The dangers and harm misusing serious terms like pedophilia/pedophile cause
āB-but.. But pedophilia is bad!ā
Youāre right. Ā Pedophilia IS bad. Ā Youād be hard-pressed to find people on this siteāor elsewhereāthat legitimately believe otherwise. Ā Child sexual abuse is hated even more than murder, to the point where child abusers are often killed by other inmates in prison. Ā Even drug dealers, rapists, and serial killers will not tolerate pedophiles. Ā
The problem is that 99.99% of the thingās antis complain about is NOT PEDOPHILIA. Ā In fact, the most common use of the term āpedophiliaā Iāve seen on this site is people applying it to fully-grown adult couples with an age gap. I donāt think you realize how harmful it is to dilute a term meant solely for pre-pubescent victims by including fully-grown adults.Ā
Even teenagers are NOT CHILDREN (teenagers have specific labels that apply to them, i.e. hebephilia, and ephebophilia). Ā Applying āpedophiliaā as a blanket termāespecially to ADULTSāis taking away from victims, and barging into spaces where you DONāT BELONG, ESPECIALLY IF YOUāRE ONLY TALKING ABOUT FICTION.
Also, speaking of teenagers {akaĀ āminors,ā)ā
Tumblr now has less than 1% of the market of its supposedly teenage or underage user base.
While they donāt even include those under 18 in the specific statistics [because itās so small], hereās what I could find on any āminor/underageā users;
In 2015, 4% of the teenagers used Tumblr in 2015 as opposed to 29% of teens using Instagram, 21% using Twitter, 12% using Facebook, and 11% using Snapchat.
In 2016, only 2% of the teens in the USA used Tumblr, whereas Snapchat popularity rose to 24%, Instagram reduced to 23%, Twitter was at 16%, and Facebook was at 15%.
Tumblr kept on seeing a reduction in its teenage popularity, holding 1% of the market as Snapchat acquired 39% of the US teen social networking market, Twitter and Facebook had 11% share each and Instagram stayed at 21%.
By 2018, Snapchat was the most popular social network, with 45% of the US market, and Instagram was 26% of the market. Twitter had 9% of the social network app, and Facebook reduced to 8%. Tumblr stayed at 1%.
However, in 2019 as Facebookās share further reduced to 6% and Instagram popularity increased to 35%, Tumblr now had less than 1% of the market, which for Tumblr was more than 45% of their traffic. Twitterās share also reduced to 6% over that one year.
In conclusion; Tumblr was and always will be an adult website.
What shippers on tumblr are doingāwhat antis are complaining aboutāis 100% COMPLETELY LEGAL, REMINDER;
According to the 18 U.S. Code Ā§ 2256 (yes, the same code that antis have been using a screencap of, but omitting the last part of in order to conceal the truth):
āThe term āindistinguishableā used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.ā
Also note the phrase ārecognizable as an actual personā in 9ii.Ā Ā
This is also further upheld by the Supreme Court ruling of Ashcroft vs Free Speech Coalition, and again in Ashcroft vs American Civil Liberties Union (the PROTECT Act has also had related portionsāspecifically 1466A, which antis love to parade around and which I will be breaking down for you all to better understandājudged as unconstitutional on a federal level, as was a result of United States v. Handley, in which the defendant was convicted due to a guilty plea bargain, and not actually convicted on the initial charges of obscenity. Ā The plea bargain was made under the belief that the jury chosen to judge him would not acquit him of the obscenity charges if they were shown the images in question). Ā Handleyās case is the only one so far that dealt solely with drawings of characters that did not exist in real life (as in, without further discovery of more serious content in the defendantās possessionāor ties to illegal sitesāwhich is what occurred with other cases that antis tend to cite).
US Code 1466 A: Definitions.āFor purposes of this sectionā
(1)the term āvisual depictionā includes undeveloped film and videotape, and data stored on a computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image, and also includes any photograph, film, video, picture, digital image or picture, computer image or picture, or computer generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means;
(2) the term āsexually explicit conductā has the meaning given the term in section 2256(2)(A) or 2256(2)(B); and
(3) the term āgraphicā, when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted.
