it and honestly have no interest. I definitely didn't defend it.
I've only looked in to child pornography because I think child abuse is the most abhorrent activity. And on the scale of things, reddit is definitely on the milder side, I wouldn't even relate it to abuse at all.
off-topic, but cp is an outdated term for child porn btw. it's much more commonly used for the (ironically) childrens game club penguin now in the wider internet community.
|
On September 18 2012 13:17 ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 10:44 Bigtony wrote:On September 18 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I quit reading the article completely after about the third time it called jailbait "child pornography." Nice hit piece though. People need to grow up and live their own lives, quit placating your own meaningless and insecurity with misplaced judgment and self-righteousness. Using pictures of children (even clothed) for erotic stimulation is morally questionable behavior, even if it's not 'child pornography.' Also, 'hacking' photobucket/facebook for suggestive photos of people is also bad. Wrong. Find my post in this thread earlier about us being biologically driven to desire teenage girls. You think you're so evolved that you've never seen a hot 16 year old and admitted that you would hit it given the chance? It's biology vs some arbitrary man made restriction on sexual activity. I'm not saying this restriction is bad. In fact quite the opposite. It fits our goals as a society. Education, jobs, etc before having children and continuing our species. But acting all outraged because people want to fap to a 16 year old in a bikini is just fucking ignorant.
Theres 2 17yr old girls at my workplace that I'd hit in a moment, I'm 21. I question whether I would actually do anything if actually given a chance due to how I feel about them being under-age ofc but I'm definitely attracted. It' just biological to be attracted to fit attractive females. Though I hate myself a tiny bit for it lol.
On topic about reddit. 100% they should remove all these subreddits dedicated to all this stuff about children and posting stolen pictures.
|
On September 18 2012 13:21 starfries wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 12:51 AngryMag wrote:On September 18 2012 12:38 starfries wrote:On September 18 2012 12:18 yeastiality wrote:
I still don't see your argument. If someone says "CP" and you don't know what that is, sure you don't evoke the images becasue you're ignorant but once you understand CP refers to Child Pornography then it is no different... X is equal to X, they mean the same thing... You can't argue an acronym desensitized anything because once you expand it in your mind which takes a matter of miliseconds in your mind it is simply the same thing.
Part of the idea is that when people 'expand it in their mind' it does remove some of the meaning associated with the phrase. This is the case with any euphemism - when I read "CP", in my head I hear "CP". I don't picture a mathemagician splitting the letters and then writing 'hild ornography' next to them. We might be different here, though. I still want to know why everyday people (for instance, in newspapers/books/television/academia) do not say "CP". Why is it exclusive to internet people? Find me a sociology paper that says "CP" and isn't about 4chan or reddit. Everyday people don't say LOL either (although it's starting to change) but I don't see how that says anything about the laughter habits of people online. You might have an argument that people online are desensitized but citing the term "CP" is not a good example.
my argument which related to the thread and how everyone is trashing reddit is that Reddit is a free forum, whether you talk about raping monkeys to the election the idea of freedom is inherent with relation to laws (note the closing of CP threads). Whether you agree with the freedom to discuss topics is not up for debate at all so I don't see why this is even being brought up.
It's not up for debate because the internet has never been policed properly, and cocky nerds take this to mean that they've found the ultimate bastion of FREEDOM!!!!!!11 It's being debated because it's the cornerstone of this whole topic. The fact that reddit can be all cutesy about freedom and democratized aggregation and stuff doesn't excuse them allowing things to be glorified that could not be in any other sector of our society. The reddit admins only censor material that they think will cause them trouble legally, and that's their prerogative. I don't really understand why you're so angry. We can all agree there's nasty stuff on reddit, but it's a consequence of American laws that it's allowed. I don't think reddit specifically chose to do this in order to provide a safe haven for unsavoury types of people. My uneducated guess would be, that arguing against windmills can get you riled up, if they are not able to show even the slightest degree of understanding. Your analogy between LOL and CP is poor by the way. The term "CP" is infact a good example of desentisizing as it dismantles the antagonism between child and pornography which the whole term contains. LOL describes a positive act, laughing, it has no negative connotation or antagonism, thus your analogy is poor. Freedom to discuss topics is not up for debate, that's right but go to your working place and start talking about raping monkeys and see where it gets you "but it is legal" won't save your ass. That is because behavioural norms come into play, they exist apart from a legal framework. As an intelligent human being you should really grasp this concept. I would contend that the source of my revulsion for child pornography is not the "antagonism" between the words but what it actually IS. I don't see where you're going with your example of talking about "raping monkeys" on the job. My employer can fire me for making offensive comments, and that's his decision. TL can ban me for making offensive posts, and that's their decision. Reddit chooses not to, and that's their decision. You can argue that reddit is a worse community for it, but ultimately it's up to them whether it needs to be addressed through moderation.
