Fantastic. Gluing together Unicorn Engine and Wine has been on my to-do list for longer than I’d care to admit, so I’m thrilled someone else is tilting at this windmill.

30-year copyright, no exception.

Dead people don’t need incentives.

Blackwater, Facebook, Twitter.

They had.

Dull.

You forgot to say anything.

There are plainly websites where Simpsons porn is openly available. If it was as illegal as actual images of child abuse, I cannot imagine where you think they’re hosted. Secret wizards on the backside of the moon would still get raided by the FBI. In practice, that law’s inclusion of drawings is unenforceable nonsense, because - as I keep telling the idiot who I assure you I am still bickering with - drawings are not children.

Child rape is different from drawings.

Child rape is worse than drawings.

Any argument to the contrary, on any basis, no matter how dry, is kinda fucked up. Saying so, to him or to you, doesn’t mean I’ve engaged in some campaign to silence him, or prevent others from considering his position. It means I’ve judged his words on their merit and I expect he’s just an idiot.

I am not joking when I say this person has contradicted their own hair-splitting within one sentence. They will outright sneer as if I have imagined all claims of equivalence… in the same comment as insisting two wildly different problems are by-definition the same thing. Dude legitimately failed at argumentum ad nuh-uh. And I spotted this trajectory from the outset. Unless you feel I’ve tricked him into adopting this position, it was always right there in his mind, and that was in evidence.

At this point I’m legitimately worried about that guy failing Piaget metrics. Whatever diplomacy you want me to extend to people by default, it has been spent.

I don’t believe you’re physically capable of self-consistently stating what you think your point is. You’re somehow not equating these things you just said are defined as the same thing. You’re sneering as if noticing that definition - which you block-quoted - is some kind of delusion.

All while projecting emotion in a way that’s almost as ironic as your constant parroting of the phrase “reading comprehension.”

Is it difficult to use the internet without object permanence?

No possible definition of child sexual abuse can include drawings, no matter who writes it. That’s not what those words mean.

Drawings… aren’t children. It is literally that simple.

And if you think any of this is identically illegal to actual photos of child abuse - one, there’s a whole network of shamelessly public US-hosted sites for you to turn in and be a national hero, and two, you might be wholly incapable of remembering what you’re arguing. Whether you think these things are equivalent oscillates between letters.

What you’re asking for is what I’m very obviously doing, here. Again: “shutting someone out” does not mean the talking stops. I am almost pathologically inclined to continue bickering with someone, for the sake of a potential audience.

This ding-dong’s false equivalence is equally obvious. They’ve contradicted their contrary insistence within the same sentence as some of those insistences. Most recently they’ve blamed it on the laws where this study took place. Last I checked… Stanford is in California. American laws do not say diddly fuck about drawings of Bart Simpson’s dick. There’s public-facing sites where you could find one in a heartbeat. The FBI is not out a-hunting them. Their legal troubles will mostly come from the Walt Disney Corporation.

Not that any country’s laws could possibly make child… sexual abuse… materials… somehow include computer renderings of fictional characters.

If we want a polite and civil discourse, everyone needs to make an effort.

Why is that the highest goal?

The creeping demand for “civility” above all else is a detriment to conversational honesty. That doesn’t mean anything-goes. Screaming escalations and blatant trolling are not the same thing as identifying bullshit and saying ‘that’s bullshit.’ Saying so is not polite or civil, but surely it’s important. Rules saying otherwise have been a gift to bullshitters. Moderation never comes down hard and fast enough on their fallacies, abuse, and manipulation, compared to how mods pounce on direct call-outs. Even in language and tone that would scarcely raise eyebrows face-to-face. As if ‘do you still beat your wife’ is ambiguous, but ‘hey, get bent’ is inexcusable.

Long ago and far away, the point of reference was a cocktail party.

Most forums are not debate clubs, or kindergartens, or any other equivalent scenario where a quiet ‘what are you fucking talking about’ would get someone ejected. They’re indoor-voice banter. Constructive, ideally, and sober enough to side with well-spoken rationale over ingroup posturing… but somewhere that ‘here’s why you’re wrong, jackass’ will be judged on ‘why’ more than on ‘jackass.’

And sometimes the person you’re talking to is obviously drunk or stupid or both, but you can keep calmly telling them how they’re wrong about everything that comes out of their mouth. Debate is not what’s happening. Civility won’t help. But you can keep it reasonable, and frankly, that’s better.

“They’re up-front about the false equivalence,” says chronic clue-dodger.

No possible definition of child sexual abuse can include drawings.

