You’re right. It can be images, that’s exactly why saying “this man was found in possession of child abuse material images” does not make grammatical sense. It’s why CP still defines it better as we’re not arresting people for owning copies of Lolita, which you could argue is also CSAM.
Big “Ben Shapiro ranting about renewable energies because of the first law of thermodynamics” energy right here.
And your point is literally the opposite. Lolita could be argued to be child porn, as it’s pornographic material showing (fictional/animated) children. It is objectively NOT CSAM, because it does not contain CSA, because you can’t sexually abuse a fictional animated character.
CP is also a common acronym that can mean many other things.
Porn also implies it’s a work of artistic intent, which is just wrong for CSAM.
The majority of people can be wrong.
No they can’t, not with regards to linguistics. Linguistics is a descriptive science, not a prescriptive one. Words and language, by definition, and convention of every serious linguist in the world, mean what the majority of people think them to mean. That’s how language works.
I’m not comparing you to Ben Shapiro, I’m comparing your grammar nazi pedantism to a single specific instance of his grammar nazi pedantism.
I also gave several explicit reasons why using CP over CSAM is idiotic, not just “my friends say so”
So that’s 2 for 2 for wildly and dishonestly misrepresenting my points.
But hey, if you want to be like that sure.
You’re right, everyone else is wrong, you do you and keep using CP instead of CSAM, and keep getting irrationally upset and angry at people who think CSAM is a better term. Happy now ?
Sorry. To address your two points, where did people get the idea that the word porn implies artistic merit or consent? It simply means material intended to sexually excite people. Is that meaning not important to retain as it’s the difference between what we consider CSAM and a picture of your kid in the tub?
CP can stand for a lot of things but it’s common parlance now. CSAM just causes confusion.
Also really? Now you’re stooping to the old “why so mad bro?”. You’re the one having a meltdown, I’m wasting time at work by sharing an opinion.
To address your two points, where did people get the idea that the word porn implies artistic merit or consent?
I didn’t say merit (or consent, though I assume that one’s a typo), I said artistic intent. Which every creative work by definition has.
There is nothing ethically wrong with porn in a vacuum, so categorising CSAM as a category of something that isn’t inherently ethically wrong in my opinion makes it a bad term. CSAM clearly and strictly delineates it from consensual porn.
CP can stand for a lot of things but it’s common parlance now. CSAM just causes confusion.
Ah yes. The Acronym with MORE common definitions somehow causes less confusion. That makes perfect sense. Of course. That explains why so many people in this thread were confused by it. Oh no wait. They weren’t.
Also really? Now you’re stooping to the old “why so mad bro?”. You’re the one having a meltdown, I’m wasting time at work by sharing an opinion.
You’re the one who got upset enough about me using a common abbreviation, that no one in the thread was remotely confused by, to kick off this entire shit. You decided you needed to pedantically comment on this. I’m simply defending myself from your pedantic grammar nazi shit.
Material.
Material can be anything. It can be images, videos theoretically even audio recordings.
Images is a relevant and sensible distinction. And judging by the downvotes you’re collecting, the majority of people disagree with you.
And, if you’re trying to authorize law enforcement to arrest and prosecute, you want the broadest definitions possible.
You’re right. It can be images, that’s exactly why saying “this man was found in possession of child abuse material images” does not make grammatical sense. It’s why CP still defines it better as we’re not arresting people for owning copies of Lolita, which you could argue is also CSAM.
The majority of people can be wrong.
Big “Ben Shapiro ranting about renewable energies because of the first law of thermodynamics” energy right here.
And your point is literally the opposite. Lolita could be argued to be child porn, as it’s pornographic material showing (fictional/animated) children. It is objectively NOT CSAM, because it does not contain CSA, because you can’t sexually abuse a fictional animated character.
CP is also a common acronym that can mean many other things.
Porn also implies it’s a work of artistic intent, which is just wrong for CSAM.
No they can’t, not with regards to linguistics. Linguistics is a descriptive science, not a prescriptive one. Words and language, by definition, and convention of every serious linguist in the world, mean what the majority of people think them to mean. That’s how language works.
“I’m mad you’re right so let me compare you to a hateful right wing grifter and also by the way, you’re wrong because all my friends say so.”
It may shock you but a handful of Lemmy users doesn’t constitute the linguistic consensus you’re trying to inherit here.
I’m not comparing you to Ben Shapiro, I’m comparing your grammar nazi pedantism to a single specific instance of his grammar nazi pedantism.
I also gave several explicit reasons why using CP over CSAM is idiotic, not just “my friends say so”
So that’s 2 for 2 for wildly and dishonestly misrepresenting my points.
But hey, if you want to be like that sure.
You’re right, everyone else is wrong, you do you and keep using CP instead of CSAM, and keep getting irrationally upset and angry at people who think CSAM is a better term. Happy now ?
Sorry. To address your two points, where did people get the idea that the word porn implies artistic merit or consent? It simply means material intended to sexually excite people. Is that meaning not important to retain as it’s the difference between what we consider CSAM and a picture of your kid in the tub?
CP can stand for a lot of things but it’s common parlance now. CSAM just causes confusion.
Also really? Now you’re stooping to the old “why so mad bro?”. You’re the one having a meltdown, I’m wasting time at work by sharing an opinion.
I didn’t say merit (or consent, though I assume that one’s a typo), I said artistic intent. Which every creative work by definition has.
There is nothing ethically wrong with porn in a vacuum, so categorising CSAM as a category of something that isn’t inherently ethically wrong in my opinion makes it a bad term. CSAM clearly and strictly delineates it from consensual porn.
Ah yes. The Acronym with MORE common definitions somehow causes less confusion. That makes perfect sense. Of course. That explains why so many people in this thread were confused by it. Oh no wait. They weren’t.
You’re the one who got upset enough about me using a common abbreviation, that no one in the thread was remotely confused by, to kick off this entire shit. You decided you needed to pedantically comment on this. I’m simply defending myself from your pedantic grammar nazi shit.