It also highlights HN's demographics. What younger women feel is problematic is viewed as trifling by a number of younger or middle aged men on HN (especially those without kids).
No healthy man of good will wishes to see women get hurt or disrespected.
1: Unintended consequences
2: That power-hungry people latch on to issues like this to further political agendas that have severe negative consequences; mostly by using "think of the children" to stifle important debate and discussion of unintended consequences.
If you think it’s a really big issue, why don’t you own the problem?
You could just go turn off the trillions in AI spending and destroy computing as we know it. No cop-outs, remember.
When you debate like that, (specifically twisting words like you did,) you leave yourself open to be a victim of power-hungry people, and trade one problem for another potentially worse problem.
I can fix the problem right now. We just throw all the children into the orphan grinder. Can't sexualize ground meat. Is that what you want? Wooooww, so you're telling me you want to grind up children?? That's really messed up dude.
It's super easy to twist any argument against this stuff to being "against children", which is extremely annoying and unproductive. That's why you, and others, get a lot of pushback - you're annoying and dishonest.
Nobody here, and I do mean nobody, wants children to be hurt. That includes me and you.
If you want to fix these issues, you have to answer three questions head-on:
1. What is the actionable, real solution?
2. Will it work?
3. How well will it work?
"Durrr sexually demeaning children bad" doesn't answer any of those. We all know sexually demeaning children is bad.
Now tell me if, I don't know, banning the Internet or some shit will work
Instead I think a) kids shouldn't be on the internet and b) the public school system is a barely supervised dumpster fire.