nah just pump and dumb

I think we’ve exhausted this discourse. Peace

I’ll just quote you to yourself, as we’re pretty much on the same page:

If you approve someone, you don’t need to explain yourself, you would just say “I agree with this guy”. There’s no substance to it.

However, if you downvote, you are saying “this is wrong”. Which is much different. When you accuse someone of being wrong, you should explain yourself, otherwise you’re being a dick.

It’s fine if someone already answered with what you were going to answer. You can just upvote that guy and move on.

EDIT: I’m absolutely in awe that this comment specifically gathered so many downvotes. And this is a good example of what I was referring to. Lots of people downvoted, and 0 ppl said why.

You may think that those upvotes explain the downvotes, but they really don’t. And they don’t to a small majority of the people, so perhaps you can help out. A good start would be:

You’re getting downvoted because

Or

I’m downvoting your post/comment because

Or if you feel the upvoted comments are indeed addressing my concern “legal porn that looks like CP is morally extremely questionable and either won’t help the growth of Lemmy or would attract people I rather not associate with”, you can copy paste it.

I also want to state this is occurring at a time where we are discovering pedophelia run all the way to the white house.

TIL a significant minority of Lemmy/Piefed users like to look at or reserve the right to be able to look at pornography where the actors bear resemblance to children. And the best arguments they have is FReE sPeEcH and iTs NoT iLleGaL.

Yuk.

I understand the ease of downvoting, but the lack of well laid out arguments gives this entire platform a very yukkie vibe to me.

I was simply cross posting for discussion. And while I see the point that the OP is being a bit dramatic perhaps, as somebody else said on here: the downvotes and vehement opposition to the OP can be seen as support for pornographic content that seemingly depicts minors, even if the actors are in fact of legal age. And if there is one type of content where the user is more concerned about what it looks like than what it is, it would be pornography.

Everyone can have different kinks, fetishes and sexual proclivities (SFW), but once you’re essentially advocating for pornography that visually identical to child pornography, it’s time for that uncomfortable look in the mirror I think. The free speech absolutist argument doesn’t really hold water. What would the absolutist argument be if the child pornography was mades using Sora or something similar? No minors would be involved in making that either right? I’m all for free speech, but to push this angle seems really grasping at straws.

If a new user comes to Lemmy without NSFW filters and such content is among the first things they see, I wouldn’t expect them to sign up and become a regular contributor to the platform.

I was hoping !fediverse@lemmy.world would be a place where this can be discussed, which I suppose it is, as this will rank nicely as “controversial”.