Mhm I have mixed feelings about this. I know that this entire thing is fucked up but isn't it better to have generated stuff than having actual stuff that involved actual children?
Yeah would be nice. Unfortunelately it isn't so and it's never going to. Chasing after people generating distasteful AI pictures is not making the world a better place.
Alternative perspective is to think that does watching normal porn make heterosexual men more likely to rape women? If not then why would it be different in this case?
The vast majority of pedophiles never offend. Most people in jail for child abuse are just plain old rapists with no special interest towards minors, they're just an easy target. Pedophilia just describes what they're attracted to. It's not a synonym to child rapist. It usually needs to coinside with psychopathy to create the monster that most people think about when hearing that word.
That's a bit of a difference in comparison.
A better comparison would be "does watching common heterosexual porn make common heterosexual men more interested in performing common heterosexual sexual acts?" or "does viewing pornography long term satiate a mans sex drive?” or "does consumption of nonconsensual pornography correlate to an increase in nonconsensual sex acts?"
Comparing "viewing child sexual content might lead it engaging in sexual acts with children" to "viewing sexual activity with women might lead to rape" is disingenuous and apples to oranges.
a review of 19 studies published between 2013 and 2018 found an association between online porn use and earlier sexual debut, engaging with occasional and/or multiple partners, emulating risky sexual behaviours, assimilating distorted gender roles, dysfunctional body perception, aggression, anxiety, depression, and compulsive porn use.24 Another study has shown that compulsive use of sexually explicit internet material by adolescent boys is more likely in those with lower self-esteem, depressive feeling and excessive sexual interest.1
some porn use in adult men may have a positive impact by increasing libido and desire for a real-life partner, relieving sexual boredom, and improving sexual satisfaction by providing inspiration for real sex.7
As for child porn, it's not a given that there's no relationship between consumption and abusing children. There are studies that indicate both outcomes, and are made much more complicated by one of both activities being extremely illegal and socially stigmatized making accurate tracking difficult.
It's difficult to justify the notion that "most pedophiles never offend" when it can be difficult to identify both pedophiles and abuse.
Point being, you can't just hand wave the potential for a link away on the grounds that porn doesn't cause rape amongst typical heterosexual men. There's too many factors making the statistics difficult to gather.
I would love to see research data pointing either way re #1, although it would be incredibly difficult to do so ethically, verging on impossible. For #2, people have extracted originals or near-originals of inputs to the algorithms. AI generated stuff - plagiarism machine generated stuff, runs the risk of effectively revictimizing people who were already abused to get said inputs.
It's an ugly situation all around, and unfortunately I don't know that much can be done about it beyond not demonizing people who have such drives, who have not offended, so that seeking therapy for the condition doesn't screw them over. Ensuring that people are damned if they do and damned if they don't seems to pretty reliably produce worse outcomes.
A problem that I see getting brought up is that generated AI images makes it harder to notice photos of actual victims, making it harder to locate and save them
Well that, and the idea of cathartic relief is increasingly being dispelled. Behaviour once thought to act as a pressure relief for harmful impulsive behaviour is more than likely just a pattern of escalation.
Catharsis theory predicts that venting anger should
get rid of it and should therefore reduce subsequent
aggression. The present findings, as well as previous
findings, directly contradict catharsis theory (e.g.,
Bushman et al., 1999; Geen & Quanty, 1977). For reduc-
ing anger and aggression, the worst possible advice to
give people is to tell them to imagine their provocateur’s
face on a pillow or punching bag as they wallop it, yet this
is precisely what many pop psychologists advise people to
do. If followed, such advice will only make people
angrier and more aggressive.
But there's a lot more studies who have essentially said the same thing. The cathartic hypothesis is mainly a byproduct of the Freudian era of psychology, where hypothesis mainly just sounded good to someone on too much cocaine.
