That's probably why she is less concerned about girls/women writing fanfics. As men are more visually stimulated and women are more into written pornography
fanfic = society fanart = society, example realistic drawings (created by women) of male Supernatural characters engaging in acts Anything created by males = morally wrong
We could do it, but there's a paradoxical problem in doing so. Even if we get the deepfake to perfectly resemble her likeness, making a good argument would immediately give away it's inauthenticity. We can make a thing that looks like her say things that are *correct*, but the moment we do so, it becomes someone else entirely.
You should be able to imagine whatever you like within your own head. While it’s not close to reality, I like to think of Destiny as a man’s name sometimes.
I'mma just throw it out there I hate this person with my core. The way she speaks, what she speaks about. She acts like Hermione Granger when she lacks smarts.
always been this argument about her. Even if she does take a moment to think it through, it's likely thinking of ways to rationalize things she already thinks is true due to an emotional response to the initial topic
Its not even that its a feelings argument its that she cant convey her position because her usage of language is horrendous. She's using words that don't mean what she's trying to express and is arguing positions that she hasn't fully thought through. She's not "making it up as she goes" she's figuring it out in real time, they seem similar but they're not the same.
If we ever become telepathic, we're finished as a species. I used to think that it's because we would unconsciously judge someone's thoughts regardless of whether we should or not, but now I see there's a genuine cohort of people who actually believe certain thoughts are unacceptable, regardless of action. Unhinged.
I mean this is super dumb but it’s not anything new is it? Back in the day if you didn’t believe the right things or in the right god or even the same god but you worshipped in a slightly different way, you were a bad harmful person and you’d burn in hell. This is just a secular version of that.
@@SuperSecretAgentNein and the secular version of it is not new either. When Stalin exiled and later assassinated Trotsky he went so far as to even photoshop him out of historical photographs, to even speak fondly of him was the kind of offense that could get you sent to a gulag or worse.
And destiny would say: "she is smart" because having good takes and being smart is not correlated or some shit kinda like when he was hammering the point about lav being super smart even though every take she had was absolutely horrid. I think if you're having bad takes 99% of the time it should count for something.
If nobody had sexual fantasies about anyone who doesn't want it, Pokimane, QTcinderella, Valkyrae and the rest of those streamers wouldn't be millionaire streamers.
Pxie equating "masturbating to someone" to "you want to get as close as possible to r4p1ng that person without actually doing it", has got to be one of the most psychotic takes I've ever heard in my entire life. I've never seen someone this detached from reality. If these are the people who're going to regulate p8rn, relationships and interactions between men and women, the world is completely ffffffffff ked.
Pixie has typical socially aware college girl takes her and Erin are just just a representatives of that school of thought In Destiny’s world. You’d be surprised how many young women think the same way
I actually thought it was an interesting case to debate over. See, technology as it stands now only allows for the overlay of (usually public) images on a porn video. Giving users a 'similar' visual to what it would be like to have sex with said streamer. So, in this case, technology doesn't really allow for deepfakes to be truly intrusive. But let's say the technology doesn't stop there. And you end up with something similar to a BD. (BrainDance-Cyberpunk) At that point, you would be creating a moment in your brain where everything truly went down. The orgasm, the sweat, everything would feel real. Would that constitute as 🍇? If the person was not interested in pursuing a romantic relationship with you but you programmed a BD to do so, wouldn't that be 🍇? Technically, nothing ever happened in a physical sense. But emotionally, or I guess chemically, it would have all felt real to said user. And if considering the preface of 'streamer doesn't want sexual stuff done', but you made a BrainDance where she did commit sexual acts. That would have been done against her will. 🤔 I think?lol TL;DR Technology today doesn't allow Deepfakes count as 🍇 but one day it might? 😆 idk I thought it was a genuinely interesting topic.
@@augustineacevedo37 I'd agree with you if we were anywhere close to that tech. but these takes she's giving are clearly something she didn't even think about for 5mins, this is some thought police shit. what about celebrity porn where's the outrage? While I think that creating and distributing deepfakes is wrong for obvious reasons, this is just fake outrage to get views, I'm sure none of these people think it's actually as bad as it is to jerk off in their heads. I mean just look at these fuckers justify thought policing these are the kind of people that want animal farm irl. edit: sorry my point was that these people have entirely unproductive conversations on points that they don't actually believe; it's ridiculous.
