I’m noticing a theme here from QAnon detractors.
They all make the same disproven claim that fictional pornography and dolls incite or normalize actual acts of child sexual abuse, and when that goes nowhere (or is refuted with evidence), they attempt to play the victim and claim we’re harassing them!
I can safely say that I’ve never harassed anybody, nor would I go out of my way to do so.
It’s safe to assume that nobody else here has, right? We’re all reasonable people.
To my knowledge, on this forum, there has been no one harassing anyone in more than past 5-6 months of me observing the threads more closely, expect new accounts popping up once in a while to throw accusations into long-lasting members and the organization itself.
And while I had some disagreements with a couple of the long-lasting members since I created my account, especially in the PMs, no one has harassed me so far. Not even a single insult was thrown at me.
Quite the opposite, I’m quite surprised how collected all of you were in responses to obvious trolls. Even while visibly irritated, you never used any slurs, and you responded with rational counterarguments, supplementing them with references to sources of your information, no matter how ridiculous the speculations and claims of some people were.
You could dismiss pretty much every single person saying things you disagree with, by claiming that they were from QAnon, and simply instantly ban them.
But you didn’t. You allowed every single one of them to express themselves for as long as they kept their conversations civil and in line with ToS. Even when they started making childish demands, like a certain favourite user of mine, you allowed them to post without any restrictions.
I made sure that this is the case by looking at their profiles, to not waste time responding to banned users. This forum runs on open-source software, that has the functionality of showing information in every person’s profile about the suspension, the cause, and the day when it’s going to be lifted. Only the people that really crossed the line has received a suspension.
It doesn’t take much intelligence to realize, that harassing anyone while you pursue some kind of mission, especially in the name of some group or organization, never brings anything positive, and quite opposite is counterproductive to the goals that you have. You are too rational not to be able to realize that simple fact.
The first moment you start harassing someone, your own reputation is in ruin forever. And the goals you believe in are stained with your reputation, making everyone completely dismiss the message you tried to convey.
Which is exactly why someone could want to make others think that this organization or forum does harras innocent people. And if it wasn’t for the fact that the same people who made such claims, for example, the person behind a couple of accounts like dopeko / cewisil / galilea858:
Had displayed a lot of manipulative tendencies, using multiple accounts while impersonating different people to create an illusion that “a lot of people is suspicious of Protasias intentions”, implying that Protasia must have some anti-Australian hidden bias.
Among many other disturbing things, that he wrote, like justifying a case in which the judge left a 32-year-old child predator completely free. Whose list of his apologetics that I’ve criticized more in detail in here:
Maybe some people would be gullible enough to believe in such claims.
But here is one important detail. I don’t think those people who have been visiting this site, making new accounts, are the main people to blame.
I mean, let’s summarize the common traits of them all.
They usually have low levels of intelligence, and I’m not talking about low IQ in a derogatory way, which is unusual considering that conspiracy theorists usually have a very high IQ (the reason why they believe in conspiracy theories is that their pattern recognition ability is so strong, that it sees patterns where no patterns really exist)
They have a strong sense of tying their identity to values like nation, purity, decency and morality. But their identification with those truly noble values is only surface level. They have no idea why those things matter in life, they never articulated any reasons why those things should matter for them, and simply blindly follow their own, often not developed in any way, and strongly mistaken understanding of those concepts, simply because the nobility most people associate with those concepts gives them a sense of pride and joy when they associate their own being with such concepts.
They predominantly use emotional reasoning, which is to be expected from people who suffer from moral panic. But they are capable of hearing reasonable arguments, they simply don’t accept them, because they didn’t process the invertion of their expectations about the topic of pedophilia emotionally yet.
They have a strong emotional bias against pedophilia, which is understandable, since they have only the basic, public understanding of the topic, filled with sensational fearmongering misinformation that is too chaotic to be a reliable framework, making them instead reduce the entire complexity the chaos it causes to a simple, easier to understand, value of just “evil that needs to be opposed”, never really articulating any knowledge that they might have about it, and never questioning the knowledge that they have, even though I’m sure they can admit, they never read any research paper about it, or any article in a scientific journal about it, or even a first section of Wikipedia page about pedophilia.