Do you have a source of studies showing the opposite?
you made the claim that the cathartic hypothesis is poorly supported by evidence, which you source supports, but is not relevant to the topic at hand.
your other claim is that sexual release follows the same patterns as aggression. that's a pretty big claim! i'd like to see a source that supports that claim.
otherwise you've just provided a source that provides sound evidence, but is also entirely off-topic...
The belief that indulging in AI created child porn relieves the sexual deviant behaviour of being attracted to actual minors utilizes the cathartic theory. The cathartic theory is typically understood to relate to an array of emotions, not just anger. "Further, the catharsis hypothesis maintains that aggressive or sexual urges are relieved by "releasing" aggressive or sexual energy, usually through action or fantasy. "
follows the same patterns as aggression. that's a pretty big claim! i'd like to see a source that supports that claim.
That's not a claim I make, it's a claim that cathartic theory states. As I said the cathartic hypothesis is a byproduct of Freudian psychology, which has largely been debunked.
Your issue is with the theory in and of itself, which my claim is already stating to be problematic.
but is also entirely off-topic...
No, you are just conflating colloquial understanding of catharsis with the psychological theory.
understand that the theory supposedly applies to other areas as well, but as you so helpfully pointed out: the theory doesn't seem to hold up.
My original claim was that cathartic theory in and of itself is not founded on evidence based research.
but at the same time, the theory is totally correct! (when it's convenient to you, that is)
When did I claim it was ever correct?
I think you are misconstruing my original claim with the claims made by the cathartic theory itself.
I don't claim that cathartic theory is beneficial in any way, you are the one claiming that Cathartic theory is correct for sexual aggression, but not for violence.
Do you have a source that claims cathartic theory is beneficial for satiation deviant sexual impulses?
then the claim of a link between sexuality and aggression is also without support, until you provide a source for that claim.
You are wanting me to provide an evidence based claim between the two when I've already said the overarching theory is not based on evidence?
The primary principle to establish is the theory of cathartic relief, not wether it works for one emotion or the other. You have not provided any evidence to support that claim, I have provided evidence that disputes it.
Reading comprehension is still hard for you? My argument was about Cathartic theory, which includes several emotions including sexual urges...... It is a theory from freud, of course it covers sexual urges.
You and the other guy just have no idea what you're talking about.
How about providing any kind of source instead of talking out of your ass?
True, but by their very nature their generations tend to create anonymous identities, and the sheer amount of them would make it harder for investigators to detect pictures of real, human victims (which can also include indicators of crime location.
It does learn from real images, but it doesn't need real images of what it's generating to produce related content.
As in, a network trained with no exposure to children is unlikely to be able to easily produce quality depictions of children. Without training on nudity, it's unlikely to produce good results there as well.
However, if it knows both concepts it can combine them readily enough, similar to how you know the concept of "bicycle" and that of "Neptune" and can readily enough imagine "Neptune riding an old fashioned bicycle around the sun while flaunting it's tophat".
Under the hood, this type of AI is effectively a very sophisticated "error correction" system. It changes pixels in the image to try to "fix it" to matching the prompt, usually starting from a smear of random colors (static noise).
That's how it's able to combine different concepts from a wide range of images to create things it's never seen.
Basically if I want to create ...
(I'll use a different example for obvious reasons, but I'm sure you could apply it to the topic)
... "an image of a miniature denium airjet with Taylor Swift's face on the side of it", the AI generators can despite no such thing existing in the training data.
It may take multiple attempts and effort with the text prompt to get exactly what you're looking for, but you could eventually get a convincing image.
AI takes loads of preexisting data on airplanes, T.Swift, and denium to combine it all into something new.
Did we memory hole the whole ‘known CSAM in training data’ thing that happened a while back? When you’re vacuuming up the internet you’re going to wind up with the nasty stuff, too. Even if it’s not a pixel by pixel match of the photo it was trained on, there’s a non-zero chance that what it’s generating is based off actual CSAM. Which is really just laundering CSAM.