@Emanuel it's different if somebody keeps falsely calling you a rapist in public, you can push against that and try to rectify the PUBLIC perception of yourself, but you can't force that specific person to not think you're a rapist in their mind. Edit: This why you can sue somebody for slander or whatever, but you can't sue somebody for the thoughts they have and keep in their head.
@Emanuel Well in that scenario someone is actively trying to make a very harsh claim that they can't possibly know about someone seem true without evidence. It's also a crime. So yeah, it'd be fine to push back on that.
@Emanuel A more correct comparison would be "a woman writing a story where you rape someone, but she's not saying *you actually did it."* It should be the same regardless of the genders or the medium, if I draw a picture of "what I think you look like naked" then there's no harm to you.... ....HOWEVER, the act of sharing the thought/artwork with other people adds a separate element from whether it's okay in/of itself.
There is something deliciously hypocritical about Sejin being so against the use of other people's images while using Tom from MySpace's profile picture.
Especially cause his morals are so loose elsewhere too. When that girl admitted on stream she abuses Darius by inserting herself into his friend groups and revealing personal stuff about him. She asked Sejin for help with her onlyfans account and ended up telling him about Darius’s financial history. Sejin then put Darius on blast about the stuff on destiny’s stream chat. Sejin also on the same stream said he wouldn’t stop when Darius asked him to, and she even admitted on the same stream she does have this exact pattern of abuse with Darius. Sejin simped his way into siding with her and shitting on Darius. I lost all respect and just finished that video so I wanted to rant since you mentioned him lmao.
@@heinz57channel39 pixie is reasoning backwards from her initial reaction to the take instead of building out a world view which then provides her take on the moral end
@@cdrksn while post hoc rationalization might not always be a bad thing more often than not it's used to justify a person's knee jerk reaction. Having a conclusion and working towards it is fine as long as you don't ignore contrary evidence along the way Pixie has the idea that "x" is bad and is willing to endlessly change and bend her position to get to that conclusion regardless of validity
I'll give this to destiny, when the youtube meta was more right wing he stood steadfast by his beliefs. In the current leftist meta he is still standing by his word. I really respect him for that
@@luciddoggo5094 He hasn't shifted much on broad political values, just some very fringe stuff. He has more changed his rhetoric and approach to conversations. That's why he won't call Nick a Nazi, because it is rhetoric suicide, and a waste of time for someone who doesn't want to pointlessly virtue signal
imo destiny does have takes that aren't accepted by the right or left, but he still has takes that people will generally accept because he is worried about social repercussions. And most people are, but back in 2015 or something the internet in general was more rabid about crazy leftist stuff and destiny was way more on that train imo. As people have reflected on their ridiculous 2014 woke takes he's also gotten the social opportunity to step back from it more as well.
That's what 90% of morality is built on. No really, I'm dead serious. That's how most people operate just in general. It's degenerate true, but that's just how humanity functions.
To be fair, that’s literally how it works in most people’s brains. We just build a structure of logical arguments on top of that which obfuscates how it essentially just comes down to feelings. She’s just… more transparent about it. Maybe because she’s young. She sounds young anyway.
Well that was pretty much the argument when the cheese pizza example was brought up. Objectively, nobody is harmed in making it from imagination, but it still *feels* wrong to say out loud that it's anything other than bad. I don't agree with her overall, and I think she's the type to play with the concept of a gray area to come to a Minority Report reality that she thinks will work in her favor, but I can see how she would start from there in the first place. But if she wants to go down that road, then I can almost garuntee that she would jump through hoops to justify certain music, movies, games, books, etc, that would actively promote those thoughts and get backed into a logical corner.
39:34 "Why should you be able to have explicitly like sexual thoughts about somebody that doesn't present themselves in that way?" Holy shit this is legit insane. What kind of authoritarian mindset is this?
Literally the same reason white people in 1950 used to justify being afraid of blacks, and not having to live among blacks. It's a 1 to 1 comparison. If these women keep using this logic, men will unironically start becoming a new oppressed class. And all because these D-E-R-A-N-G-E-D thought-police women "feel icky" by virtue of Men's simple existence.
