If a boy fantasises sexually about a girl, is that harmful to her? If he tells his friends about it? No, this is not harmful - these actions do not affect her in any way. What affects the girl is how the boys might then treat her differently than they would do someone they don’t find sexually attractive.
The solution, in both cases, has to be to address the harmful behaviour. The only arguments for criminalising deepfakes themselves are also arguments for criminalising sexual fantasies. that is why people are talking about thought crime, because once you criminalise things that are harmless on their own, but which might down the line lead to directly harmful behaviour, there is no other distinction.
The consent of the individual has been entirely erased. Dehumanization in its most direct form.
Both of these, for example, apply just as readily to discussing a shared sexual fantasy about someone who didn’t agree to it.
No distinction, that is, other than this is new and icky. I don’t want government policy to be dictated by fear of the new and by what people find icky, though. I do lots of stuff people find icky.
rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Can you please use words by their meaning?
Also I’ll have to be blunt, but - every human has their own sexuality, with their own level of “drive”, so to say, and their dreams.
And it’s absolutely normal to dream of other people. Including sexually. Including those who don’t like you. Not only men do that, too. There are no thought crimes.
So talking about that being easier or harder you are not making any argument at all.
However. As I said elsewhere, the actions that really harm people should be classified legally and addressed. Like sharing such stuff. But not as making child pornography because it’s not, and not like sexual exploitation because it’s not.
It’s just that your few posts I’ve seen in this thread seem to say that certain kinds of thought should be illegal, and that’s absolute bullshit. And laws shouldn’t be made based on such emotions.
jjlinux@lemmy.ml 9 hours ago
“thought crime”? And you have the balls to talk about using words “by their meaning”?
This is a solid action with a product to show for it, not a thought, which happens to impact someone’s life negatively without their consent, with potentially devastating consequences for the victim. So, can you please use words by their meaning?
rottingleaf@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
The author of those comments wrote in a few times what in their opinion happens in the heads of others and how that should be prevented or something.
Can you please stop interpreting my words exactly the way you like? That’s not worth a gram of horse shit.
jjlinux@lemmy.ml 3 hours ago
Yes I can, moreso after your clarification. I must have misread it the first time. Sorry.
atomicorange@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I don’t know where you’re getting this “thought crime” stuff. They’re talking about boys distributing deepfake nudes of their classmates. They’re not talking about individuals fantasizing in the privacy of their own homes. You have to read all of the words in the sentences, my friend.