IIRC it was something like a fraction of a fraction of 1% that was CSAM, with the researchers identifying the images through their hashes but they weren't actually available in the dataset because they had already been removed from the internet.
Still, you could make AI CSAM even if you were 100% sure that none of the training images included it since that's what these models are made for - being able to combine concepts without needing to have seen them before. If you hold the AI's hand enough with prompt engineering, textual inversion and img2img you can get it to generate pretty much anything. That's the power and danger of these things.
What % do you think was used to generate the CSAM, though? Like, if 1% of the images were cups it’s probably drawing on some of that to generate images of cups.
And yes, you could technically do this with no CSAM training material, but we don’t know if that’s what the AI is doing because the image sources used to train it were mass scraped from the internet. They’re using massive amounts of data without filtering it and are unable to say with certainty whether or not there is CSAM in the training material.
The arrest is only a positive. Allowing pedophiles to create AI CP is not a victimless crime. As others point out it muddies the water for CP of real children, but it also potentially would allow pedophiles easier ways to network in the open (if the images are legal they can easily be platformed and advertised), and networking between abusers absolutely emboldens them and results in more abuse.
As a society we should never allow the normalization of sexualizing children.
Interesting. What do you think about drawn images? Is there a limit to how will the artist can be at drawing/painting? Stick figures vs life like paintings. Interesting line to consider.
If it was photoreal and difficult to distinguish from real photos? Yes, it's exactly the same.
And even if it's not photo real, communities that form around drawn child porn are toxic and dangerous as well. Sexualizing children is something I am 100% against.
It feels like driving these people into the dark corners of the internet is worse than allowing them to collect in clearnet spaces where drawn csam is allowed.
The conventional wisdom used to be, (normal) porn makes people more likely to commit sexual abuse (in general). Then scientists decided to look into that. Slowly, over time, they've become more and more convinced that (normal) porn availability in fact reduces sexual assault.
I don't see an obvious reason why it should be different in case of CP, now that it can be generated.
It should be different because people can not have it. It is disgusting, makes them feel icky and thats just why it has to be bad. Conventional wisdom sometimes really is just convential idiocracy.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's a mixture of the two. It's kind of like if you surround yourself with criminals regularly, you're more likely to become one yourself. Not to say it's a 100% given, just more probable.
I'm not hoping anything, haha wtf? The comment above me asked if it was a proven statement or common sense and I said I wouldn't be surprised if it's both. I felt confident that if I googled it, there would more than likely be studies backing up a common sense statement like that, as I've read in the past how sending innocent people or people who committed minor misdemeanors to prison has influenced them negatively to commit crimes they might not have otherwise.
And look at that, there are academic articles that do back it up:
Who we’re around can influence who we are. Just being in a high-crime neighborhood can increase our chances of turning to crime ourselves.4 But being in the presence of criminals is not the only way our environment can affect our behaviors. Research reveals that simply living in poverty increases our likelihood of being incarcerated. When we’re having trouble making ends meet, we’re under intense stress and more likely to resort to crime.
But you didn't say you had proof with your comment, you said it was probable. Basically saying its common sense that its proven.
Why are you getting aggressive about actually having to provide proof about something when saying its obvious?
Also, that seems to imply that locking up people for AI offenses would then encourage truly reprehensible behavior by linking them with those who already engage in it.
Almost like lumping people together as one big group, instead of having levels of grey area, means people are more likely to just go all in instead of sticking to something more morally defensible.
Because it's a casual discussion, I think it's obnoxious when people constantly demand sources to be cited in online comments section when they could easily look it up themselves. This isn't some academic or formal setting.
And I disagree, only the second source mentioned prisons explicitly. The first source mentions social environments as well. So it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Additionally, even if you consider the second source, that source mentions punishment reforms to prevent that undesirable side effect from occuring.
I find it ironic that you criticized me for not citing sources and then didn't read the sources. But, whatever. Typical social media comments section moment.
I think it's obnoxious when people constantly demand sources to be cited in online comments section when they could easily look it up themselves.
