ObjectivityIncarnate

Don’t mention that among the three primary ‘sex pairings’ of romantic relationships (m/f, m/m, f/f), the one with the highest incidence of domestic violence is f/f, or their head might just explode, lol…

This problem will never get solved until men take ownership over it

Why exactly, should having a chromosome in common with a violent criminal make preventing their crime more that person’s responsibility than anyone else’s?

The crimes of men are not ‘owned’ by men. The crimes of women are not ‘owned’ by women. Crime is a societal ill that society collectively is responsible for preventing/catching/etc., to the best of its ability.

Don’t imagine you’d be good with a girl being physically abused by her mother reporting it to a male authority figure and being told ‘sorry, women gotta take ownership over this problem and solve it, it’s not men’s problem’, would you?

Think for a moment and realize how bigoted this line of thinking actually is.

If you’re alluding to the actual deaths of the victims being equally bad no matter their gender because they are all humans, then congratulations for passing the lowest threshold for human decency.

Yeah, and as low as that is, there are many in here who don’t pass it, so shame on them.

Wanting to end femicide doesn’t mean you value women more than men, it’s pointing to a specific issue. It also doesn’t mean that other issues doesn’t matter.

It’s the same sort of thing as when there was that big statement made some years back about ‘stop targeting women journalists’, alongside a statistic that 11% of the journalists who were killed over the prior year were women. In other words, ‘89% of killed journalists are men, so stop killing women’. At best, a statement like that comes off as foolishly ignorant–at worst, it comes off as callous and indifferent to male victims.

Is this article about a newborn being killed?

Is the concept of an analogy really so far beyond you? Do you not understand my simple point that it would be completely unfair to point the finger at the entirety of the female sex and say “hey you, stop killing your babies”, based on a crime that a tiny percentage of them commit?

And that therefore one might consider that it’s equally unfair to point the finger at the male sex, based on a crime that a tiny percentage of them commit?

This is not exactly cryptic, you know.

You’re the same clown that said [that it’s irrational to live life in fear of an event that has a 0.00147% of occurring]

I did say that. Stating simple facts is not exactly what clowns do, though, you seem a bit confused.

Fuck off, you hate women

No, I hate fear-mongering used to manipulate, in all cases. In this case, it’s feminist fear-mongering that tries to deceive women into thinking that murderous men are always all around them, waiting to strike the moment their guard is down.

Hate it just as much as sensationalized media that deceives the public into thinking the violent crime rate is much higher than it actually is. Just to give one sex-neutral example of the exact same phenomenon.

You could say I hate manipulation via deception in general.

and you’re trying desperately to gaslight them.

This is straight-up projection–you can’t gaslight someone with facts, lol.

If the sex of a murder victim changes, at all, how you perceive the crime, you’re sexist, period.

At least have the guts to admit it instead of pretending this is a noble stance.

There is a big difference in intent.

Literally irrelevant. The victim is no less murdered. What kind of ridiculous justification is this for devaluing male victims?

‘But the reason they were killed isn’t as bad (according to me)!’

Who in their right mind gives a shit? They’re still murdered! ‘I know your son was murdered, but don’t worry, the motive wasn’t one of the (in my opinion) really bad ones’. Seriously?

So to push this absurd ‘logic’ just a bit further, if the same number of women were murdered, but the motives were in alignment, incidence-wise, with murdered men, this would be an improvement, in your view, even though the same amount of killing has occurred. Because motive makes a murder more or less bad, apparently. Absolutely absurd.

‘Sure men are killed way way more often, but people who kill women are (I assume, hehe) more likely to do it for a way more worser reason’ is some of the dumbest, flailing, desperate attempts I have ever seen to minimize and erase male victimhood.

How many in that statistic are men being killed by women?

Thinking this is a question of any merit already exposes you. It does not matter, at all, what sex a murder victim’s murderer is, to the victim–they are equally dead.

The attempt to minimize male victimhood with this insane implication of ‘if the perpetrator is the same sex, it doesn’t count’ is actually pathetic. For shame.

Reminder that the vast, vast, vast majority of males have never and will never murder anyone, despite these disgusting sexist narratives.

Can someone explain where the notion of an exception proving the rule came from? This has never made the slightest bit of sense to me, lol.

It’s not misogynistic to not want the half of humanity that gets murdered multiple times more often (over 3x in the US) than the other, to be erased as victims.

Not really. Specifically saying “end femicide” is like fundraising for breast cancer treatment, but only for men, who are a small minority of those with breast cancer.

You are over three times less likely to be a victim of murder (in the US at least) if you are a woman, than a man.

There is zero reason to oppose murder of one sex any more or less than the other, and it takes the same amount of effort to voice opposition for both, as for only one. So going out of your way to advocate only for the half of the population that suffers this fate far less often, understandably comes off as sexist and callous, to the objective observer.

