856
Boys at her school shared AI-generated, nude images of her. She was the one expelled
(abcnews.go.com)
this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2025
856 points (99.0% liked)
News
33737 readers
3547 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
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
I understand that, which is why I want to make it very clear that anyone who voted for Trump is a Pedophile.
Don't like it? Don't vote for pedophiles.
Sure, bud.
I guess that makes all voters politicians, then?
Or just voters that defend politicians?
Not real clear how this transitive property is supposed to work.
No, just voters that are MAGAs, which supports and defends pedophiles as an official tentpost of their party philosophy.
It's simple: Anyone who supports and defends pedophiles is a pedophile. If you vote MAGA, which is ANY right wing/conservative candidate, then you are a Pedophile.
It's so simple, even a MAGA pedophile like you can understand it.
Ah, so you’re just applying it to this one word.
These same supporters are not; con men, obstructionists, felons, rapists, liars, insurrectionists, fraudsters, racketeers, etc etc. just pedophiles.
I’m not, but thanks for playing. Surely even a pedophile like you (I’ve changed the definition to include you) can understand that somebody can say “words mean things” without being a pedophile.
No, I apply all those words to MAGAs, it's just that this particular thread was focused on pedophilia, so that's what I was emphasizing for this specific conversation.
But make no mistake, ALL MAGAs are corrupt, treasonous, racist, misogynist, ignorant, and incompetent, as well as pedophiles. Anyone who votes MAGA, or supports or defends them in any way, is also ALL those things. No exceptions.
If a MAGA doesn't like that characterization, they can convert to morality, and thoroughly renounce MAGA, and MAGA ideals. Then live by it for a decade or so. Then I might consider them to be something other than pure MAGA garbage. But probably not. I'd never forgive a Nazi, I doubt I'll ever forgive a MAGA.
Ok, but if I support somebody who is protecting LGBTQ+ folks, does that make me LGBTQ+ or is it only the bad things that are transitive?
I see you didn’t say they were felons, rapists, con men, racketeers, etc. Are they these things too?
words mean things
Supporting people who do abhorrent things is bad. Inexcusable even. It does not necessarily make you those things.
It doesn't necessarily make me gay, but it does make me an LGBTQ+ supporter. I'm not gay, I like girls, but I'm down with queer culture just fine. Calling me Gay would be innacurate, but calling me Queer might not be, even if I don't identify myself that way. I wouldn't be offended by it, though, I could comfortably identify as Queer Adjacent. I like gay people, I even have gay family members that I love enough to unhesitatingly give my life for them.
MAGAs are pedophiles because they support pedophiles. They might want to parse it more, the way I did between gay and queer. They may not be actual pedophiles, and instead more accurately identify ephebophiles or hebephiles. That's so much better. /s
Bottom line, parse it all you want, they are still exploiting and molesting underage children, and covering up for each other.
Got it. And it only applies to pedophilla, for reasons.
Are you just going to go around on circles? I already wrote in a previous post on this thread:
I am discussing Pedophilia because that is the subject UPU chose. If you'd like to discuss any of his other vile characteristics, like Treason, or Racism, or Ignorance, or Incompetence, etc., I'd be glad to, but the subject of this specific debate was pedophilia, so it's disingenuous to blame ME for the choice of subject.
So to be clear, you do consider all of maga to be felons, rapists, con men, and racketeers?
It’s confusing because you used a completely different set of words from the ones I did.
Or is it only the things they “are” instead of things they “do?”
Your line for when you decide to redefine a word just seems arbitrary.
Those characterizations depend on circumstances. Many of those labels (con men, racketeers, etc.) fall under the general category of corruption. A felon needs to have convicted of a felony. Rapist? Sure, that applies to Trump, and I usually include it. Frankly, it was oversight, so feel free to add it to my list. AreAGAs rapists? Probably not technically, but they are Rapist adjacent. Apparently they support rape.
Who's "redefining" anything?
Pedophile doesn’t though?
Agreed.
Fully agreed.
What is your definition of pedophile?
This entire conversation is around your change of the definition of this word to include these asshats instead of just conceding they are “pedophile adjacent.”
No, Pedophiles are a special category. If you have a confirmed pedophile living in your house, actively molesting children, and you cover for them, make excuses, offer alibis, deny their behavior, etc., then you are just as guilty of pedophilia as they are. It's just like when a group plans and commits a murder, it isn't just the triggerman who gets charged with murder, it's also his accomplices.
If you know there are pedophiles among your organization, and you don't enthusiastically root them out, and instead cover for them, you are guilty of pedophilia also.
What is your definition of pedophile?
Why doesn’t your murder example extend to voters? Or does it?
A pedophile is anyone who participates in the sexual abuse of underage people.
If Trump was openly committing murder, and MAGA voters were supporting it and defending it, I absolutely would accuse them of murder. I'm getting pretty close with the boat bombings, but I'm still short of calling it murder just yet, but I'm getting there. I'm saving that charge for when he trains his murderous inclinations on American citizens.
I see, so is "participates" the word you want to argue about now?
For the sake of argument, let's assume that Luigi Mangione did in fact kill Brian Thompson. Are all of the people who support him murderers?
You can accuse anybody of whatever you like. Doesn't make it so.
I see no reason to "argue" about the word "participation." You can try to argue about it, but my meaning is clear, arguing about parsing words is boring, and I have no more to add in that regard.
No, because killing a Corporate Serial Killer for Profit isn't murder, it's defense of others, and legal.
And/Or
It wasn't murder at all, just a normal, predictable correction to the Free Market. The Corporate Serial Killer's policies went so far in abusing his customers that they eventually spawned a customer so angry that he ended the source of those abusive policies. Studies show that following the hit, not only his company, but other health care companies as well, loosened their approval policies for a time, proving that it WAS a Free Market correction. That's not murder, that's Economics.
All I’m arguing. All I’ve been arguing the entire time, is that you are broadening definitions of words to include people they otherwise would not. Apparently you don’t feel it’s sufficient to call them accomplices (you got close with your murder example on this one), enablers, cult members, or any of the other countless words and phrases we have that would be accurate.
You’ve made it pretty clear that you don’t actually want to argue that point, and yet you’re still here.
"I voted for Mr. Hitler because he'd be good for the economy. I didn't go in for all that Jew-killing stuff, you can't blame that on me." - German citizen, 1946
There are no accomplices, enablers, etc. if you support and defend murder, you'll be charged with murder. Don't like that? Don't help with murder.
That’s quaint.