People request sources because people state their opinions as fact. If that’s how it’s presented then asking for a source is ok. Its either ask for a source or completely dismiss the comment.
Again, in casual conversation where no one was really debating, it's obnoxious. When you're talking to friends in real life and they say something, do you request sources from them? No, because it'd be rude and annoying. If you were debating them in earnest and you both disagreed on something, sure, that would be expected.
But that wasn't the case here, the initial statement was common sense: If pedophiles are allowed to meet up and trade AI generated child sex abuse material, would that cause some of them to be more likely to commit crimes against real kids? And I think the answer is pretty obvious. The more you hang around people who agree with you, the more an echo chamber is cultivated. It's like an alcoholic going into a bar without anyone there to support them in staying sober.
Anyway, it's your opinion to think asking for sources from strangers in casual conversation is okay, and it's mine to say it can be annoying in a lot of circumstances. We all have the Internet at our fingertips, look it up in the future if you're unsure of someone's assertion.
The far right in France normalized its discourses and they are now at the top of the votes.
Also in France, people talked about pedophilia at the TV in the 70s, 80s and at the beginning of the 90s. It was not just once in a while. It was frequent and open without any trouble. Writers would casually speak about sexual relationships with minors.
The normalization will blur the limits between AI and reality for the worse. It will also make it more popular.
The other point is also that people will always ends with the original. Again, politic is a good example. Conservatives try to mimic the far right to gain votes but at the end people vote for the far right...
And, someone has a daughter. A pedophile takes a picture of her without asking and ask an AI to produce CP based on her. I don't want to see things like this.
The system isn't perfect, especially where we prioritize punishing people over rehabilitation. Would you rather punish everyone equally, emphasizing that if people are going to risk the legal implications (which, based on legal systems the world over, people are going to do) they might as well just go for the real thing anyways?
You don't have to accept it as morally acceptable, but you don't have to treat them as completely equivalent either.
There's gradations of questionable activity. Especially when there's no real victims involved. Treating everything exactly the same is, frankly speaking, insane. Its like having one punishment for all illegal behavior. Murder someone? Death penalty. Rob them? Straight to the electric chair. Jaywalking? Better believe you're getting the needle.
Ironically, You ask if everything is completely black and white for someone without accepting that there’s nuance to the very issue you’re calling out. And assuming that “everything”- a very black and white term, is not very nuanced, is it?
No, not EVERYTHING, but some things. And this is one of those things. Both forms should be illegal. Period. No nuance, no argument, NO grey area.
This does not mean that nuance doesn’t exist. It just means that some believe that it SHOULDN’T exist within the paradigm of child porn.
I have trouble with this because it's like 90% grey area. Is it a pic of a real child but inpainted to be nude? Was it a real pic but the face was altered as well? Was it completely generated but from a model trained on CSAM? Is the perceived age of the subject near to adulthood? What if the styling makes it only near realistic (like very high quality CG)?
I agree with what the FBI did here mainly because there could be real pictures among the fake ones. However, I feel like the first successful prosecution of this kind of stuff will be a purely moral judgement of whether or not the material "feels" wrong, and that's no way to handle criminal misdeeds.
If not trained on CSAM or in painted but fully generated, I can't really think of any other real legal arguments against it except for: "this could be real". Which has real merit, but in my eyes not enough to prosecute as if it were real. Real CSAM has very different victims and abuse so it needs different sentencing.
Yeah, it’s very similar to the “is loli porn unethical” debate. No victim, it could supposedly help reduce actual CSAM consumption, etc… But it’s icky so many people still think it should be illegal.
There are two big differences between AI and loli though. The first is that AI would supposedly be trained with CSAM to be able to generate it. An artist can create loli porn without actually using CSAM references. The second difference is that AI is much much easier for the layman to create. It doesn’t take years of practice to be able to create passable porn. Anyone with a decent GPU can spin up a local instance, and be generating within a few hours.
