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.
> (B) advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits through the mails, or using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe, that the material or purported material is, or contains—
>
> (i) an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
>
> (ii) a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
I’m not sure if a cartoon dick pic would be enough, but it’s not far off.
I never claimed that. I merely said we should push for civility first, as in give people the benefit of the doubt. Or in other words, let them make a fool of themselves instead of jumping at the opportunity to try to “cancel” someone.
That’s all I’m asking for. I obviously can’t control how you choose to use your speech, but I can respectfully point out when I think you or anyone else has gone a bit too far.
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.
Just because the federal authorities don’t aggressively enforce a law doesn’t make it legal. Look at marijuana legislation, the federal government could shut down dispensaries in various states, but it chooses not to. Yet you can still be prosecuted for possession and distribution in those states.
So it’s one of those limbo areas where the federal government has decided not to strictly enforce the law. But the law still exists.
As for the person you replied to, I’m merely pointing out how early in the thread you jumped to conclusions. Maybe you were right about them in this scenario (I didn’t check the rest of the thread after posting), but you could easily have been wrong. I really like this quote:
It’s better to be thought an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
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.
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.
> Bart Simpson
It’s illegal if it’s deemed to be “obscene.”. See (a)(3)(B), emphasis mine:
> (B) advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits through the mails, or using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe, that the material or purported material is, or contains— > > (i) an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or > > (ii) a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
I’m not sure if a cartoon dick pic would be enough, but it’s not far off.
Here’s a Wikipedia article about the Protect Act that created this law, and it has links to relevant case law if you want to review it.
> “civility” above all else
I never claimed that. I merely said we should push for civility first, as in give people the benefit of the doubt. Or in other words, let them make a fool of themselves instead of jumping at the opportunity to try to “cancel” someone.
That’s all I’m asking for. I obviously can’t control how you choose to use your speech, but I can respectfully point out when I think you or anyone else has gone a bit too far.
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.
Just because the federal authorities don’t aggressively enforce a law doesn’t make it legal. Look at marijuana legislation, the federal government could shut down dispensaries in various states, but it chooses not to. Yet you can still be prosecuted for possession and distribution in those states.
So it’s one of those limbo areas where the federal government has decided not to strictly enforce the law. But the law still exists.
As for the person you replied to, I’m merely pointing out how early in the thread you jumped to conclusions. Maybe you were right about them in this scenario (I didn’t check the rest of the thread after posting), but you could easily have been wrong. I really like this quote:
Let them prove themselves one way or another.
They had.