They repeat the same talking points, lie about research, researchers, data and such to convince others (but in reality, they try to convince themselves), that everything they feel about pedophilia is true.
All those traits are indicators of them being perfect victims of manipulation:
They lack enough IQ to realize inconsistencies in their own beliefs and what they are being told.
They are driven by emotions, which can be easily controlled with correct rhetoric and narration, even when the informations used for the narration aren’t true.
They identify themselves with values they don’t understand, allowing potential manipulators to twist their understanding of those concepts, and in doing so, manipulating what they identify themselves with, making them react with flight or fight response every time they feel what they identify themselves with is attacked, making them less willing to hear any counterarguments, that could make them realize, that they are being manipulated.
They have a strong emotional bias against the topic that Protasia is talking about, reacting with panic to it, due to having no foundation based on knowledge, that would allow them to distinguish misinformation, and that would allow them to develop their own reasoning about the topic in a calm manner, feeling stable about their moral position on the topic. This allows the manipulator to make all sorts of associations, basically throwing a personal army of his to harras anyone they want. They simply lie that “this organization is supporting pedophiles and in reality, want’s to normalize sexual exploitation of children”, and they follow blindly, compromising their own moral values to achieve, what they were led to believe, a greater good, without realizing, that the road to hell is paved in good intentions.
And all of that with an addition of moral panic, that historically has always been used to manipulate the public into making a lot of decisions they wouldn’t normally agree upon resulted in them blindly repeating the same slogans like “normalization of sexual exploitation”, without even being able to define what they mean in detail or provide any source of such claims being correct. They blindly assume it’s true because they feel it’s true and they see a lot of people repeating the same claims so it must be true, in their mind. And it does satisfy their confirmation bias a lot.
Let’s take our last friend statement, assuming it’s true, which I have a lot of doubts about:
He could simply say, that he doesn’t know what he meant, or that he never was on this forum before, and that he simply recently discovered it. But he instead felt the need that he has to provide everyone with a detailed story, to prove to everyone that he was indeed, never on this forum before. It’s not a proof of anything, there are many possible motives as to why a person would want to explain their own position in response to an allegation, but trying to convince people to something that isn’t true is one of such motives.
Anyways, the idea that someone could purposefully convince people, to direct them into attacking Protasia, isn’t that big of a stretch of the imagination. From what I’ve seen, someone has been targetting you once before, causing PayPal to disallow you to use their service for fundraisers, isn’t that right?
I mean, it’s to be expected that you will be targetted as you grow. You provide an approach to fighting with sexual exploitation of minors that hasn’t been yet proposed. Naturally, people who have a gain in keeping child trafficking industry prosperous, due to how many money it brings them, and even many people in public service who use the moral panic to implement any laws they want would find this organization problematic.
Most other organizations tackling the topic of child abuse to my knowledge, with a couple of exceptions, have the same approach they have been using for years. People with interest naturally have found exploits in their approach, so any change in such an approach is a risk to them, that would force them to adapt. For example, I really found it interesting, that in the recent years, I’ve seen no one talking about millions of CSEM materials being daily distributed and sold through the darknet and other mediums, that are in no way affected by laws, and instead, I see people constantly arguing that drawings are the biggest problem when it comes to sexual abuse of children. A perfect distraction that made everyone completely ignore the constant abuse of children in plain sight.
So naturally, you need only a single individual like that, to exploit moral panic, find gullible people, invite them to a group, feed them with misinformation that confirms to their emotional biases and weaponize them to harras a group, telling them exactly what they should do, in order to defame the organization, hoping they will be able to provoke a response that can be used, for example in the future, in a campaign against Protasia, while it’s still young and developing peoples trust. Whenever it’s happening now, is of course, unknown. But it’s a possibility of the future nonetheless.
