…like trying to get people to change their habits without shaming them maybe?

Why don’t we stop subsidizing disgusting slop before more state enforcement?

The article is literally not saying healthcare is “the problem” or that you should “just die.” It’s just talking about how it’s unfortunate that something people need to live can have a negative effect on the environment and talking about ways to mitigate that by changing the way they’re manufactured. It doesn’t say to stop using them or whatever.

Edit: Cool edit, 100x worse

You went from misinterpreting it as saying something it wasn’t to straight up telling people not to get diabetes and that the state should enforce nutrition. What the fuck is wrong with you people?

you’re not supposed to buy you must steal the friend

It’s one of the oldest anarchist flags, actually.

“yeah you’re right but can you be right more quietly, there’s other things to be right about”

Really bizarre honestly. This is just how meme culture is, kinda. It’s whatever’s culturally relevant, and Taylor Swift is culturally relevant.

“lmao yeah just murk people who haven’t actually done anything”

violence is sometimes necessary

You kill the Nazis when they’re actively literally killing people, or imminently threatening to, yes. Notice how that is an action, not ideology.

Do you suggest actually just killing people who are ideologically fascist regardless of what they have or have not actually done?

My opinion is that only selfishness is legitimate. Again, give me a reason why not to. I care about my friends and family because I’m alive and get to experience the connection. I care about living in a safe society, and hopefully one that will treat people less fortunate, as I feel I have been given a shitty hand in many regards. This is all self interest. That all goes away when I die.

It’s not that in either case the entire movement was especially authoritarian in their time periods and settings, it’s just that you’re willing to let people literally infringe on your right to live if it vaguely is in service of “the people.” If the world was against me, maybe I’m just an asshole, but I still have to fight for what I believe to be my best interest. Do I have any reason to do anything else?

Doesn’t matter who said that violence is sometimes necessary that still isn’t a valid response to “maybe let’s not just kill people on an ideological basis”

Authoritarian social revolution is absolutely tankie shit, they’re proud of it.

Then why are there tons of people defending it?

“Authoritarianism is cool when “the people” are doing it”

How does being “executed as reactionaries” help anyone? Once you’ve gained social power you shouldn’t need to execute anyone for their beliefs, and you need that social power to execute in the first place.

“Guys Mao Zedong said violence is cool, so we can just start murking people for any reason”

So you guys aren’t even upvoting this like “bro it’s obviously a joke” you’re upvoting like “yeah no I think we should just murder people who do bad things sometimes, maybe even pretty often.”

Put me in thought prison instead of real prison at least

Not linking sources to two people not doing the same.

You made the claim. The burden on proof is on you to judge the actions of others.

The reason validifying it publicly is dangerous is because: a) People who use it as an outlet might think they are not still likely a danger

Then remind people that they might still be a danger if you think so. You don’t even have to be fully opposed to loli to do this. Some people also legit just aren’t dangers, too.

b) People without preexisting harmful instincts, especially young people, can think it harmless to abuse drawn csam

Where does this reasoning end? Such a slippery slope fallacy. Does someone watching a bloody movie not have the ability to think “well, this is okay because it’s not real” (if you don’t like that analogy please specifically explain what’s wrong with it.) How stupid do you think people are? In no other case so we judge people based on what they might start to believe instead of just educating them.

condition their brain into sexual attraction to elements of csam.

Pedos are capable of using loli without moving on to csam, these people are likely to be even more capable of doing so.

As far as laws go, you’re aware how little science can feasibly be ethically conducted on csam

Plenty of ethical science can be conducted on fictional stuff. Edit: also this sort of thing usually happens in terms of looking at criminal records/studies of people that already offended. Again, you don’t even have this evidence on hand.

I’m always going to err on the side of kids’ safety over people’s ability to watch children get rd,*

When does that reasoning end? What doesn’t have some possibility of harming children? You’re drawing conclusions without reasoning and then calling it an abundance of caution. This doesn’t mean nothing to some people, there are plenty of people who use this stuff as their only safe outlet, meanwhile 0 evidence for it’s harm.

Edit: Even just any source even about porn in general or something would be greatly appreciated. I understand there’s a black hole of science here but you need something beyond assumptions that we can actually talk about.