In my mind, the former difference is much more impactful than the latter. AI becoming easier to access is likely inevitable, so combatting it now is likely only delaying the inevitable. But if that AI is trained on CSAM, it is inherently unethical to use.
Whether that makes the porn generated by it unethical by extension is still difficult to decide though, because if artists hate AI, then CSAM producers likely do too. Artists are worried AI will put them out of business, but then couldn’t the same be said about CSAM producers? If AI has the potential to run CSAM producers out of business, then it would be a net positive in the long term, even if the images being created in the short term are unethical.
Why is that? The whole point of generative AI is that it can combine concepts.
You train it on the concept of a chair using only red chairs. You train it on the color red, and the color blue. With this info and some repetition, you can have it output a blue chair.
The same applies to any other concepts. Larger, smaller, older, younger. Man, boy, woman, girl, clothed, nude, etc. You can train them each individually, gradually, and generate things that then combine these concepts.
Obviously this is harder than just using training data of what you want. It's slower, it takes more effort, and results are inconsistent, but they are results. And then, you curate the most viable of the images created this way to train a new and refined model.
I wasn’t arguing about current laws. I was simply arguing about public perception, and whether the average person believes it should be illegal. There’s a difference between legality and ethicality. Something unethical can be legal, and something illegal can be ethical.
Weed is illegal, but public perception says it shouldn’t be.
I think one of the many problems with AI generated CSAM is that as AI becomes more advanced it will become increasingly difficult for authorities to tell the difference between what was AI generated and what isn't.
Banning all of it means authorities don't have to sift through images trying to decipher between the two.
If one image is declared to be AI generated and it's not...well... that doesn't help the victims or create less victims. It could also make the horrible people who do abuse children far more comfortable putting that stuff out there because it can hide amongst all the AI generated stuff. Meaning authorities will have to go through far more images before finding ones with real victims in it. All of it being illegal prevents those sorts of problems.
And that’s a good point! Luckily it’s still (usually) fairly easy to identify AI generated images. But as they get more advanced, that will likely become harder and harder to do.
Maybe some sort of required digital signatures for AI art would help; Something like a public encryption key in the metadata, that can’t be falsified after the fact. Anything without that known and trusted AI signature would by default be treated as the real deal.
But this would likely require large scale rewrites of existing image formats, if they could even support it at all. It’s the type of thing that would require people way smarter than myself. But even that feels like a bodged solution to a problem that only exists because people suck. And if it required registration with a certificate authority (like an HTTPS certificate does) then it would be a hurdle for local AI instances to jump through. Because they would need to get a trusted certificate before they could sign their images.
I think the point is that child attraction itself is a mental illness and people indulging it even without actual child contact need to be put into serious psychiatric evaluation and treatment.
This mentality smells of "just say no" for drugs or "just don't have sex" for abortions. This is not the ideal world and we have to find actual plans/solutions to deal with the situation. We can't just cover our ears and hope people will stop
Additional evidence from the laptop indicates that he used extremely specific and explicit prompts to create these images. He likewise used specific ‘negative’ prompts—that is, prompts that direct the GenAI model on what not to include in generated content—to avoid creating images that depict adults.”
They make it sound like the prompts are important and/or more important than the 13,000 images…
In many ways they are. The image generated from a prompt isn't unique, and is actually semi random. It's not entirely in the users control. The person could argue "I described what I like but I wasn't asking it for children, and I didn't think they were fake images of children" and based purely on the image it could be difficult to argue that the image is not only "child-like" but actually depicts a child.
The prompt, however, very directly shows what the user was asking for in unambiguous terms, and the negative prompt removes any doubt that they thought they were getting depictions of adults.
Let me guess, they used existing footage and reports as training data, and it produced an incredibly racist ai model that routinely ignores police misconduct. They'll spend a couple years working on bandaids for the problem while police departments across the country use the original model to create reports and use the "unbiased ai reports" as an excuse to hide the raw footage.
