4 ms·

> meaning that sexual labor is sex obtained through coercion (there is a terser name for this) In a world where all labor is slave labor, rape presumably isn't

> meaning that sexual labor is sex obtained through coercion (there is a terser name for this) In a world where all labor is slave labor, rape presumably isn't particularly frowned upon. If I'm going to accept your premise that basically everything I have in life is obtained through coercion, why would I object to obtaining sex that way? > the things Aella likes to defend include things like AI generated CSAM, as well as trying to push the boundaries on what might be considered ethical ways to engage sexually with children One of these is not like the other. People advocating for AI generated child pornography are generally doing so as a means of reducing the frequency of people actually having sex with children. "AI generated CSAM" is an oxymoron FWIW, it's impossible to sexually abuse a child which does not exist.

cess11 9mo ago
'"AI generated CSAM" is an oxymoron FWIW, it's impossible to sexually abuse a child which does not exist.' Would you agree that fictional stories about how blacks want to and commit rape and murder are fine? Is it OK to 'grok' out simulated undressings of small children because the image technically no longer depict them and instead are fantasy?
- JasonADrury 9mo ago
  >Would you agree that fictional stories about how blacks want to and commit rape and murder are fine? "Fine" in what sense? >Is it OK to 'grok' out simulated undressings of small children because the image technically no longer depict them and instead are fantasy? Why would it not be OK? There is nobody being harmed.
  - cess11 9mo ago
    Pick some sense you're comfortable with. If I sneak a nude photo of you and use some "AI" to add a funny hat and then spread it, would you be OK with that?
    - JasonADrury 9mo ago
      >If I sneak a nude photo of you and use some "AI" to add a funny hat and then spread it, would you be OK with that? How is this even vaguely related? I'm a real person, but we're presumably discussing people who do not exist.
      - cess11 9mo ago
        And kids aren't?
        JasonADrury 9mo ago
        No? That's the whole point. The people advocating for AI generated child pornography are generally not advocating for AI generated child pornography portraying real children.
        nilum 9mo ago
        And I'm sure no children will be exposed to this. You people are fucking sick.
        cess11 9mo ago
        Right, so as long as the photo is manipulated you're OK with it being distributed. Do you have kids?
        JasonADrury 9mo ago
        >Right, so as long as the photo is manipulated you're OK with it being distributed. Moving the goalposts from "AI-generated" to "manipulated" is just silly on your part. >Do you have kids? Yes.
        tanseydavid 9mo ago
        No goalposts got moved. A previous post asked: "Is it OK to 'grok' out simulated undressings of small children because the image technically no longer depict them and instead are fantasy?" And then YOU answered with the following: > Why would it not be OK? There is nobody being harmed.
nilum 9mo ago
This doesn't work. It instead creates normalization of the content and causes people with these fixations to obsess.
- JasonADrury 9mo ago
  I'm not that deeply familiar on the topic, do you have any research to share on this?

cess11 9mo ago

'"AI generated CSAM" is an oxymoron FWIW, it's impossible to sexually abuse a child which does not exist.' Would you agree that fictional stories about how blacks want to and commit rape and murder are fine? Is it OK to 'grok' out simulated undressings of small children because the image technically no longer depict them and instead are fantasy?

JasonADrury 9mo ago
>Would you agree that fictional stories about how blacks want to and commit rape and murder are fine? "Fine" in what sense? >Is it OK to 'grok' out simulated undressings of small children because the image technically no longer depict them and instead are fantasy? Why would it not be OK? There is nobody being harmed.
- cess11 9mo ago
  Pick some sense you're comfortable with. If I sneak a nude photo of you and use some "AI" to add a funny hat and then spread it, would you be OK with that?
  - JasonADrury 9mo ago
    >If I sneak a nude photo of you and use some "AI" to add a funny hat and then spread it, would you be OK with that? How is this even vaguely related? I'm a real person, but we're presumably discussing people who do not exist.
    - cess11 9mo ago
      And kids aren't?
      - JasonADrury 9mo ago
        No? That's the whole point. The people advocating for AI generated child pornography are generally not advocating for AI generated child pornography portraying real children.
        nilum 9mo ago
        And I'm sure no children will be exposed to this. You people are fucking sick.
        cess11 9mo ago
        Right, so as long as the photo is manipulated you're OK with it being distributed. Do you have kids?
        JasonADrury 9mo ago
        >Right, so as long as the photo is manipulated you're OK with it being distributed. Moving the goalposts from "AI-generated" to "manipulated" is just silly on your part. >Do you have kids? Yes.
        tanseydavid 9mo ago
        No goalposts got moved. A previous post asked: "Is it OK to 'grok' out simulated undressings of small children because the image technically no longer depict them and instead are fantasy?" And then YOU answered with the following: > Why would it not be OK? There is nobody being harmed.

nilum 9mo ago

This doesn't work. It instead creates normalization of the content and causes people with these fixations to obsess.

JasonADrury 9mo ago
I'm not that deeply familiar on the topic, do you have any research to share on this?