Tell me otherwise in the same breath as insisting you’re not making that false equivalence. Apparently my patience is limitless when the lie is that fucking obvious.

edit: Hang on, the obvious lie disguised a stupid lie. What country do you think Stanford is in? Drawing Bart Simpson’s dick is not illegal in America. You could do it right now, in MS Paint, and e-mail it to the FBI, and they’d just formally tell you to go fuck yourself. Which would obviously not be the case with ACTUAL “child sexual abuse materials,” being evidence of abusing a flesh-and-blood child.

The guy here saying CSAM and drawings are the same keeps insisting he’s not saying that and then immediately saying it again. I’m still here calling him a stupid bastard. As often as he needs to hear it. Again: if you’re worried about the thread stopping, I am not your concern. But I’m not about to give dolts like that some undue fair shake, after the fifth time they sneer “reading comprehension!” in response to rubbing their nose in the inescapable meaning of the words they keep saying.

Sometimes you get assholes no matter what you say.

That’s not why I value blunt honesty, in some contexts, but it’s a counter to the most common criticism of blunt honesty. Bending over backwards to appease unreasonable people is worse to do and worse to read than someone barging in to accurately and lucidly call bullshit.

We’re not JUST talking about exclusion from a social network.

Do you speak English?

The subject matter is the part that’s a felony - so the glib inclusion of the part you just don’t like is dangerous misinformation.

I am calling out how this study falsely equates child rape and gross drawings, and your neverending hot take is ‘well I don’t care for either.’ There’s not enough ‘who asked’ in the world. One of these things is tacitly legal and has sites listed on Google. One of these things means you die in prison, anywhere in the world.

And here you are, still calling both of them “child porn.” In the same post insisting you’re not equating them. Thanks for keeping this simple, I guess.

You’ve absolutely treated them the same.

You see no problem with this study explicitly about CSAM casually lumping in… drawings.

The only reason you said shit to me in the first place was to smugly assert that they belong together. You declared confidently that the entire world was on your side, which does raise questions of who exactly is hosting and using these servers full of drawings you don’t like.

But the issue is the false equivalence.

The only issue is the false equivalence.

Sounding the alarm about child rape shouldn’t fucking include drawings for the same reason reports of a murder epidemic at the local park shouldn’t throw in “and also someone pissed in the pond.” Bit of a difference there! Kind of important! Negative one and negative one billion are both negative, but they’re plainly not as negative, are they? They don’t belong in the same sentence without a very narrow context. Glibly chastising someone, for pointing out that gulf, is the polar opposite of helpful, to anyone.

Saying ‘so what, they’re both bad’ is false equivalence. It’s dangerous nonsense that enables far-reaching abuse of power. What you’re doing is the textbook basis for unjustifiable surveillance laws, censorship, and general moral policing. If your kneejerk reaction when someone belabors the difference between “we have to stop this proliferation of child rape!” and “we have to stop this proliferation of drawings we don’t like!” is to insist you don’t like either and you’d expect them to be treated the same - you are the problem.

I mean, not as much of a problem as child rape, but nonetheless, shut up already.

CSAM includes depictions here.

Literally impossible.

Child rape cannot include drawings. You can’t sexually assault a fictional character. Not “you musn’t.” You can’t.

If you think the problem with child rape amounts to ‘ew, gross,’ fuck you. Your moral scale is broken, if there’s not a vast gulf between those two bad things.

Someone arguing child rape is only as bad as drawing Bart Simpson naked is some kind of fucked up.

As other subthreads should thoroughly demonstrate - I don’t have to respect someone, to call them out. A position you recently endorsed. The end of polite and civil discussion between equals doesn’t mean the yelling has stopped.

The irony of you repeatedly sneering “reading comprehension” is delightful.

Yes, idiot, people can see my perfectly consistent point. Good job. I once told you to stop lumping together drawings with CSAM, and now, I’m still telling you stop lumping together drawings with CSAM.

CSAM is a product of rape. Child rape is part of the subject matter. That is the “child abuse” that’s in the goddamn headline.

Except the dolts at Stanford lumped in drawings.

And you aggressively do not see the problem with treating those things the same way.

Even though one is a drawing, and the other is rape. You are… equating… those two things. You are treating them identically and interchangeably.

And you need to stop.

We’re not just talking about ‘ew gross icky’ exclusion from a social network. We’re talking about images whose possession is a felony. Images that are unambiguously the product of child rape.

This paper treats them the same. You’re defending that false equivalence. You need to stop.

Telling someone why they’re a stupid bastard for the sake of other people is not exactly a contradiction. You know what doesn’t do observers any good? “Debating” complete garbage, in a way that lends it respect and legitimacy. Sometimes you just need to call bullshit.

Some bullshit is so blatant that it’s a black mark against the bullshitter.