magnusrufus @ magnusrufus @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

239

Joined

2 yr. ago

"why you think deaths were justified"

They didn't say that.

I have never witnessed any seller give any thought to wether the buy had a CCW or not.

Dude the topic has been drifting for quite a while. You going to act like "getting more Dems" doesn't have a cost? You going to admit all the things you've blown past? Your proposal is to have them not do a major component of their job and instead focus on flipping seats blue. The money they get paid as elected officials gets paid either way. Either course of action costs money, doing the proper prep work for bills or campaigning. That famously so-cheap-it's-near-as-free campaigning. They will need to not only justify to their own voters keeping them elected during your do nothing policy but also convince other voters to elect more do-nothings.

Hold yourself to your own standards.

You think that drafting no bills and promising to do it later is going to win more seats and not lose them?

Because "we are wasting your money" is false. They are either getting paid to try to advance progressive issues or they are getting paid to sit in their asses and promise to try once they have enough people. That they fail every time it's false too. Also assuming that putting up no fight doesn't hurt things is incorrect. Just letting the issue go and letting it become the new normal makes it harder to gain momentum on later.

Over not trying at all, yes.

For winning voters it is.

Hard to work on getting more democrats elected when the proposed platform is we won't do anything because the republicans will just say no.

So given the purely obstructionist nature of Republicans what is left for Dems to do?

So you feel this way about all progressive policies? Like gun control? In the face of opposition don't try.

I'd say for the sake of not jailing the innocent that letting the ones that can plausibly deny beat the charges is what we'd have to accept. I think that requiring that meta data would certainly be a significant new requirement but it doesn't necessarily make it an overreach. I believe that pornography production has to provide verification of the age of their participants and every porn site has some legal statement about the age of the people depicted. Categorize the meta data requirements similarly.

Outlawing cp doesn't stop it from being produced or hosted in other countries so we should give up on that too? Or should we sensibly keep a law against it on the books, build an international broad consensus to work against it, and apply political pressure to the countries that won't cooperate?

"There is plenty to be done at this point. Not being able to fix it 100% doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to fix it at all."

"It might not be immediate, perfect, or without resistance but it can be done"

Republicans are shitheads for sure but if nonconsensual ai porn presented to them with the right degree of moral panic they could accidentally do the right thing.

You think that Polaroids that were supposed to stay private were not shared? Thanks for finally reading the posts btw. Also what does pretending that revenge porn only existed for two years get you in this case? Taking it as true, it shows that a rapid response to recently emergent social issue can occur and that laws can be enacted to outlaw the offensive but previously legal porn. It makes my point even more applicable.

Those are pretty good concerns. Wonder if meta data about the model used and the prompt data could be required to address the issue of intent. I do think that accidental downloading would have to be an exception but if it's clearly labelled/advertised I think that downloading could still be targeted.

No I don't mean cp. I mean revenge porn, like I've mentioned multiple times. Are you reading what you are disagreeing with?

"So your example was not a solid one as you claim." If you're going to act haughty you ought to at least be right.

You are usually better than this. I did give you a perfectly applicable recent example of a type of porn being made illegal but you are ignoring it and misrepresenting my argument, after getting touchy about words being put in your mouth. You requesting multiple times and then choosing to ignore the valid response is a failing on your part.

No and you are not engaging honestly at this point.

I don't think you are trying very hard to see beyond your defeatist position. The revenge porn example should land close enough to the mark for you to see that things that were legal can be made illegal. Even types of porn can be made illegal. So because it has literally been done before, yes you can totally do it.

Also yes the centuries ago interpretation is fine. Still shows taking something that was legal and making illegal.

Nah you haven't really backed up with any solid reasoning. All laws have a date they were codified and enacted. Before that date the activities they covered were not yet illegal. Cp was at some point legal. Not long ago marital rape was perfectly legal. Now it's not. Revenge porn laws are going into effect. You totally can take something awful that was legal and make it illegal. It might not be immediate, perfect, or without resistance but it can be done and has been done, even recently.

Was cp never legal? Are you sure we haven't made things illegal that we're previously legal? People have this weirdly defeatist view about regulating ai deep fakes that doesn't seem based on anything solid.