Also: "That was just an AI hallucination, it's not admissible in court" when it was absolutely not an AI hallucination when the cop shot someone for mouthing off.
404media has done some of the best in-depth tech journalism there is lately, but I guess paying them for that is a bridge too far for most (or even making a free account...).
It's literally a worker owned cooperative and your first response is to block them at the DNS level? Great research there, boyo.
The publication covers topics such as hacking, sex work, niche online communities, and the right to repair movement. The publication is worker-owned.
404 Media was founded in 2023 by former staff of Vice Media's Motherboard after it filed for bankruptcy.
During the Taylor Swift deepfake pornography controversy, a 404 Media investigation discovered that the images originated from 4chan and were being distributed on Telegram before making it onto social media platforms.
In an article about 2024 media industry layoffs, the Financial Times highlighted 404 Media as a successful new media venture amid an "existential crisis" in the industry. The article stated that the publication has been noted for "publishing an eye-catching range of stories about the tech sector", and noted that "Not only is it producing good stories but its founders say it is breaking even".
Sorry they're trying to actually get paid for real journalism. I guess you'd prefer clickbait from corporate owned bullshit company that pays their writers squat and uses AI to write articles?
Finally, this is arguably a really important subject to be having journalists look at, but I guess clickbait is more appealing.
It is possible to respect their efforts, but refuse to sign up for things on principle.
And, if the account is "free", then why did you need to give them an email in the first place? If they aren't getting money from you, then needing a login that would require an email address is sketchy as hell on the surface, and there's no explanation given.
Yeah, blocking the site in its entirety is kinda weird, seems like extra effort for no benefit at all when you can just not use the site. But objecting to what is a pointless "account" unless they're monetizing the information makes plenty of sense. Worker owned is not a guarantee of good behavior. It certainly helps, and it's the superior business model imo, but it isn't inherently going to mean they aren't doing dumb shit.
Honestly, this dude is pretty bad at making cold brew. Toddy takes 2 days. 12oz of coffee in a 2 quarts of water makes enough to have a coffee each day for a month, and it will last that long in the fridge.
And like all agitation, it transfers heat (not like a microwave, as most heat is transferred to surrounding air, but heats up the liquid, and it mostly does so by heating/getting absorbed by the dense objects, ie grains, mostly surface).
Also, in case this somehow didn't exist for decades, all of it is just a bit better way of stirring - you can make cold brew by just mixing/shaking stuff. The coarser the grind the longer it would take to extract efficiently tho (but efficiency isn't rally the point, just taste?).
Ultrasounds accelerate extraction processes due to acoustic cavitation [8], [9]. When acoustic bubbles, also called inertial bubbles, collapse near solid materials, such as coffee grounds, they generate micro-jets with the force to fracture the cell walls of plant tissues, intensifying the extraction of the intracellular content [10].
Seems more involved than just aggressive stirring.
Yes, that is exactly how ultrasonic cleaners are used, it basically gets abrasive on the surface (like scrubbing with like a hammering motion, but on a tiny level).
The size of the bubbles is determined by the frequency (the higher it is the smaller the bubbles with lower energy each, the lower it is the bigger are bubbles and more powerful each).
So, if you are cleaning a large flat metal sheet, then you can go lower frequencies to speed up the process, whereas you would want higher frequencies for more intricate objects so the amplitude is smol enough to get into all the tight spaces for bubbles to form.
38kHz is a very common for ultra cheap household various purpose cleaner (jewellery, fruit & veggies, glasses, delicate clothes, etc), I have a 50kHz buttplug shaped one (so you put in a container and is not itself part of one).
That's not exactly what it's doing. Cavitation is when when the pressure of a liquid reduces below the vapour point. Heat isn't involved the liquid "boils" because the vapour point decreases with reduced pressure.