The talk about raping monkeys was taken out of a post you quoted, it shows the difference between being legal and being accepted. The rotten shit you partially get on reddit is an automatic consequence of the failure to enforce norms which apply in every other aspect of our daily lives, the typical freeloader problem. Terms like CP and other euphemisms for other sick shit are a sure sign of desentisizing of the community. In this thread you had some guys who told everybody where to find the sickest shit. This widely known access blinds people from the severity of the problem.
And again, no reddit should of course not be forbidden, but it must start enforcing basic rules and stop hiding behind thought terminating cliches.
|
On September 18 2012 13:32 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 13:17 ayaz2810 wrote:On September 18 2012 10:44 Bigtony wrote:On September 18 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I quit reading the article completely after about the third time it called jailbait "child pornography." Nice hit piece though. People need to grow up and live their own lives, quit placating your own meaningless and insecurity with misplaced judgment and self-righteousness. Using pictures of children (even clothed) for erotic stimulation is morally questionable behavior, even if it's not 'child pornography.' Also, 'hacking' photobucket/facebook for suggestive photos of people is also bad. Wrong. Find my post in this thread earlier about us being biologically driven to desire teenage girls. You think you're so evolved that you've never seen a hot 16 year old and admitted that you would hit it given the chance? It's biology vs some arbitrary man made restriction on sexual activity. I'm not saying this restriction is bad. In fact quite the opposite. It fits our goals as a society. Education, jobs, etc before having children and continuing our species. But acting all outraged because people want to fap to a 16 year old in a bikini is just fucking ignorant. Theres 2 17yr old girls at my workplace that I'd hit in a moment, I'm 21. I question whether I would actually do anything if actually given a chance due to how I feel about them being under-age ofc but I'm definitely attracted. It' just biological to be attracted to fit attractive females. Though I hate myself a tiny bit for it lol. On topic about reddit. 100% they should remove all these subreddits dedicated to all this stuff about children and posting stolen pictures.
Finally someone who is honest. Cheers to you sir.
|
On September 18 2012 12:38 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 12:31 yeastiality wrote:On September 18 2012 12:30 Sabu113 wrote:
SRS has on more than a few occassion sicced downvoting bots on accounts of people who made a joke that wasn't politically correct.
Also I thought the beating reddits were more related to hardcore bdsm porn rather than home made domestic violence. I'll admit I haven't extensively researched the issue. SRS should probably be left as a separate topic. Otherwise, you're blocking out the obvious wrongs they've identified with a big sign that says "DEBATE THE MERITS OF SRS HERE" Wow, the absolute king in this thread of "let's lump all this horrible reddit shit together" is suddenly calling for distinctions and separate arguments to be made. Could you possibly be anymore hypocritical?
he's a troll from SRS, it's to be expected.
|
On September 18 2012 13:40 ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 13:32 Zooper31 wrote:On September 18 2012 13:17 ayaz2810 wrote:On September 18 2012 10:44 Bigtony wrote:On September 18 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I quit reading the article completely after about the third time it called jailbait "child pornography." Nice hit piece though. People need to grow up and live their own lives, quit placating your own meaningless and insecurity with misplaced judgment and self-righteousness. Using pictures of children (even clothed) for erotic stimulation is morally questionable behavior, even if it's not 'child pornography.' Also, 'hacking' photobucket/facebook for suggestive photos of people is also bad. Wrong. Find my post in this thread earlier about us being biologically driven to desire teenage girls. You think you're so evolved that you've never seen a hot 16 year old and admitted that you would hit it given the chance? It's biology vs some arbitrary man made restriction on sexual activity. I'm not saying this restriction is bad. In fact quite the opposite. It fits our goals as a society. Education, jobs, etc before having children and continuing our species. But acting all outraged because people want to fap to a 16 year old in a bikini is just fucking ignorant. Theres 2 17yr old girls at my workplace that I'd hit in a moment, I'm 21. I question whether I would actually do anything if actually given a chance due to how I feel about them being under-age ofc but I'm definitely attracted. It' just biological to be attracted to fit attractive females. Though I hate myself a tiny bit for it lol. On topic about reddit. 100% they should remove all these subreddits dedicated to all this stuff about children and posting stolen pictures. Finally someone who is honest. Cheers to you sir.
Though I do have to agree theres a difference between acting on those feelings or not. Would I search up for underage girls? No, theres plenty of 18+ attractive females that are better looking imo and I have moral obligations against it (aside from possibly being arrested). No one should be allowed to find these kinds of images and no one should act on those urges, theres such a thing as self control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
