641
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2026
641 points (100.0% liked)
Games
24038 readers
35 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That is a lot of text for someone that couldn't even be bothered to read the first paragraph of the article.
There ARE victims, lots of them.
That is a lot of text for someone that couldn’t even be bothered to read a comment properly.
Which they then talk about and point out that victims are absolutely present in this case...
If this is still too hard to understand i will simplify the sentence. They are saying:
"The important thing to talk about is, whether there is a victim or not."
It doesn't matter if there's a victim or not. It's the depiction of CSA that is illegal.
So no, talking about whatever or not there's a victim is not the most important part.
It doesn't matter if you draw it by hand with crayons. If it's depicting CSA it's illegal.
Nobody was talking about the "legality". We are talking about morals. And morally there is major difference.
I wish I was as composed as you. You're still calmly explaining things to that dumb fuck, while they move the goalposts back and forth:
All of that while they're still pretending to argue the same point. It reminds me a video from the Alt-Right Playbook, called "never play defence": make dumb claim, waste someone else's time expecting them to rebuke that dumb claim, make another dumb claim, waste their time again, so goes on.
Its good training for arguing with real life people at least. Because coming up with a good comeback quickly is hard when you have never formulated your thoughts about a subject properly. I think often people misunderstand things at first and then when someone points out their mistake, they realize that they were wrong, but dont want to admit it, so they just double down. I have been that person before too tho...
Talking about morals and morality is how you end up getting things like abortion banned. Because some people felt morally superior and wanted to enforce their superior morality on everyone else.
There's no point in bringing it up. If you need to bring up morals to argue your point. You've already failed.
But please do enlighten me. Because personally. I don't think there's a moral difference between depicting "victimless" CSAM and CSAM containing a real person.
I think they're both, morally, equally awful.
But you said there's a major moral difference? For you maybe.
If you seriously think that there is no moral difference between someone being sexually abused and them not being sexually abused then maybe you should be in prison for all our safety.
That's not what I said. How are you this stupid?
I said I think they are both, equally morally reprehensible. They both belong in the very bottom of Dante's inferno.
You called them "morally equally awful", so yes, that is what you said.
Yes. They are both the worst of the worst. I place both in the very bottom of Dantes inferno.
Or do you still struggle to understand what that means?
I do understand, i (apparently most people on here) just think that you are very weird for thinking of them as equal.
If hating every single instance of CSAM regardless of victimhood makes me weird. Then I'm gladly weird.
You're only rewording what I said in the third paragraph, while implying I said the opposite. And bullshitting/assuming/lying I didn't read the text. (I did.)
Learn to read dammit. I'm saying this shit Grok is doing is harmful, and that people ITT arguing "is this CSAM?" are missing the bloody point.
Is this clear now?
Yes, it certainly comes across as you arguing for the opposite since you above, reiterated
Which has never been an issue. It has never mattered in CSAM if it's fictional or not. It's the depiction that is illegal.
No, it does not. Stop being a liar.
Or, even better: do yourself a favour and go offline. Permanently. There's already enough muppets like you: assumptive pieces of shit lacking basic reading comprehension, but still eager to screech at others — not because of what the others actually said, but because of what they assumed over it. You're dead weight in any serious discussion, probably in some unserious ones too, and odds are you know it.
Also, I'm not wasting my time further with you, go be functionally illiterate elsewhere.
Ok. You're right. You saying it's ok to depict CSAM if there isn't a victim is not you arguing the opposite. It's me lying.
You're so smart. Good job.
Is it so hard to admit that you misunderstood the comment ffs? It is painfully obvious to everyone.