🤷♂️ Tomato / Potato. Cavitation occurs (the bubble formation) at a temperature below 100C, yes. As the steam bubble shrinks, very high temperatures are reached (super-heated steam). All of that energy, plus the latent heat of condensation is released back into the fluid. At that instant, there is a very small yet-to-be-mixed portion of liquid that may be near the boiling point. That small portion of fluid may undergo a warm-brew process as it cools and mixes. I'm kind of conceptualizing this brewing process like: what if you could heat, mix, and cool the coffee all at once everywhere. But I've never observed cavitation and bubble collapse with an ultra high-speed microscope camera, so my concept may be off a bit. I have seen photos of what it does to hardened steel hydropower turbines.
My next question would be, what if you start with ice water? That may give you something like true cold-brew. Another factor to consider is that I believe most cold brew is very oxidized. It might be interesting to try ultrasonic degassing for some period of time before the grounds are added, to see how much of the cold brew flavor is just oxidized coffee.
I agree this is the kind of thing I should find on YouTube, not in an academic journal. But the paper does go into a lot of detail about extraction efficiency, so I guess there might be some useful measurements.
I am curious about the taste. It should be somewhere in between cold brew and hot, but probably closer to cold. Cavitation is a violent process. On a micro scale it’s literally boiling. Then the steam bubble collapses and is instantly cooled because of an almost infinitely big heat sink. So when cavitation occurs near the coffee grounds, some of the extraction would be at much warmer temperatures, for a brief instant.
Oh, yes, I was making fun of the headline, about inventing.
With that in mind basically any experiment/measurement/scientific theory is some sort of invention, it's just that we dont call it that.
Like, nobody invented the concept of tank, ppl "invented" materials, equipment, manufacturing & logistics/admin processes, etc that at one point allowed for a feasible "tank" to be compiled.
I mostly browse the top 6 or 12 hours and have stumbled in here a few times, but I also love me a burr grinder and some piping hot "fair trade" pour-over so I don't get what homie is on about.
I know some ethical reasons to skip coffee but as far as I know there are no significant health issues with coffee unless you drink vast amounts of it. Any sources for that claim?
If it can be done cheaply, or at least in the expected price ranges for coffee hardware, it could be good for people that make a business out of it. Or it could be good for big coffee shop to pump out more and charge more too with fancy marketing.
Ain't no way vibrating beens is gonna be sued for. You may have to something different but the idea of vibrating bean can't be considered THAT novel, right?
Two to three times a month, I need to fight with Amazon over negative reviews that get spammed on multiple books because an author got upset about a story being rejected. Or I get some snark response back about how my reviewers need better training, or that I am not a "real" editor, or something outright vulgar. Or I get a prank call to my phone. These sort of people have always lurked around the industry, so I am not unaccustomed to dealing with them. But it seems like they have grown more emboldened, and there seems to be this weird social currency tied to the bad behavior now.
Dawson really nails down something that has been bothering me a long time. I think she's absolutely right that people with bad behavior are emboldened and that there is this weird social currency among the people exhibiting this behavior. It's been the downside of the internet, it seems like the biggest bullies and people with the worst behavioral problems have all found each other and decided to pump each other up about being total pieces of shit. It's maddening.
I see this in my day job, too. When I'm in a charitable mood, I chalk it up to pandemic trauma. But more realistically, I think it is a real change in our society's ability and willingness to compromise and see the world through the eyes of others. People want what they want and they don't give a fuck who they have to roll over to get what they want. They treat getting what they want as a matter of principle.
The only change I've seen in this regard is a dramatic reduction in people's willingness to tolerate these people. They've always been here and always been like this, but we as a society used to just let them have their way to make them go away.
So I see articles like this as being nothing but good news.
Even worse, negativity increases engagement on social media. So instead of shutting it down, it's more profitable for them and the algorithms encourage it.
It's this. I know I've become angrier, bitter, and even more misanthropic because of the uptick of people that have been massive pieces of shit since he took office. I think I developed a "fuck you" attitude as a self defence mechanism and I've lost all my empathy.