Yeah, that never goes wrong.

https://news.sky.com/story/how-sweet-and-gentle-anti-paedophile-vigilante-was-allowed-to-bludgeon-innocent-man-to-death-12438351

https://www.thedailybeast.com/innocent-man-killed-during-vigilante-search-for-abducted-1-year-old-blaise-barnett-georgia-police-say

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/29/vigilante-murder-paedophile-bristol-bijan-ebrahimi

Someone needs to learn that “strawberries are fruits, therefore all fruits are strawberries” is idiotic ‘logic’.

Basically 100% of parents who have killed their newborns by throwing them in dumpsters are women. Yet I have a feeling you’d magically understand the logical flaw in pointing to those instances and saying “what’s wrong with women?”, wouldn’t you? Maybe something to do with the fact that the vast majority of women don’t do that?

It’s only your misandry that prevents you from identifying the exact same illogic directed at the demographic you’re bigoted toward.

Just reacting to the irony of you saying what you said while accusing another of being ‘ignorant of a chunk of history’.

If you think the situation before the 19th amendment was ratified was ‘men could vote and women couldn’t’, you’re carrying around an elementary school level understanding of that history.

There were demographics of men who still weren’t allowed to vote after the 19th, who the suffragettes gave zero shits about enabling.

This narrative of ‘feminism fights for men’s issues too’ needs to die. It has never been true on any significant scale, and this rhetoric only started as a means to devalue and justify attacking movements that do seek to address misandry and injustices with primarily/exclusively male victims.

When legislation ‘threatens’ to make shared custody the default (re: neither parent is unfit, and both want custody) instead of maternal, feminists fight it. NOW put out press releases saying that the only two reasons a man would ever fight for custody is 1) they’re abusing the mother and want to retain access to her 2) they’re a deadbeat trying to avoid child support payments. Men are so dehumanized in the feminist mind that the very notion that a man actually wants to raise his child does not even register as a possibility to them.

When lifetime alimony (specifically alimony that never expires) is challenged, feminists fight to keep it.

When men significantly outnumbered women in college (though only because they got free college via the GI Bill after being forcibly conscripted into the military, something women were never subjected to–in the early 1900s, the rate of men and women in college was the same ~9%), feminists were outraged, and countless programs/grants/incentives were created to fix this ‘injustice’. But presently, when women significantly outnumber men in college, feminists magically stopped giving a shit about sex disparity in universities.

When Erin Pizzey helped create domestic violence shelters for female victims of male abusers, she was a heroine to feminists. When she realized there are also male victims of female abusers, and wanted there to be shelters for them as well, she became ‘the enemy’ in their eyes, with not only censorship attempts by feminists, but her dog was fucking shot, on her property, on Christmas Eve that year.

Feminists point to a stat showing that 11% of journalists killed are women, to put out a “stop targeting women journalists” message. Similar happened with 1 of 4 women being homeless.

And that’s just what I care to mention while I’m on mobile.

Feminists have proved many times over that they don’t give a shit about men, nor about women who don’t fall in ideological line with them, for that matter. They’re special interest group that wants as much as they can get for themselves, no matter at whose expense it’s of. There is a good reason there is a huge gap between the percentage of the population that believe in sex equality, and the percentage that self-identifies as “feminist”.

That’s definitely going to happen organically, especially since this is a genie that is definitely never going back in the bottle. It’s only going to become more convincing, more accessible, and more widespread, even for simply ‘self-contained’ use, especially by hormone-flooded teenagers.

Not when it comes to the notion of politicians making moves that will or won’t affect them in their own lifetimes. It’s easier/more tempting to kick the can down the road the older you are.

Your claim that it’s victimless is, of course, false since real children are used in the training data without consent.

Your assumption, but there are a ton of royalty-free images that contain children out there, more than enough for an AI to ‘learn’ proportions etc. Combine with adult nudity, and a generative AI can ‘bridge the gap’ create images of people that don’t exist (hence the word “generative”).

This also ignores the fact that the result is child porn

That’s not a fact. “Child porn” requires a child–pixels on a screen depicting the likeness of a person, and a person that does not actually exist in the real world to boot, is not a child.

Lastly, your claim that any of this results in any reduction in child abuse is spurious and unsubstantiated.

I’m just making a reasonable guess based on what’s been found about other things in the same subcategory (Japanese research found that those who have actually molested a kid were less likely to have consumed porn comics depicting that subject matter, than the general population), and in other sex categories, like how the prevalence of rape fantasy porn online correlates with a massive reduction of real-life rape.

Seems pretty unlikely that this is going to be the one and only exception to date where a fictional facsimile doesn’t ‘satiate’ the urge to offend in real life, and instead encourages the ‘consumer’ to offend.

That’s not how it works. The “generative” in “generative AI” is there for a reason.

Do we know that AI child porn is bad? I could believe it would get them in the mood for the real thing and make them do it more, and I could believe it would make them go “ok, itch scratched”, and tank the demand for the real stuff.

From bits/articles I’ve seen here and there over the years about other things that are kind of in the same category (porn comics with child characters in them, child-shaped sex dolls), the latter seems to be more the case.

I’m reminded of when people were arguing that when Internet porn became widespread, the incidence of rape would go through the roof. And then literally the opposite happened. So…that pushes me toward hypothesizing that the latter is more likely to be the case, as well.