@gwit This statement is defamatory and I can sue you for speaking these words.

@olives Its also defamatory to call me a fascist for saying that banning child porn is a good thing. Seems like something a child porn advocate would say. But that's my opinion!
Hey, aren't you right libertarian types anti censorship?

@gwit You said that in a context where it would be impossible for someone to have been abused. Plucking words out of context is not going to work here, troll.

@olives Child pornography should not only be banned for it containing abuse, but also because it is immoral to depict people who cannot consent engaging in sexual intercourse.
It also validates paedophilia through allowing people to consume art that DEPICTS the abuse of children, regardless of true abuse occurred.
I'm not a troll. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll.
Also, Australia's defamation laws require damage to business for litigation, so good luck.

@gwit I still think this is exploitative language to refer to media which might contain taboo themes (I'm not even sure this particular game is actually that provocative), but you know what, I'll let it pass for argument's sake.

If you read one of the citations I put in that post, I make a pretty thorough argument about how porn is not really a big deal. I could add additional ones. I think that is a good place to get started.

Honestly, you could make this argument about a whole bunch of things.

Let's say an actor is paid to play-act a rape, or someone draws an imaginary scenario. Or what if someone draws furry art, this depicts bestiality, does it not? These would both be things which society frowns upon.

That said, I don't think someone should censor fictional art which might involve either of these themes. Also, while you might think that I'm pulling this out just to talk to you, I have actually seen this very argument involving bestiality in the wild. It's not hypothetical.

Such a setting would be purely imaginary, divorced from reality, it's not the same as someone being victimized by someone. It's also likely to be quite fantasy, and I doubt someone is even comparing it to *that*. Typically, it is an outside figure who projects this sort of thing onto that. In fact, even looking a certain way, can be enough to get treated as "abuse" by those who lean towards doing so, again, it's very likely a fairly fantasy scenario of absurd things someone wouldn't want to do.

The "validation" argument (which I'm not quite understanding) doesn't make much sense to me. Does BDSM "validate" biastophilia (essentially rapephilia) because it has coercive attributes to it? In any case, I don't see how having some fictional media would suddenly make child abuse a "valid" thing. I think it is pretty straightforward why abuse is an awful thing. Even in the United States, where freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment, such acts are viewed with the utmost disgust and hatred. It's hard not to see how awful it is.

@olives I am ambivalent on "anthro" furry art. "Feral" furry art, however, is bestiality and should be censored.
My opinions on rape fantasies are this. I believe a desire to engage as a "rapee" (i guess?) in a fantasy is fine, but wanting to be a rapist isn't, though bodily autonomy should be respected.
I think those people should probably go to therapy, same with paedophiles and zoophiles. My validation argument is based on it validating those attractions, not validating abuse itself.

@gwit From the way you're speaking, I think you have a fundamentally flawed view of sexology? One perhaps inspired by QAnon or... sensationalism? (I've been thinking of writing a lengthy post on this for a while... And I might have to get on with it).

Being interested in a particular fantasy scenario isn't really "wanting" to go out to do something to someone. Much less so ever actually doing it. Also, censorship tends to punish innocent people.

@olives And to think I thought you were about to have a reasonable debate lol. Then you accuse me of being in QAnon.

@olives Also, I'd like to say no one possessing or creating child pornography or bestiality is innocent of those crimes.

@gwit You are making a nonsense QAnon type argument about how someone "wants to do whatever" over fairly mundane and ordinary content in 2023. So, yes, innocent people.

Your closest ideological ally is a woman whose feed is filled with posts from a religious figure and who wants to ban pornography, and QAnon conspiracy theorists (and people who follow them) on the Internet.

@gwit A woman from New South Wales. I'm not talking about American ideologues there.

@olives Do you realise that this post is completely nonsensical? I dont have an enigma machine, I have absolutely no idea what youre on about.

@gwit Bye. Have a good day.

@olives Make sure you clear your search history

@gwit ... wtf?

@gwit Oh, and. Stop listening to QAnon or religious nonsense. Nonsense tends to go back to them.

Pretending fairly common porn is abuse is pretty gross and disgusting, as is making insinuations about content creators.

@gwit My goodness, this paranoid looking for "possible criminals" and burning random people is getting ridiculous. Real Q shit.