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
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.