But the thing about such effort is, that people who are weaponized to do such persons bidding, will truly believe that the person they trust is a good person. They will not be necessarily convinced to literally “go and lie about your friends being harrased”. They will instead, use some friend of theirs to make claims, and even show fabricated proofs of them being harassed by someone. To convince other people that indeed, they were attacked and that they need to retaliate.
It’s probably EthicalAI. They got really salty because I criticized their credentials to be criticizing a lawyer, and didn’t say their pet molester should be hanged, quarted and urinated on. This is admittedly truly bizarre, but it is the only explanation I can think of., except for the “age of consent should be abolished” person who didn’t seem to be here entirely in good faith after delving into a deep conversation with them.
If it is EthicalAI, no amount of chatter is going to convince them, they’re just here to stir up trouble. EthicalAI knows about every shred of research you might source or use. They just don’t really care. And will twist it in ways to fit their agenda.
There are people who seem to have a strong interest in lolicon, who believe in QAnon, and seem to completely miss the irony behind the movement and how it would impact there.
There is usually a far simpler explanation. Tackling abuse in the physical world would cost a lot of money, and it would be intrusive in a far more obvious way, than silently scanning someone’s messages, or silencing a minority group who no one cares for.
It is the option which creates the least intrusion (which would get some semblance of resistance), while being able to holler to their constituents about how much they’re doing to eliminate child abuse, and protect children. It is also a great way of smuggling in wholesale surveillance, by getting this idea across that child pornographers like to communicate using tools like Facebook, which the majority of the population just so happen to use.
By spying on everyone, they can keep tabs on any potential future enemies, and any groups who may ever become a threat to the people in power. And they can spook any casual dissidents into paranoia. They never know when exactly they’re being spied on. And they’re not motivated enough dissidents to move to alternate communications mediums.
Likewise, if they exaggerate the threat of some nebulous threat like child pornography (which somehow becomes more and more sinister both in harms it purportedly causes, and it’s proliferation, with each passing year) being posted on popular sites like Pornhub, they can get a fine control over human sexuality, and try to guide it to their own moral mores.
It is also gives them a more effective method to “other” portions of the population, and to direct anger which would normally be directed towards them, to that population instead. It is a brilliant tactical move.
I was talking about regular people, not mentioning stories of real abuse, and instead, talking about fictional works with no one being hurt. There is plenty of stories about real cases of children being sexually exploited on a daily basis, but people are fixated on the idea, that drawings are a more important topic to tackle, and people talking about them as it’s the evilest thing in the world seem to have this attitude of “it will cause more sexual abuses”.
Naturally, if you truly believe that those drawings will result in the global increase of sexual abuses of children, in comparison to stories of singular individuals who already been harmed, seem more important.
A single individual that can’t be protected anymore, because they already have been sexually abused, or millions of potential children that still can be protected. - that is the analysis of such people, which is why they will put more focus on trying to deal with the drawings.
And as a result, people who commit such crimes are being ignored, while in reality, this attitude of drawings causing more sexual abuse on children is a slippery slope fallacy. And since people sexually exploiting real children, for example, those who earn money by trafficking people, and child predators who desire interactions with real children don’t care about those drawings getting banned, since if that were to occur, they would lose nothing, it makes sense for them to exploit the public perception to gain the effect that I described.
I don’t write it to disagree or agree with your idea, I find it logical and sound. I’m just clarifying my previous point to show that both of our hypothesis about this observation doesn’t really exclude each other.
Someone who would have had an interaction with a child either way, would probably appreciate the drawings, but that appreciation wouldn’t somehow nudge them towards doing it. If it somehow did, it would have the same effect as a butterfly flapping it’s wings.
Depriving them of the drawings would be pointless and purely vindictive for no real reason. Depriving other people of the drawings is guilt by association. The worst sort of guilt. It isn’t even association, but because they have similar traits. It isn’t very fair, is it?
Unfortunately, much like a butterfly flapping it’s wings, it’s practically impossible to absolutely prove something didn’t cause something. even if you’re fairly sure it is an inconsequential variable.