It didn't start with Drumpf, but his indelible slime trail certainly coated the way for them to wiggle out further than their known fetid shit puddles of yesteryear.
What? This is saying that the dudes already so detached from reality that they don't find any women should even further detach from reality. If you are an open-minded cis dude who respects women and sees them as equal human beings you'll have no problem finding anyone.
It seems very annoying to me when cishet dudes whine about how hard they have it. It might be true, but the problem is usually that they've been brought up with a misogynistic worldview and hegemonic masculinity. That's what I referred to by calling them detached from reality.
It is like a narcissistic person telling you how hard their life is while abusing you. You can empathize with them because they sure have a hard life. But as long as they're not self-aware and reflect on their doings, I won't have much empathy with them. Same goes for cis men.
Nope, I disagree. I see shades of gray and have some few friends that happen to be cishet guys. But I know very few cis men that are not bigots, feel entitled, treat women like inferiors, etc.
But, do you agree with the original statement I replied to?
Narcisstic Personality Disorder is a lifelong disability with no cure. You can be a nice person with NPD. You can be a wise person with NPD. You can even be a healthy person with NPD, because disorders and illnesses are two different things. Having NPD is like having type 1 diabetes. You can live a normal life, but it's still going to take constant attention to treat, and some stuff is always going to be just a bit harder for you. The myth that people with NPD are abusers is pseudoscientific bigotry. There are plenty of self aware people with NPD and there are plenty of non-abusers with NPD. People with NPD are most likely to be the victims of abuse compared to the abuser, but the kind of people who prey on the disabled to satisfy their own desire for cruelty don't want you to believe that.
Oh hello, you again! Sorry, won't discuss with you any further about this topic. Nothing new to be said and you newer replied to all the scientific studies I gave you why a high percentage of pwNPD tend to abuse others.
If you are an open-minded cis dude who respects women and sees them as equal human beings you’ll have no problem finding anyone.
It's not always that simple. For example, I cared for my Dad 24/7 which involved a convoluted pill regime (and a series of alarms throughout the day). My social life took a real hit. There are also mental and physical health issues, as well as financial aspects.
All that said, anyone thinking this is the solution deserves to be scammed because it is hardly informed consent.
OK, let me rephrase this into "if you are ... you will be as likely as cishet women to find someone to date". My point was that cishet men may have it hard to find someone because they are not catching up with progressive and emancipatory values. There are many many heteropessimisstic or otherwise frustrated women out there searching for a guy that does not treat them like shit.
But sure, if you don't have the capacity for a social life or for dating then obviously this won't be as easy. My comment was a response to the premise that cishet guys have it harder in dating and that they should be allowed to scam people.
My point was that cishet men may have it hard to find someone because they are not catching up with progressive and emancipatory values.
It's worse than that - things seem to be regressing, with a widening political divide between men and women, especially noticeable in the younger adults.
It definitely feels like the modest progress that was made is now being eroded away
Yeah, it's pretty disheartening and even frightening. I don't know how to educate men on feminist ideas and get them on board. And being antifeminist doesn't even benefit them that much. There are so many men living their life miserable and ending up in jail because of their toxic masculinity and societal expectations of men. And I'm certainly interested in helping cis men get better, reconnect with their emotions and learn about emancipation. But at the same time I don't see how people who are not cis men can do so much to really help them. We are pretty busy surviving them and supporting each other.
And being antifeminist doesn’t even benefit them that much.
The only people benefitting are those peddling the lies to disgruntled young men, partly as a grift and partly as misdirection from the real sources of their issues.
But at the same time I don’t see how much people who are not cis men can do so much to really help them.
And it shouldn't be your job to fix young men but I am as stumped as you and I worry about people like my nephew who is early teens.
There's !mensliberation but I don't know if that's not just preaching to the converted.
Yes, it is really a frustrating situation. Since you seem to be a man, maybe you can be a good example to your nephew? But well, not so easy either unfortunately :(
404media.co
Hot