Violet Rose (she/her) on Nostr: wauwa I can understand that. But I have two responses: one, goonerism is much more of ...

wauwa (npub1exa…7nee) I can understand that. But I have two responses: one, goonerism is much more of a mentality and behavior pattern - a vibe - than a rigid definition, and a gooner might not necessarily do that anyway. There are many kodocon-only gooners. Two: the human factor. In a more ideal world, people wouldn't view (actual - assuming for this thread that we're talking about content where exploitation *is* involved) CSEM, and of course, in a more ideal world than that, it, along with exploitation itself, wouldn't exist at all. But this isn't that world, and the people of this world aren't perfect. They're flawed, they suffer temptation by way of sheer desire to see the targets of their attraction, biological impulse, or both.

This would be *zero* excuse if we were talking about actual SA. Anyone who actually hurts another person, especially a vulnerable one, like that needs to be held accountable for their actions - at that point it's a public safety issue and can't be excused. But in the case of CSEM specifically, it's grayer than that, because no one is being *actively* harmed or traumatized by the person viewing media, so that person can easily rationalize it to themselves as harmless without them being a terrible person, *especially* if the exploitation part is non-obvious or outright obscured in the material so that it can be mistaken for consensual.

The distribution and viewing of this material does do some amount of harm. It's a violation of the child's consent that said distribution and and viewing are occurring without their - well - consent, and knowing, even abstractly, that this is an ongoing thing can harm their emotional/psychological well-being. But that harm is occurring on a more abstract level, at a remove, that isn't necessarily obvious without thinking it all completely through. A reasonable person could conclude that as long as no material support is provided, it's a victimless crime - especially if they don't even redistribute it. And even if they *do* understand why it's wrong, to them it may simply not be wrong *enough* to overcome the sheer temptation, given that the harm is so relatively abstract - literally pixels on a screen.

And, of course, all of this is exacerbated by the fact that in current society, the incredible illegality of *any* pornographic media featuring children also makes ethical sourcing of such media essentially impossible - no alternative provided. So no, I don't think that necessarily makes them terrible people, or even bad people. Just imperfect beings in an imperfect world, making understandable mistakes that are simply not harmful enough to draw such a rigid line for. And even from a purely practical perspective, I believe showing empathy and understanding on this issue has more potential to change outlooks and, as a result, reduce its impact, than "gooners must die", which simply makes them unwilling to listen to you or consider your perspective.