> So despite looking a bit fishy at first, this doesn't seem to come from a christofascist group.
Why would you assume this in the first place?
Why would you assume this in the first place?
So yeah. When these things pop up I assume malicious intent.
> Pornography is humiliation and degradation of women. It's a disgraceful activity. I don't want to be associated with it. Just take a look at the pictures. I mean, women are degraded as vulgar sex objects. That's not what human beings are. I don't even see anything to discuss.
> Interviewer: But didn't performers choose to do the job and get paid?
> The fact that people agree to it and are paid, is about as convincing as the fact that we should be in favour of sweatshops in China, where women are locked into a factory and work fifteen hours a day, and then the factory burns down and they all die. Yeah, they were paid and they consented, but it doesn't make me in favour of it, so that argument we can't even talk about.
> As for the fact that it's some people's erotica, well you know that's their problem, doesn't mean I have to contribute to it. If they get enjoyment out of humiliation of women, they have a problem, but it's nothing I want to contribute to.
> Interviewer: How should we improve the production conditions of pornography?
> By eliminating degradation of women, that would improve it. Just like child abuse, you don't want to make it better child abuse, you want to stop child abuse.
> Suppose there's a starving child in the slums, and you say "well, I'll give you food if you'll let me abuse you." Suppose - well, there happen to be laws against child abuse, fortunately - but suppose someone were to give you an argument. Well, you know, after all a child's starving otherwise, so you're taking away their chance to get some food if you ban abuse. I mean, is that an argument?
> The answer to that is stop the conditions in which the child is starving, and the same is true here. Eliminate the conditions in which women can't get decent jobs, not permit abusive and destructive behaviour.
(Source of the above is this interview: https://youtube.com/watch?v=SNlRoaFTHuE)
I mean, there aren't many people who want paedophiles to be able to amass huge collections of child abuse imagery from other paedophiles online. And pretty much every parent wants their child to be kept safe from predators both online and offline.
And yes, because their politics are becoming normalized within American culture, it is necessary to be skeptical about references to any such group. Assuming good faith is a rule on HN but elsewhere, where bad faith is what gets visibility, it's naive.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/02/how-paedoph...
So if there are indeed some right-wing groups talking about this, maybe it's best not to brush off their claims without some scrutiny first. And I say this as someone who mostly agrees with the left on most things.
Anyway I don't think that any of this has much to do with Apple being asked to implement specific technical measures for detecting child abuse imagery.
Figlet indeed.
> figlett 5 months ago [flagged] [dead] | parent | context | prev [–] | on: Florida courts could take 'emergency' custody of k...
> This is excellent news for children at risk of being abused by militant transgenders and the medical establishment who are enabling them. Thank you Florida for trying to put an end to this menace.
I'm in the UK and we're doing better here though, the main left-wing party is backing away from the particular ideology that has enabled this. I was going to vote for them anyway as we desperately need our public services to be restored and welfare for those less fortunate in society to be improved, but I'm pleased they're moving towards a sensible, harm-reducing stance on this issue rather than assuming everything the gender activists say is reasonable.