Now understand this section is directly tied to and even inferior or influenced byĀ 18 U.S. Code Ā§ 2256āwhen weāre talking about artwork:
āThe term āindistinguishableā used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.ā
INDISTINGUISHABLE; YOU CANNOT DISTINGUISH WHETHER THE CONTENT IS A REALISTIC PHOTOGRAPH OR NOT.
Definition of Person: Now itās difficult to find the legal definition of what a Person isā but I think Iāve managed to find it by doing some lookinā around and actually reading what I want to cite and use as evidence.
When it talks about persons, Antis typically try and use this as a way to also include fictional personsā which is incredibly false and a total misuse of the legal definition of Person:
(3) the term āpersonā means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property; fictional characters cannot hold legal or beneficial interest in property. Ā Source 18 USC Ā§ 2331(3)
The definition falls under Individual, which gives this definition here:Ā
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words āpersonā, āhuman beingā, āchildā, and āindividualā, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. Source 1 USC Ā§ 8(a)
Fictional characters CANNOT BE BORN, NOR ARE CONSIDERED HUMAN BEINGS. They do NOT get legal rights or protections like real human beings do, because the government and majority of mentally aware people DO NOT CARE ABOUT FICTIONAL CHARACTERS.
So that section of yours of Ā US Code 1466 A: āAny person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, is obscene; or Ā Ā depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourseā
SEE HOW IT MENTIONS ANY PERSON IN THE BEGINNING? ITāS TALKING ABOUT REAL FUCKING HUMAN BEINGS, AND PORNOGRAPHY OF REAL CHILDREN.
Bluntly put, people like you are ABUSING WHAT THAT WORD MEANS FOR YOUR OWN PERSONAL GAIN.
IMMORAL IS NOT THE SAME AS ILLEGAL.Ā
IMMORALITY IS EVEN SUBJECTIVE, SPECIALLY IF WEāRE TALKING ABOUT FICTION.
Misusing serious terms (like applying them when no physical harm is being committed) dilutes the meaning of those words. Ā It is called ācrying wolfā, and itās HARMFUL TO LEGITIMATE VICTIMS:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200407/crying-wolf-fabricated-crimes
https://nypost.com/2009/09/18/crying-wolf-really-hurts-true-victims-of-assault/
http://www.cahillcriminaldefense.com/blog/2015/march/false-domestic-violence-claims-hurt-our-criminal/
http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2009/12/crying_wolf_false_rape_charges.html
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/the_anatomy_of_false_accusations_a_skeptical_case_study/
http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2011/06/false-abuse-charges-ultimately-hurt-victims-even-more/
http://www.scidev.net/global/policy/opinion/crying-wolf-over-disasters-undermines-future-warnings-.html
It doesnāt matter if itās abuse, natural disasters, etc. Ā āIt waters down a legitimate cry. Ā Neither is there any freedom found in corrupt exaggeration.ā
Point blank: What you are doing is called ācrying wolfā, and it has real consequences. For example: Anti-vaxxers. Ā All it took was one man claiming a link between vaccines and autism, and now diseases like polio are turning up again because of people who refuse to vaccinate their children. Ā If you make claims of pedophilia where it doesnāt actually exist, you are hurting legitimate claims of pedophilia.
You are abusing the term āpedophiliaā where it does not apply. Ā When you misuse serious terms in this way, it actually HARMS REAL VICTIMS (which include myself, by the way) by making it harder for their legitimate claims to be taken seriously.
You also take resources away from real victims suffering from child abuse and exploitation by reporting fictional artwork and writingā
Hereās another consequence of crying wolf or mocking and bullying those who either use fiction to cope or not:
It takes MONTHS to remove the kind of damage those with an Anti-complex do to others, those looking for a nonjudgmental space and somewhere they can talk about their deepest, darkest secrets and fears. They are essentially harming real individuals so they can protect FAKE FICTIONAL PEOPLE.
Youāve proven to not only be like the mindset you claim to be against and were abused by [radical zealots, far-right Conservatives] but to also act like Anti-vaxxers; you believe nonsense simply because it backs up your moral superiority complex. Ā
