I am not implying its a developed fetish, but the mode of actuating their attraction can become obsessive.

Take train molestation for example, which in some ways is a feedback loop.

Some of those caught by police have confessed to doing it because of its prevalence in hentai and JAV films.

I’m sure for some the thrill of being caught is the objective, but for others it’s the realisation that a quick grope can be plausibly denied on a crowded train.

It’s the normalisation of expectation that its wanted, or will be wanted, which is what I’m trying to illustrate.

Yep.

As I said, it’s all about whether legally permitting a release valve for the (presumably) majority of pedophiles who might otherwise commit crimes, outweighs the risk of potentially encouraging a (presumably) smaller subset of risk prone pedophiles, who otherwise would not commit crimes.

I’ll reiterate, my intuition is that it has a net harm reduction.

Regardless of this, there are other reasons not to criminalise it - there is a risk of making the content harder to find, pushing hem into more obscure online spaces, like the dark web. It is far safer to keep it above board, where it can be moderated, and controlled.

I’m sure there’s a case to be made, and my intuitions map yours, as I remember another study suggesting that countries with legal access to sex workers reduces incidences of sexual assault.

However, we know of opposing psychological frameworks like the porn desensitisation pipeline, and seeking increasingly hardcore porn over time.

Thats not to imply that exposure to porn is turning people into pedophiles, but there are a subset of people who are predisposed to reckless behaviour, and that’s not even mentioning the delusional plotlines hentai normalises about rape victims eventually loving it, and how those perspectives can influence thought patterns of those who are more suggestible.

The hard answer is: both

There are some people for whom such material would inspire actuating on their fantasies, and for others, act like a pressure release valve.

The real question is: in a utilitarian sense, does it reliably produce less suffering?

One Cancer

Good name for a political party.

In Australia it’s 0.05

Youre on it.

Thats why I use a electronic-telescope from my balcony and zoom into the space of other peoples houses. If they didn’t want me looking inside, they should’ve considered me a pervert.

Sure, but that isn’t the point I’m making.

Consider that my analogy was referring specifically to arithmetic, while we have calculators in our pockets.

Consider a different analogy if you want, spell checkers.

If they came out now, I’m sure you’d have people arguing that people will never learn how to spell.

Down to Buck?

I was pretty good at maths in school, and throughout my adult life there have been times when doing mental math has been helpful.

I must’ve saved quite a few minutes, perhaps even an hour total.

But it has never been that important, that using the calculator I always have in my pocket would’ve somehow changed anything in the moment.

In all, it actually doesn’t feel like that helpful of a skill, though your milage will vary depending on your job.

In saying that, LLM’s aren’t going anywhere, and the panic around peoples stupification is probably a mask for ignorance or indifference which would exist regardless.

But have you considered a trans person with smart glasses?

Grab-

Microsoft Needs Windows Lite, No telemetry, no spying, no ads, no AI, no .NET, to retain gamers and developers To Fuck Off And Die; Cold, Hungry And Alone, Like The Shit Cunt It Is

Holy strawman

Buddy, billionaires don’t care about whether you shame them.

But they do care about the prestige of looking charitable.

It makes far more sense to play along and let them feel like heroes if it means the next tragedy gets $100k.

Consider this: donation shaming contributes to a cost/benefit analysis.

Consider that Taylor Swift could donate $100k for every single tragedy that occurs this year and be no worse off.

But that would get her more bad press than it’s worth. People would say “why does this tragedy get $100k when its obviously far worse” or “The amount of people affected are more than this other tragedy, why are you racist?” Etc.

So, they stay quiet, and even then people get shamed for not using their platform to speak up.

If you actually give a shit about seeing the most amount of money going to help people, you should realise the path forward is to lower the bar to access, and make donation as beneficial as possible to the people donating.

Call it what you want, but $100k is $100k.

For the people who are actually affected, any donation is appreciated.

In any case, do you intend to use shame to force higher donations?

Donation shaming is bad form.

The right move is to give them the credit and move on, because regardless of PR, it is a net positive.

Fraonce has a city called Pans?

MFW the net worth of the team has more than 9 digits