Yes, and they’re very impressed by you winning employee of the month

I was born on 1 January 1970 as the elders of the internet intended

Welcome to PieFed! I see you’ve got an account and you know how to post comments. What else do you need help with?

My instance bans non-consensual AI content and users. Rimu’s tools have made that a lot easier to do, I get an alert when the system detects a possible AI user.

I heard it works better if you tell Lutris to simulate Windows XP

I edited the word “myth” to “perception” because the well informed reply to My comment changed My mind about the truth of the facts, but I still think the fact’s prominence in culture is because of McDonald’s. Though, come to think of it, we were talking about frivolous lawsuits, not total lawsuits, so I’m not entirely convinced. It could be that the USA has a completely appropriate number of lawsuits and other countries have too few. After all, the judge in the McDonald’s case awarded the lady an entire day’s worth of profits, which is an absurdly high amount of money, but absurdity was in fact an appropriate response to an ongoing problem of absurd magnitude.

That perception was largely created by McDonald’s after they were sued for giving a lady third degree vagina burns and a fused labia. “Haha, Americans are so frivolous with lawsuits, they’d sue a company for serving coffee hot enough to make you need skin grafts”.

Words can get someone involuntarily committed to a mental hospital. Words can be used to take away rights. Words can affect national policy. Words were what Adolf Hitler used to send people to the concentration camps, and they’re what Donald Trump is using to do the same thing today. Words are extraordinarily dangerous.

When we legitimise words that dehumanise the mentally ill, words like r*tard or n*rcissist, we give more power to fascists, because they can go on to use those words and people won’t be offended. Ordinary people’s offence is a defensive weapon that can be used to protect against the misuse of words. Ordinary people’s offence is a valuable resource it makes sense to cultivate.

I want people to be more easily offended, so that they’ll resist messages of hate spread by fascists. If people learn to be okay with hearing slurs casually thrown around on the street, words like f*ggot and n*gger, then things are going to get worse for the people those slurs describe.

But if we go even further back in history, to the very origins of the term, it’s not good. There’s an ancient Greek myth about this teenage boy, Narcissus. He was 16 years old and very beautiful, so everyone wanted to marry him. But he just wanted to be alone in the woods and be a hunter. Bring back food for his community. But every time he returned to civilisation, he was inundated with marriage proposals. And he was just a boy. So he loses his temper and tells one of the people sexually harassing him, Ameinias, to go kill himself. Ameinias actually does if, because he’s genuinely obsessed with Narcissus, and as he does it, he prays to the goddess Nemesis for revenge. So Nemesis curses Narcissus to be capable of beholding his own beauty. Next time the kid comes across a pond, he sees his reflection in it, becomes obsessed with staring at himself, and dies of thirst because he can’t tend to his basic needs.

So this is an aro/ace child in an aphobic society who was sexually harassed, lost his temper, and sentenced to death by a god.

A lot of people perceive Narcissus as some kind of abuser, and I think these readings of the myth come from just how aphobic Greek society was at the time. They thought if you’re pretty, then you owe people sex, and if you don’t want to have sex, then you’re stuck up and full of yourself. It’s disgusting. And I’m not comfortable with the way our society has spent 3000 years mocking a queer child. Even a fictional one.

So no, I’m not going to become okay with hearing the word used as an insult. I’ve genuinely done a lot of research on this issue and I’m convinced it’s bad. As an asexual, I relate to Narcissus. As someone who suffered child abuse and now has a harmful relationship with My self-image, I relate to Narcissus. Our society hates people like him and people like Me because its values are all twisted up, same as the ancient Greeks.

The word “autism” originally came from psychiatrists’ perceptions that autistic people are preoccupied with ourselves. So if I say “My boss is so autistic, it’s disgusting”, is that okay? Etymologically, it’s valid. I’m not talking about a disorder. But I don’t think it’s an okay thing to say.

When psychiatrists made narcissism a label to apply to vulnerable people, I think they made it off limits for casual comments. I’m careful about labelling people as antisocial or paranoid too. Those are serious words used for serious conversations about mental health. That means they can be dangerous in untrained hands. Think of those words like power tools. You don’t pick up an angle grinder and start waving it around without the proper training and carefulness. That’s going to get someone hurt. These words have just as much destructive potential, so we need to treat them the same way.

I have NPD, and I don’t like it when My disorder is shortened and used as the word to identify Me. I’m not a “N*rcissist”, I’m a person with NPD. Call Me a person, not a disorder.

This article would have been better without the ableist slur against people with NPD.

For the record, I believe feddit.org goes far beyond the legal requirements with respect to zionist hate speech.

I agree that there’s a big difference between natural pedophiles (pedophilia as a sexuality) and Epstein pedophiles (pedophilia as a kink).

The research that I’ve read on the subject suggests that Epstein pedophiles are opportunistic - they offend when there is an opportunity to do so. That could be having a martini on Epstein’s island, or it could be browsing Reddit and seeing a post from r/jailbait. During that first encounter, if the person has enough excuses to be able to say it’s not that bad, it’s not illegal, it’s not actually harming anyone, then they are likely to seek out more “content” and re-offend in worse ways.

In other words, if we make cruelty free imitation child porn available to natural pedophiles, we’re going to create more Epstein pedophiles. We’re not actually helping by doing that. It’s counterproductive.

Legally, it is. I agree with the law that cruelty free imitation child porn is still child porn, just like I believe vegan butter is butter.

Playing video games causes more playing video games. Looking at child porn causes more looking at more child porn.

There’s an argument to be made that this content satisfies a need for some mentally ill people, and I did believe in that argument when I was younger, but hopefully we’ve all learned from the Epstein files that demand for this kind of thing can be created from scratch in formerly normal people.

Yes, the name should be changed. The pictures on that community would be completely legal to look at if they were not described as fauxbait, but when they are posted with that framing, they become a crime to look at in Australia (And Finland, according to a Finn on Matrix)

Studies show playing video games raises short term aggression. But we have no hard data on the long term causative relationship between video games and violence, because it’s very difficult to cause patients to play video games for many years. I sure hope people are learning some of their moral values around violence from video games. I hope Wolfenstein makes people more violent towards neo-Nazis. I hope Horizon makes people more violent towards tech CEOs. I hope Subnautica makes people want to protect nature.

Now I’m going to cite Humm et al., (2020)'s insights into the psychology of first-time CSAM offenders. Most first-time CSAM offenders are unaware that what they’re doing is a crime, and they have doubts about the harmfulness of what they’re doing. In other words, they’re exactly the kind of people who tend to use the fauxbait community, and in fact they have a lot in common with people in this thread such as yourself.

Nonetheless, as a factor motivating onset, such exposure, or ‘opportunity’, is thought to have a ‘greater impact’ on an individual’s likelihood of viewing CEM than pathological motivations or drivers such as overpowering sexual urges

In other words, if you see this kind of porn by accident and you don’t think it’s that bad, you’re more likely to go on to become an online-only child sex offender.

Civilian homes are not tactical targets.