You would practically have to prove it is “good”, because anything “neutral” could be interpreted as bad by default. It’s a shitty standard. It is even worse when a legislator uses “if it would save even one child” to oppose some content. What if they say this is a “special pedophile” and this “special pedophile” is somehow different and you’re still negligent for allowing it to happen? You can just never win. Not to mention, it’s unprovable.
This is what we need to prove to the courts, in addition to a handful of reasonable legislators with the help of social scientists. People can choose to believe whatever it is they want. The big issue, in my opinion, is that they’re simply made uncomfortable and seek to exclaim prohibition as a result of validating their own offense to the subject matter.
I was speaking with a few people over the issue, and naturally they said the same thing as you.
But when I asked “would you report it to authorities as you would CSAM depicting a real minor?” the answers were less decisive and more contemplative, almost like they were relegating their decision based on what others would. I was told more “no, it’s just a cartoon but I think it should still be looked in to” and “yes it normalizes abuse and nobody should be able to look at that stuff” which I took offense to.
The big issue with legal moralism of this type is that it becomes less and less about instilling and preserving a culture of virtue and more about quashing negative viewpoints that don’t conform to those, which isn’t the same thing at all. Positive virtues, such as “don’t rape kids” and “don’t murder people” have a tangible, realistic application to our life in a different way than fiction does. If people looked at it the same as we do horror movies and video games, then we would be in a much better place to explore and express our true feelings without allowing fear, prejudice, and hatred cloud our better judgement.
There is no value in censorship. None. The criminalization of child pornography is justified by the fact that it abuses and exploits real children sexually, absent a specific viewpoint or message. This idea that certain viewpoints are worse than the actual acts is baffling to me because it’s perfectly viable to separate action from speech.
I’m not willing to wait 40 years for society to “catch up” with this “new way of thinking”, that’s actually been the right path since the beginning.
Obscenity laws are a civil rights violation, plain and simple. Either we have freedom of speech, or we don’t. You don’t get to use “morality” and “decency” as a means to justifiably suppress a type of speech and still claim to have “free speech”. I get that the First Amendment isn’t absolute, but all exceptions have been innately justified by a degree of harm and it’s been universally understood that feelings or opinions aren’t a justified reason to suppress or carve out exceptions to that rule.
I’ll put it like this: community standards have no place guiding what is and isn’t appropriate sexual speech insofar that it affects speech that consenting adults have a right to communicate and receive. Under a “community standards” rationale, consensual sodomy, sexual interracial marriage would still be illegal, and racial segregation would still be in play, and abortion would still be illegal.
Individual rights ARE communal rights.
The obscenity exception was and is wrongly decided.
You seem to make a point about a completely different topic. Or maybe I have trouble understanding what you mean. Are you sure you don’t have a misconception about what my position is about the topic you talk about?
Of course, I don’t deny it. The idea that audiovisual medium would have so much effect on a human mind that it would lead a person to commit any crime, which could result in them being dead, imprisoned for life or a long time, having their family ties and relationships ruined, having their reputation stained, having everyone know that they are evil person, which would create a lot of problems with getting a job or finding a place to live, feeling as a horrible human being their whole lives and much more is simply laughable to me.
These alternatives in form of drawings and sex toys can surely help, but a person needs to decide to use it as a substitute in order for them to have any effect. I know for a fact, that child predators simply don’t care about either of those things. Their aim is to exploit sexually a real child. They won’t even bare an eye on a drawing, and won’t even consider, what in their mind would be a waste of money, to buy a doll, when they can instead spend this money, for example, to buy a gift for someone underage in their friends or family circles that they decided to target, to gain more of their trust and likeability.
In my opinion, these alternatives should be legal, because they can help people who don’t want to harm anyone. And they could be used to reduce the rate of recidivism in those who truly learned their lesson. But I don’t think it will work on all people. For example: individuals with antisocial personality disorder simply don’t care, they will exploit anyone they can, for their own pleasure, as long as they feel they can get away with it. And drawings or sex toys won’t affect them in any way, they will not change that fact about them, but it will also not incentify them in any way. It’s an insignificant variable when it comes to such individuals.
