To be fair, they probably inherited the place and got to be the lucky person it closed down under, which probably doesn’t feel great.

At least, it’d raise some eyebrows if its had the same owner since 1883.

It’s rough that you have to deal with that, and I applaud the restraint and poise that goes hand in hand with operating while under intense emotional strain. That said, emotional biases are problems precisely because their influence can range from the subtle to the obvious, and they’re a lot harder to see from the inside. It’s one of the reasons why STOPP has self analysis when experiencing powerful emotions. Most people don’t need it, but it’s always good to take a breath and evaluate every now and then.

For one, I think I speak for everyone when seeing a huge guy flip out and start screaming in public is alarming because you no longer trust that they will make decisions based on the normal rules of public interaction. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t listen to our emotions, they exist for a number of very important reasons, and paying attention to them is linked to better decisions. That said, making decisions while emotional is tempting because it often narrows attention and jumps to actions with immediate effects, which often feels like clarity when it’s really just expedience.

To sum everything up, intense emotions push for quick, immediate actions to deal with whatever is causing said emotions (a simplification, but it works). This is really great when startled by predators or protecting someone, but not when presented with complex situations lacking easy solutions. So I wouldn’t say that clear thinking is literally impossible when experiencing intense emotions, but I’d say there’s a very strong reason that emergency drills and procedures are set up so that people in high stress situations don’t actually need to think. I spent a bit of time reading up on it to provide a more complete argument than just appealing general wisdom, so apologies for the pile of words.

But a community that specifically encourages “child-like” content (as the community’s rules said at the time this decision was made) is going to gather multiple examples of this.

This is part of why the whole debate is is blown out of proportion. The community was for posting images of “adorable” pornstars, a direct clone of the reddit community that’s one of the largest nsfw subreddits and has been for nearly a decade. The mod made the stumble of posting the dictionary definition of “adorable” on the sidebar, and can you guess what hyphenated word was a part of that? The idea that there’s even a “this type of content” to have an aversion to feels ridiculous after seeing the community.

It’s not teen focused, nor attempting to simulate dubious content, it’s literally just pornstars looking cute. If the issue is gut-checking pornstars, the same thing is going to happen with the nsfw communities on this instance, barring a shift to milf-only posting instead of simply legal porn.

At any rate, I appreciate the civil last word, even if we still disagree.

That’s a stumble, but it was because they copied and pasted the dictionary definition of “adorable” into the sidebar. The same community has more than two million members on Reddit and has been a staple for almost a decade. However, they simply wrote “It must be adorable.” instead defining adorable like Lemmy did, so there’s that.

Idk, it just seems weird to be outraged when everything is legal, consensual, and not even a fringe kink. This is like Australia banning small-titted pornstars in their late twenties in a recent project against CSAM, because these adults aren’t shaped in morally appropriate ways.

I genuinely loved that movie. Watched it as a kid, got the DVD as I got older, downloaded the torrent when I was in college, watched it with friends for movie nights.

I had no idea it was supposed to be bad! I loved the weird fusion of camp, bizarre situations, and genuine action. Although I did have to chuckle at one of the reviews criticizing its CGI, written twelve years after the movie came out.

By going to look, I’d be knowingly putting myself in a position to potentially see something that looks like CSAM. Why would I want to do that??

I mean, that’s literally my point. The way it’s presented makes it seem like this ultra-sketchy community that despite being entirely legal, is supposedly morally wrong. How is anyone supposed to determine whether this was a good idea or not, if the very idea of checking is portrayed as morally repugnant?

And this whole debate is literally declaring that legal adults don’t look right, and shouldn’t be allowed to post explicit images of themselves or other professional sex workers. It’s incredibly subjective.

As an aside, I didn’t realize I was annoying you in two different comment chains until just now. Sorry about that lol.

To your point though, that’s why calling it CSAM-adjacent is an issue. Either you trust a stranger’s judgement of whether these legal pornstars’ bodies are morally wrong, or you feel morally wrong for checking to see if you agree or disagree with their assessment. Given the language used here, it’s unsurprising that the thread over on Lemmynsfw is completely different in tone where the community name wasn’t hidden and everyone could just see for themselves.

I read that, I’m just drawing a blank for moments where intense emotions and thinking clearly go well together beyond something like “I saw a bear and ran”.

For what it’s worth, I feel like while society has become more socially accepting of people being different (imperfectly, but we have), at least in the US we’ve become more and more prudish when it comes to sex itself. Part of the changing era has led to a reduction in exploitation and things that were generally viewed as sketchy, but not all that big of deal (kids inheriting porn mags, sexual harassment, imbalances in power), where now sketchy behavior is quickly called out.

That said, I feel like a lot of hard conversations have been completely avoided because they’d be awkward and uncomfortable and instead we just pretend they aren’t there.

Like in theory, anyone under 18 in the US can’t legally see so much as a titty (unless it’s art), read sexually explicit material, or see a movie or tv show with explicit content. And then, literally nobody wants to talk to teenagers about sex. I watched a reddit thread eat itself alive because a dad was furious that his wife had bought their daughter a dildo after he had confiscated her laptop when catching her looking at them and asked his wife to deal with it. People were calling for her to be reported for sexual abuse, while actual women were being attacked for sharing their own experiences as teens. Things just seem a little crazy.

People are so uncomfortable with the concept that they want to disappear anything that reminds them that 18 isn’t actually a magical division between childhood and adulthood. And then you have this thread, where lemmynsfw was banned because a community sharing “cute” pornstars was a step too far despite being actual professional adults. Idk, it seems exactly like Australia’s whole thing where they started banning pornstars in their late twenties because they have small tits as part of a project to “fight” child porn.

Are they not…? I mean, thinking clearly and intense emotions genuinely don’t go together. Crimes of passion, riots after sports games, getting “carried away” in the heat of the moment. Temporary insanity being an actual legal defense.

There’s a reason that a lot of good advice when handling intense emotions is all about taking a minute to step back and breath, clarify what you’re feeling, accept it, and then express it safely. There’s nothing wrong with being emotional, but arguing that there’s nothing wrong with making decisions while emotionally charged is just a really not good idea. The fact that the acronym for managing intense emotions is STOPP should be a bit telling.

Probably because the community in question isn’t trying to “skirt the line” and just posts popular pornstars that range from 18 to the mid twenties. I thought it was a kink community until someone finally linked the lemmynsfw post and it’s actually just a community for cute pornstars.

Calling it CSAM-adjacent just means that nobody’s comfortable actually looking at it to figure out what’s going on, and hugely exaggerated.

Why is there a social attitude that decision-making is only valid if it’s cold and unfeeling?

Probably because everyone agrees that we don’t make the best decisions when emotional? In fact we tend to make our worst decisions when emotional? There’s a pretty significant difference between society judging people for being emotional, and society disapproving of emotional decisions. Because people making significant choices when they aren’t thinking clearly is pretty obviously a bad idea.

Yes. Legality has nothing to do with acceptability. This instance already bans lots of content that doesn’t actually violate any laws. It’s a judgment call.

And yet teen porn is one of the most popular categories around. This sounds like a subcategory confined to a single community, and precisely what the block function is for. There’s a pretty big difference between Exploding Heads and a single disliked community.

Edit: After finally seeing a link to the lemmynsfw discussion, it’s not a kink community or anything fringe. It’s literally a community around cute pornstars.