this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2025
365 points (91.8% liked)
Fuck AI
5005 readers
1160 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hey man if you distribute porn of someone non consenting, you deserve at least a solid punch in the face.
What harm is done that is severe enough to justify violence? There was in no imminent threat of physical harm to themselves or others. Nobody is in danger. The content in question also isn't actually them. Being violent just because your feeling are hurt is barbaric and has no place in a society. Violence is not acceptable.
As soon as society refuses to adequately intervene to stop the harm, any degree of harm justifies any level of force necessary to end that harm. Your position is only valid so long as society is willing to intercede on behalf of the victim.
The content in question is harassment at a minimum. It is harm. Serious harm.
So long as society is willing to intercede against the harm caused by harassers, I agree. Here, that intercession was explicitly denied. The school refused to act. The school failed to even separate or supervise the two parties. Consequently, society lost its ethical justification for criticizing the victim's efforts to end her victimization. With the school failing to act reasonably or responsibly, we don't get to criticize the victim's actions.
So if a man is hurt by a woman and the world doesn't stop that harm, is any degree of harm justified and any level of force necessary to end that harm, justified?
Society fails at justice all the time, but it will respond with force and punishment if you take justice into your own hands. The failure of society to adequately address these scenarios is one of the reasons exacting your own justice is unwise, because society will punish you for it, as it did to the girl when she tried. Violence is not acceptable.
Yes.
I see the problem. You are conflating "stopping harm" with "justice". There is a massive difference between the two concepts, and we aren't talking about justice here.
Asking police to stop the woman from keying his car is an attempt to stop harm. Asking the prosecutor to charge her with destruction of property is an attempt to seek justice. You described a scenario where the woman is actively harming the man. He is, indeed, justified in using any level of force necessary to end that harm. You did not describe a scenario where the woman has previously caused harm, but is no longer doing so.
Keep in mind that the boy on the bus was actively engaged in harassing his victim at the time his victim used physical force against him. She was not attempting to retaliate for past harms; she was not attempting to seek justice. She was attempting to end the harm he was in the process of perpetrating.
Then by your reasoning, if a woman rejects a man and she hurts him, he can beat her. Glad that's clear.
What?
You said yes, any amount of force is acceptable.
Not quite. You shortened the phrase. You dropped five critical words that were present in the original phrase:
Further, you're dishonestly relying on a colloquial definition of "harm", rather than a legal one. "Rejection" does not qualify.
I used what was necessary for the reference, I assumed you didn't need the entire quote.
Are we at the 'define your terms' stage of the conversation, then, or are you starting to probe with the plausibly deniable personal attacks?
We're at the point of the conversation where you recognize her actions in these specific circumstances were at least understandable, if not reasonable and rational. We're at the point of the conversation where you acknowledge she was the victim. We're at the point in the conversation where you acknowledge the school failed to properly supervise her and her harasser on the bus, and erred greatly in their disciplinary action.
We're at the point where you point out that violence is not acceptable, but that given his actions and the multiple failures of the school pushed her to do something that she would not normally do, and should not have been punished for.
We're at the point in the conversation where you recognize you have been improperly assigning excessive blame to the victim, and decide to delete, or at least amend your previous arguments to portray yourself as a reasonable person.
So cede to your position even though I disagree, with good reason? Almost all those things you ask for are things I've never denied or refuted. Perhaps you should have asked to confirm your assumptions before continuing to argue against things I never argued for.
the situation didn't just naturally become worse. it's only worse because the school shares opinions with you.
It did naturally become worse. That's what happens by not intervening, nature occurs. Becoming violent when you experience injustice only leads to more problems. It is not a wise or effective response.
did the school not intervene by punishing her? the problems only arose because they agree with you.
For violently assaulting someone, yes. The problem arose because children decided to do something hurtful to a child, not because the adults in the situation didn't resolve it before it escalated to violence.
the problem (her punishment) was not a natural result of her actions. it ocurred because the school interfered
Just like the police do when there's a shooter. What's natural doesn't define what is acceptable.
i really cant understand the need to pretend that this is a sensible analogy
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean anyone is pretending. Do you often assume people are pretending when you can't make sense of things? Is that how you cope with being confused?
well, it is easy to understand when not being charitable with your intentions
Hard disagree. What other option did she have at this point, she tried following proper channels to get the bullying resolved and when that didn't work, did the only other thing she could.
I would 100% go far further if this arrive to my daughter. I would go yo police reporting school sponsored diffusion of pedo pornography. And ruin the school reputation and have all parents involved. This would make me go thermonuclear.
The system not making her feel better is not justification for violence. Taking justice into ones own hands with violence is not acceptable. Period. We are not barbarians or wild animals. She could have gone to her parents, a counselor or a trusted adult to help her manage her emotions over the situation until a better resolution could be reached. While it is understandable to want to be violent when feelings are hurt, it isn't acceptable to throw hands, or to encourage others to help you violently assault someone. Her violence will do absolutely nothing to stop the sharing of the photos, it will only appease her momentary desire to lash out, with worse consequences, like getting suspended.
It was foolish, impulsive, unhelpful and unacceptable.
She did. She fucking did all the things that you say she should have done. She availed herself of all the support structures you say she should have utilized, and they all failed her.
Those parents, counselors, and trusted adults could have helped her "manage her emotions" by separating her from the harasser. Instead, they put the two of them together on a bus, effectively unsupervised. She did everything right. All of the social structures that should have supported her failed, and now you're all that the most reasonable course of action she had was direct violence.
The school's actions were foolish, lazy, unhelpful, and unacceptable. In the specific circumstances she faced, her actions were perfectly reasonable.
Managing emotions can't be done through external acts, it is an internal act. Those systems she availed to were still working on the issue, instant gratification is not reasonable. Violence is not a reasonable or effective course of action, it is an impulsive and stupid one and it only made her life worse.
...
Pick a lane.
There is only one lane.
You think it's okay to hit a car thief but not a child pornographer. Your viewpoint is invalid.
I don't think it's acceptable.or wise to violently assault someone over a picture.
To play devil's advocate, at that point she had photographic evidence of this happening, so she could have gone back to the school/police with it and let them handle it.
Counter devils advocate: our legal system does allow civilians to stop a crime in progress against themselves, physically, even if the crime itself is nonviolent in nature.
For instance, If i witness someone stealing my property, I am allowed to use reasonable, non-deadly force in defense of my property. She faced serious, permanent, and ongoing mental harm, which she had every right to attempt to stop as it occurred
And the police have fundamentaly agreed she was justified in her actions, and upheld this right, as shes not being charged.
(Although personally I think they should threaten school officials with charges of conspiracy after the fact and abetting the dissemination of csam for the expulsion, to force them to recant it.)