@PallasRiot@social.treehouse.systems
Post #3733031
2026-07-10 18:31 UTC
Replies (3)
-
@PallasRiot@social.treehouse.systems 2026-07-10 19:24
We really need to recognize that kids are a marginalized group of vulnerable people who are, as a class, oppressed by adults, as a class. I think there's really no shorthand around it, we just need to subject anything that targets kids to a lot more scrutiny, in the same way we at least hypothetically scrutinize anything targeting a marginalized group to a greater degree. Adults who prey on children in the ways we recognize as predatory *and* adults who enforce systems of dominance and control to "protect" children are fundamentally similar, even though the latter often raises the spectre of the former as justification. Both are united by their wielding of power over children as a class. Nevermind that very often the former finds it much easier to prey on children because of the isolation and immiseration the latter subjects children to.
-
@mxchara@seattle.pink 2026-07-11 07:11
@PallasRiot@social.treehouse.systems that's admirably concise
-
@BigHeadMode@social.linux.pizza 2026-07-10 22:00
@PallasRiot@social.treehouse.systems There is an assumption on most of the internet that literally any nudity, any so-called "pornography", any romantic talk, etc. is damaging. It's ahistorical and shuts out bona fide art (stuff in art museums) as well as borderline* stuff that's not "just" porn, and full on smut which I don't think there's anything wrong with either. Especially at like 16, if you see a video of two adults madly in love going at it with full consent and admiration, who is harmed exactly? Simply close the page if you don't like it. *I've seen some legitimately interesting art that is also NSFW. Art can be "good" and risque.