Of course. That’s easy.

Only one person in those examples intended to kill someone, and then followed through with the plan. Murder is worse than unintentionally killing and hurting people through negligence.

It’s really easy to explain.

retributive violence against individual actors is not the same as dismantling oppressive systems

My problem is that I only understand one of those things. The other is meaningless hot air, spewed exclusively by intellectual elites who may or may not have any idea of what that is even supposed to mean.

work of creating resilient communities and networks of mutual aid to replace those heirarchies.

And that explanation doesn’t tell me anything either. Put up a guillotine. Put the man in. Let the blade fall. I understand that. Create a network of mutual aid to replace hierarchies? Never saw that happen. Never learned about that, or how that is supposed to work. Don’t know what that is supposed to mean, or how that is supposed to play out.

If you assume anyone knows about any of that, and if you assume that anyone can imagine anything concrete about that, you are out of touch. You are communicating ineffectively. At least to me. And probably to most other people as well.

Yes we do. Plenty of stuff is banned by federal law.

Do you get what I mean? If you do, why are you being so overly literal here?

Snuff films, for the same reason as CP/CSAM

And action movies are not. Neither are horror or slasher movies. Neither is porn. Even though each of them might (or might not) inspire and incentivize illegal deeds.

It is not a general principle we subscribe to. It is enforced very selectively, and only in areas that we find most shocking. Which is understandable, but neither reasonable, nor consistent. I don’t know about you, but I think criminal law should be based on principles which are reasonable and consistent.

One such principle may be: “Media which may inspire illegal action, should be illegal themselves”

But that’s not consistently enforced, but selectively, limited by criteria which seem dubious at best.

This is what I mean, when I say “This argument does not hold water”

These are all banned to stop demand.

And that’s the interesting question: Why only these things, and nothing else? There is plenty of stuff out there which may inspire people toward illegal action, from real world depictions of violence, to action movies.

My greatest internet achievement: I came up with the name for that story!

Okay, not quite, I came up with calling it “The Dagobah Story”, but close enough! :D

And of course there are the trolls!

Even they are still properly trolly around here! How nostalgic! Maybe not even a bot.

The statement is disgusting and not really defensable by itself

I hate it when this happens. Why do feelings always play into this discussion? “The statement is disgusting”, is not an argument, and should never be part of any discussion.

No matter how disgusted a statement might make you feel, if it has a good argument behind it, it should be regarded as true.

I agree that the argument doesn’t quite work. And that’s that.

“child porn isn’t abuse and should be legal”

I think that this is not true. It definitely is abuse. But I also think that the argument for why it is so, is not that trivial.

I mean, can you make it? Try it out!

Let’s say someone distributes CP. How does what happens here, the sending of 0s and 1s across a wire, constitute abuse?

If you think about it like that, it doesn’t.

Of course if you take into account a broader context, then this argument does break down. For the details you would probably need complex words and terms like “retraumatization” and “inability to consent”, and “right to one’s own image”, and know a bit about what those things are, and how they work.

I wouldn’t expect every 16 year old today to be able to get all of that straight. And I would not expect any 16 year old in the early 2000s, an age long, long before metoo, and any sensitivity toward sexual trauma, to be able to get that.

Thinking that isn’t going to lead to more actual children being exploited is extremely naive.

That particular argument doesn’t hold water. We don’t generally subscribe to this kind of argument.

The general principle behind the specific argument you bring up here is this: All expression which is likely to inspire someone toward illegal action should itself be illegal.

CP is likely to inspire some people toward child abuse. Child abuse is illegal. Thus the distribution of CP should be illegal.

We don’t do this anywhere else.

Descriptions of non consesnual violence are likely to inspire some people toward non consensual violence. Non consensual violence is illegal. Thus the distribution of all descriptions of non consensual violence should be illegal.

If we take this seriously, we have to ban action movies. And I am not even getting into the whole porn debate…

No, the only valid reason for banning the distribution of child porn which I can think of, lies in the rights of the victims. The victims were abused, and their image was used without their consent. Without them even possibly being able to give consent to any of that, or the distribution that follows.

So anyone who shares child porn, is guaranteed to share a piece of media which shows someone being subjected to a crime, while they couldn’t possibly give consent for that to be recorded, or shared publicly. Making it illegal to share someone being a victim of a crime, without them being able to consent to that being shared, is a reasoning which has far fewer problems than what you propose here.

And I just went: “Children of time trilogy? That one only got 2 books!”

Seems like at some point in 2022 it has grown to a trilogy. Nice! Thanks for pointing that out, I now know what I’ll read next :D

until the market adapts on how to recuperate that money since it can expect every citizen to get that every month, I don’t trust a free market not to ruin that.

Simple: Make UBI is inflation adjusted. Problem solved.

Not really. The right tends to go a little bit harder in that direction:

Are you not white? Be scared. Jew? Be scared. Muslim? Be scared. Gay? Be scared. Socialist? Be scared. Woman? Be scared.

