I'd say the "why" is that if you take a word whose non-colloquial definition is just "attracted to children/minors" and use it to mean "assaulter of children/minors", you inhibit the ability for someone to admit to the former to seek help to prevent becoming the latter. And I don't just mean from mental health professionals who may be trained to find that distinction and provide the necessary help anyway, a person's first line of support is often family, friends, a partner, etc. It's not just pedantry, language has a pretty significant effect on perception and perception is the closest any of us can get to reality. Also, it's very common mental health practice to separate thoughts from actions, and if there is someone sitting on the edge between the two, I'd really rather that they have the mental health to not cause such an abhorrent victimization to occur, instead of trying to remove that boundary between thinking something and acting on it.
DarthFreyr
I think your last paragraph is really the crux of it. Technically, I'd agree with the statement "service [vs 'support'?] animals should be reserved for those who need them", except that I don't think anyone can really define what "need" and "service" mean (or even "animal" and "reserved" really); I don't think I'd agree with anyone who is actually using that statement in their line of arguments either. Competing needs can be a hard, or even impossible, problem to practically solve, but trying to find a global answer or rule for who gets precedence isn't gonna be much help, which also makes it hard to regulate/legislate fairly.
Interesting article, and one I am sympathetic to, but the inclusion of "Western" (and democratic, to a lesser extent) alongside educated, industrialized, and rich when transitioning from talking about a "lack of sanitation" to "adequate sewage disposal" was kinda... jarring?
Other cultures may not have the same type of porcelain thrones we use, but I think the EIR parts still have effective plumbing, even without being WD. Or do they just not have any of the same issues and pressures around public toilets?
Thought this was literally a video of a loading circle for a while, and figured "Well, I guess the OP technically hit the liminal nail on the head" when I got jumpscared by the blobbrain loading in.
That'd have to be at close range though, to create some sort of a temporary seal, right (as far as my physics intuition says)? Otherwise it should behave roughly similar to water in an open environment, where it would have to be the speed of the jet hitting you that does the raw damage.
Doing proper maintenance is more applicable to someone who owns or is responsible for firearms. I think the rule for the casual finder would be adding something like "assume moving any part of the gun may cause something inside to explode".
I'm definitely not honest with myself, though usually in unrelated matters, so perhaps I need handholding here. Taking the statement in reverse, non-lesbian porn is unenjoyable because either
-A. It doesn't show women recieving oral sex, or
-B. It doesn't center on female pleasure.
Is that more substantial than just a preference in content? Is being in the minority of video viewership and recieving minority market attention the embedded misogyny? Or is it more about the participants/subjects than the viewers, as the other poster suggested? What connection am I missing?
I don't think I disagree with the point you're making on misogyny, but I'm having a hard time following the argument. To my understanding, the original claim about "bodies existing for sexual gratification" frequently applies to men in male-male content as well (including as being viewed by women, to complete the mirror image). So the thing that makes it misogyny, as opposed to general misanthropy or class exploitation, is that female-female content is included under the "straight" label while male-male isn't?
Taking those stats on video viewership though would seem to support a claim that a site is assuming a male viewer, and using the "straight" label as applied to the (male) viewer would select any content containing their desired sex (women), both male-female and female-female. That assumption of male viewer and self-applied label would also support seeing male-male but not female-female under the "gay" label (though with male-female missing, perhaps explained with something about self-insert or observer vs recipient, but maybe that goes toward your point). Having a misleading UI and making not-unprobable assumptions about viewers feels less problematic though?
I'm trying not to take a position that would vilify pornography or those involved by default, but maybe I'm holding onto that too strongly or letting too much of my own bias in. Am I missing the point entirely or just seeing it the wrong way?
You are saying these ladies are doing cellular nucleus fusion with cervixes in their spines? Next you're gonna tell me that they've got a sphincter in the esophagus and areolas in the eyeballs.
I assumed it was just the numbers on the image, not the level of ADHD. As in "a person with ADHD who matches with number 5 on the imagination scale in the OP".
An "error" could be like it did a grammar wrong or used the wrong definition when interpreting, or something like an unsanitized input injection. When we're talking about an LLM trying to convince the user of completely fabricated information, "hallucination" conveys that idea much more precisely, and IMO differentiating the phenomenon from a regular mis-coded software bug is significant.
Edit: New last paragraph is probably more helpful than the rest of the original post.
