zqps

Are there any clues to the reason for the dismissal / request to resign? You'd think there definitely is one, but probably one they don't want to go public with, or they would have done so considering the backlash.

Yeah but those are people in their in-group with authority. They can't do any wrong because they said so.

Actually caring about child abuse or anything for that matter, over deference to authority would completely dismantle their worldview.

You can't get insured for this without already having robust IT security in place. Both are viewed as a largely pointless expense by far too many old C-Level suits (who will make off with a neat bonus for their failure).

Same for r/MURICA. Sad case, it used to be really funny.

Dude reads about children being held as sex slaves and the first reaction is "oh no imprisoning them costs money 😱"

There's very much an ethical problem here. Sure, it's fairly clear-cut with some debilitating genetic issues. But there's a point at which you're veering into eugenics, and that's sooner than people think.

Take children who are deaf due to a genetic defect. I'm sure most parents imagine being deaf a terrible lot in life that they'd like to spare their kids from.

Then listen to actual members of the deaf community. They're proud of their identity, they have their own language, and they're terrified of the prospect of being essentially eliminated in just a few generations by well-meaning folks that can't imagine a happy life as a deaf person.

What if we discover a few years from now that there are genetic markers for being queer? What if we can genetically engineer people to be more muscular, have a more attractive bone structure, lighter skin?

What if this technology falls in the hands of a fascist regime?

Such technology doesn't just fix genetic diseases. In a hierarchical global society, it eliminates human diversity.

Not every religious person feels the need to forcibly convert others.

Yep though I do think this technical distinction you bring up is really only relevant in a clinical context.

Meanwhile the one between "pedophile" and "child abuser" is extremely important in real-life prevention of child abuse. The ideas that 1) only people with sexual attraction to kids would sexually abuse kids, and 2) if you feel sexual attraction to kids obviously you're gonna act on it, both seem logical but have both been comprehensively disproven.

A huge added barrier here is that people - for understandable reasons - don't want to really try to think through and reason logically about such a disgusting and emotionally laden subject, much less empathize with a pedophile. Unfortunately that exactly is required if we're not just looking to satisfy our vengeful sense of justice, but actually do something for the victims and prevent further child abuse.

Both points you raise are really important in understanding how child abuse happens and how to prevent it. Which is why I'm extremely annoyed that we treat the terms "pedophile" and "child abuser" as the same.

But you can't normally bring that up or people think you're defending child abusers for some reason.

This makes total sense due to the square-cube law (and cell sizes I suppose).

Have you considered relatively thicker sticks, like a log on a slower-burning fire? That should mitigate it a bit.

Lieber den nächsten Hitler der die Festung Europa klimatisieren will oder so. Und queere Menschen die Schuld gibt weil sie zu hot sind

Some moron is gonna vibe code a script that spoofs this on the surface. Yea it'll be detectable, but not detected in most cases.