The left is a lot better in that regard, as they tend to limit the “bash their heads in” option toward literal Nazis. It seems to me that the right doesn’t feel a need to limit themselves in any way here.

It’s always the most racist asshole who believe “reverse racism” is a thing

Okay. I believe that.

never willing to acknowledge how they actively victimise already marginalised people constantly

Yes? What have I done? Can you give me specific examples of my problematic actions which actively victimize already marginalized people constantly?

If you can not, then we might have a bit of a problem. After all, you don’t know what I did or did not do. You don’t know if I did that, or how I did that. To me that seems like ignorant stereotyping. It is something racists regularly engage in, and a big common part of what makes lots of different bigoted and prejudiced groups of people (not limited to just racists) into such a big problem.

So I would appreciate if you could stop to ignorantly stereotype me without knowing me. If you still choose do that… Well, actually, I don’t mind it that much. You are just a random internet person after all. But if you behave like that, you are sharing that behavior with racists, and lots of other types of bigots. If you think that is a good idea, feel free to carry on. But I thought I should let you know.

people who support Russia/Stalin/China regimes.

Congratulations: That, and only that, is a tankie. It is a good practical defintion for the term.

Are tankies people who are economically left but socially and politically right

As I see it, tankies are just the same as the Trumpers. You can’t really say where they stand socially and politically, because they do not have a coherent opinion or ideology. Everyone who opposes their favorite regime is WRONG, and everything their favorite regime does is RIGHT. Bonus points for every action and opinion that hurts “woke lefties”, because the favorite regimes of tankies are all inevitably incompatible with progressive ideas and ideologies.

without knowing anything about the corrupt oligarchies in Russia or CCP China?

Imagine the answer a Trumper would give when you ask them if they don’t know about Trump’s corruption and character. The tankies answer just the same in response to allegations in regard to corruption and character of their favorite regimes:

First of all, none of that is true, because the woke lefties, the media, and everyone are all corrupt, and lying. And what is true, is all a well played move of brilliant 5D chess which will save us all, because the supposed “corruption” is actually all part of a very smart and deliberate system of ploys and strategems which the woke lefties just don’t understand.

Now, do the tankies and Trumpers truly believe that? Who knows. Doesn’t really matter anyway. What is clear is that both of those “ideologies” are dumb idiots.

Elections are coming up. I remember the time around 2016. Nothing new under the sun.

I suggest you make a bot for that.

A more accurate analogy is tolerating the abusive person because you don’t want to completely lost contact with many other people you care about

Thing is: Communities also can leave. If the community cares about its mods in the same way the mods care about the community, a move toward an alterantive medium is not a problem.

Of course that’s not how it is. The communities at large to a good part don’t give a shit about the people who moderate. The relationship is often entirely one sided. A community which cares, leaves with the mods. A community which doesn’t give a fuck, stays.

So… What did happen in Poland then?

Was there an agreement to carve it up between USSR and Nazi Germany, or not?

True Communists will correctly equivocate.

Do you notice a pattern?

Every single one of those is either SF or Fantasy.

There are a lot of artsy lovers of literature out there who hate exactly those genres, and who have a burning passion to fix all the (perceived) flaws which (in their view) come baked into them.

As I see it, that’s a big part of the problem: For the last century “a writer” was always “the literary type”. There were some nerds who pretended to be writers. And those wrote pulp, SF, fantasy, and comics. Those were not real writers. You wouldn’t hire one of those, if you wanted to have a real, well crafted story. At least that has been a rather common prejudice for the last 100 years or so.

And now, all of a sudden (over the last 20 years), the most popular franchises, generating the most income, all turned into SF and Fantasy, while eating everything else in their path.

In that context, I don’t think the current situation is all that surprising. If you want to hire “a real writer”, there is a good chance that you will hit one who despises what writers were taught to despise for the last hundred years. In an unlucky twist for everyone involved, that also happens to be what they now have to write.

Your argument is to say they are incorrigeable and there’s no point in talking to them and the only thing we can do is to shove the problem under the carpet.

That also sums up my position.

If you do that, the problem will only accumulate.

First of all, I don’t think that’s true. If we ban advertisments for Coca Cola, we just push the problem under the carpet, and Coke fans will only accumulate?

That, of course, is nonsense. When everyone else is allowed to do normal marketing, while you are not, your product, idea, or ideology will slowly start to fade, fizzle, and die out. I mean, if what you are saying is true… Do the Nazis also think so? Do they understand your argument? Do they think that their groups, their views, and their representatives should remain banned? After all, your argument goes, this is what will make them “accumulate”.

For some reason the Nazis themselves don’t seem to want that. They want to be on national television. Literal Nazis want antisemitism on all channels, and holocaust denial taught in schools. They apparently don’t understand your argument, that ideologies accumulate and win, when you suppress them.

I suspect that Nazis are correct when they themselves reject your line of reasoning.