The point was about the conflation of terminology in colloquial use, not limited to one specific instance. My "edge case" was that someone with bad thoughts or someone they might go to for support (not just a professional) would hear/read the conflation; in what way is that broad a scenario "in Narnia"?
I have no idea what your intent was in saying that this is Lemmy and language is used colloquially here. Yes, that's what we're discussing?
Attaching the meaning of "has committed sexual crimes against children" to a person who must admit to having sexual thoughts about children in order to get help for said thoughts is going to add to the difficulty of admitting that. Being thought of as someone who has committed reprehensible and criminal acts that haven't actually done would certainly not be a motivation to speak up. It would be an extremely limited view of human behavior to assume every single factor can only have an all-or-nothing effect on what they end up doing. What is ridiculous about what I actually said, not just a strawman of it?
I'm sure the colloquial use of mental health terminology never impacted anyone who didn't actually do anything violent or destructive, right? Surely we never had trouble with people not getting help for that, since obviously we "don't care" about the people who only have bad thoughts, and the context is very clear that the words we used actually only meant the criminals. There's never been a some sort of stationary bike of terminology or something caused by the use of words with specific meanings as something totally different, everyone knows that the language we use in one space would never affect how those things get treated elsewhere. And the queen handing out Turkish delight would never turn out to be evil.
One definitely does not have to "hit bottom" to get help, and in fact it's often much more effective to deal with a problem before reaching the point of no longer being able to bear the cost of challenging it. My concern is not about "being offended", it's about doing what is actually effective to prevent people from acting on sexual thoughts towards children based on everything we know about preventing people from acting on other unhelpful thoughts. Maybe to you that's less important than being able to mock sexual offenders online? Your use of the word "offender" (as in sexual offender, ie the distinction trying to be made, what my post never really said anything about) here would seem to indicate that you have either not paid attention to the answers when you "keep asking why", or you actually consider the thought or attraction alone an "offense". You seem to do more fighting any responses you get than trying to understand (even if still disagreeing with) them.
Maybe it doesn't fit your image of those who disagree with you, but I do think those who have committed sexual offenses against children do deserve to be shamed for that, should face consequences, and I'm not particularly bothered by mocking or deriding them (especially in the case of "elites" or others who are definitely not wanting to get help for or "resist" urges). But I'm also pretty categorically opposed to "thought-crime", so I personally hold a distinction between a term that means "has bad thoughts" and a term that means "does bad things". And unless society decides to invariably execute or imprison forever any offenders, I think that there also needs to be some sort of treatment or plan to prevent someone from wanting to seek out another offense; and that just a risk of punishment or rules about staying away from children is a pretty crappy way of doing that.
Edit: I don't think we disagree on the big things: 1) anyone "participating" in Epstein's ring is a bad person; 2) the most important thing is a) preventing offenses against children and b) not compounding the harm after the fact. I think the disagreement is about if there is value to distinguishing between the term 'pedophile' as "a person with sexual thoughts or attraction towards children (ignoring the whole age/hebe- thing for now) and a term like 'child molester' (or similar) as "a person who commits a sexual offense against a child (again ignoring details like exact age of consent or whatever, below whatever one picks)"; ie is there a difference in how we would treat those people, what impact might distinguishing the terms have, in what situations would that impact apply, etc? My understanding is that we both recognize a difference in the definitions and would respond differently. I and others have said that it does make a difference whether we (collectively, in demonstrating language meaning by use) use the term 'pedophile' to mean the second definition, one who acts/assaults, instead of only relating to "is this person sexually attracted to children?" without connection to "has this person sexually assaulted children?"; also that neither definition falls completely within the other. (At least) I have claimed that maintaining a distinction does, in an indirect and as-a-general-rule way, contribute to the 2a goal of preventing offenses against children. You and others have said that, at least within the context of this thread since it was pointed out, it is not helpful to care about the distinction, and that taking the time and effort to do so detracts from 1a and (as I understand) 2b. Additionally, that the argument of distinction supporting 2a was not sound. I think the 1a-detraction only occurs if you pre-suppose mixed usage and conflated meanings, and consider engaging in other discussions like "is word choice important?" to be inherently taking away from the main idea of "bad people doing bad things". I can't claim any close knowledge about 2b, but I also don't see any argument that everyone using only action-oriented ("child molester", "sex offender", etc) or intent/behavior ("grooming", "predator", etc) language (or even just generic derogatives), without using language that (is claimed to) also maps to non-included groups (ie 'pedophile'), would further victimize someone; is that something you'd argue for? Overall, is that a fair statement of positions?