I’m not a fan of pandering to criminals, as a matter of principle. The idea that citizens who aren’t likely to offend, if at all, should give up a significant portion of their rights in order to prevent child rapists from offending seems a bit counter-productive. Like I can understand drunk driving laws, but that’s because of an intrinsic, observable, calculable risk of injury.
The vast majority of people who consume pornography, even the most vile, disgusting, “immoral” kind, even over a long period of time, aren’t likely to commit an act of sexual violence as a result of exposure or consumption. Study after study after study has confirmed that the variables wholly unrelated to the pornography.
I find it extremely problematic as well, when people report drawings to authorities. Each of such reports or cyber-tips has to be investigated by some living worker of given institution. Occupying them with nonsense means that at a given time, they don’t investigate a potentially dangerous situation, with real child life at stake. Even if we assume that verifying a drawing takes 1 minute, daily such worker spends 8 hours doing it, so if you keep reporting 480 images daily, they will never be able to find actual situations of sexual abuse. 480 images daily, for an online institution, that can receive reports from all over the world, it’s an extremely small number. And such worker has to be paid to investigate them all, so by doing it, those people literally waste money of institutions responsible for fighting with the abuse of children.
This is a good example of people who proclaim to want to protect children, helping child abusers with their efforts, even if indirectly, in a blind belief that what they decide to do is “moral”.
I think that most people, simply don’t even know those laws exist, and because cases that use them don’t concern them, they aren’t motivated to do anything about it. This is why using them against something that is concerning to most people would bring attention to them, and motivate the majority to abolish them. I don’t really see any other way of eliminating such laws.
If you want to talk to a conservative person about them, just say that obscenity laws are exactly like hate speech laws. Have a good intention, but are used in an abusive way to hurt innocent people. But I don’t think discourse alone will do anything, other than just garnering a silent vote against those laws.
I won’t go into details. But, some libertarians I know basically don’t care. They’re not into the lolis though, so that is weird, but they’re really over the top with the freedom rhetoric.
The people in the U.S. will definitely make them feel that. If they live in Florida, they’ll be living under a bridge somewhere unemployed. The shaming is so bad, that it could be considered counter-productive as it makes it impossible for someone to re-enter society, and increases their recidivism.
Desperate people do desperate things. Or just stop caring entirely. Someone who no longer cares about anything and has nothing to lose is a bit of a problem. What could you do to someone who lives under a bridge? Throw them in prison again?
Are gifts really that expensive? Or have I seen too many candy tropes in anime?
Maybe, they’ll use sex toys for fun. Getting access to things takes time, and they might want to play. If only they would decide getting access is too much effort, and give up on it.
Once again, I don’t disagree. You have a habit of taking single lines from the context of my response to write a note about the topic that it alone can refer to. I don’t complain, but I have a hard time figuring out how to respond to your posts when you do that.
But I think you get my point, to say that all of this would be caused by a person masturbating to a drawing is ridiculous, and from what I can hear from you, it’s especially ridiculous if such person lives in Florida.
Or multiple gifts. I don’t really know how much sex dolls cost, I don’t really have any interest in them. But wouldn’t the cost be somewhere around, for example, a new IPhone? Or a gaming PC?
My point was, that sexual predators, in general, tend to be occupied so much with praying on vulnerable individuals, that they don’t put that much attention to pornography or sex toys. Why would they, if their goal is using a living person, regardless of their feelings, and not to satisfy their sexual frustration with a healthy alternative.
I think that the reason why young people are having less sex cannot be reduced to a single factor. It certainly does have a role, but I think there is more to this topic than we currently know of.
But I will agree with you, that you make a good point that I haven’t thought of before. There is certainly a possibility that a person is willing, but not necessarily planning, at least not yet, to commit a sexual crime, by using an alternative, that gives them expected pleasure in more accessible and easier way, can simply drop their potential plans due to them being way harder to execute. The cost-gain analysis might be affected by such alternatives.