@@feelthebern3783 if these women were alive in the 1950s they'd 100% be one of the people calling for the lynching of black men. The only reason they aren't today is because they live in a culture where racial hate-crimes are (thankfully) socially unacceptable.
those two thoughts should rarely inform someone’s action. it can lead to further investigation, thought and discussion for the possibility of action, but considering those feelings alone can be quite dangerous.
@@phoenixtempleeviltruth8074 we are literally talking thought crime... Something that moral philosophers have generally considered a non moral position..
I feel like Pxie must only run these through her head or is never challenged. They just have to keep wasting time explaining her analogies are not applicable instead of having an actual back and forth. Was hoping for a more thought provoking discussion. :(
I dont think thats insanity I think its normal for women particularly to feel this way. It clearly doesn't feel nice to know someone is fantasising about you and that feeling is guiding the rational to get her here. Its not insane, its wrong but its understandable why someone could feel this way.
@@RandomHer03 Yes it is insane. She didn't say it made her feel bad to know people fantasize about her. That would be understandable. She said you shouldn't fantasize about anyone without permission. It makes men feel bad when women reject them. Does that mean it's rational for me to say women shouldn't reject men? No it isn't. And she's a hypocrite anyway because there's no way she has a problem with fantasizing about men.
Sexual revolution '68: everybody is free to live sexually, society shouldnt oppress sexuality Sexual revolution '23: you are not allowed to have sexual thoughts, every ad you see will try to trigger this deep rooted emotion though and you're not allowed to criticize it
@@fensteroffen no bc women are free to be as sexual as they want while telling everyone else it isn't/they aren't sexual. Meanwhile if a guy ever wants to have sex w/ a woman he's a 'fuckboi' or 'creep' or "shallow" or something
legality=/=morality. Whether something is wrong or not is a moral question, whether it is a crime is a legal one. Even at best, law only somewhat reflects morality.
Emotional intuition can be really valuable and insightful and correct, if your emotional judgement is well calibrated by your rational side. The problem is having uncalibrated emotional intuition and running with it anyway
@@Mart-Bro If you emotional intuition is 'calibrated by rationality' then it's not an intuition, it's a well organized thought that you find yourself naturally agreeing with. The problem comes in the instances where your emotions are telling you one thing and rationality doesn't agree with it and you still pick to go with emotion. Which is most often the case for bad arguments.
@@Natsukashii-Records No I'm talking about checking your intuitions after the fact against rationality and evidence, so you can develop a good sense of when your intuitions are correct and when they're not. And through doing so improving your ability to intuit so that you can get to a place where you can reliably use your intuition and feeling to correctly judge without having to rely on rationality
The moral framework of literally ALL of the people involved in this discussion are fundamentally based on emotional intuition. Pixie isn't the odd one out here.
I think so too, but don't take it too far the other way. It's still bad to sell using someone else's image whether it's deep fake or fanart without adequate permissions.
"Why should you be able to have explicitly sexual thoughts about someone who doesn't present themselves in that way?" It's one thing for my priest to say in confession that I should police my thoughts because. But hearing it from the lefties is just wild.
If I confess to my priest, but then harbor degenerate sexual fantasies about said priest, is that moral or at least permissable? Even further, can you do a single thing to stop me?
I don't think the issue is whether you should have the ability to do so or not. Nobody is gonna force you to think whatever and I don't think anyone here is advocating for that. But telling someone that thinking a certain way is bad, would you call the thought policing? If I told a racist that thinking black people are literal monkeys is bad, would you call the thought policing?
I hate it whenever people have a strong belief over something but when they actually have to defend it they say something along the lines of “I think this is wrong but I have to think/read more about it”.
No shit, right? It's like no shit sherlock. That's the entire point, you should think about it before opening your mouth. These people are something else.
Funny because it's literally the post-hoc rationalisation that debates are intended to avoid. You know full well she's going to just post-hoc come up with a different reason why porn for men is bad and porn for women isn't.
Holly fuck that was bad, Pixie and Sejin are actually making me miss Mr. Girl and Lav, they're literally giving the most out there and extreme takes with little to no back-up just circling around with the same 3 sentences, biting crazier and crazier bullets and either not understanding or tackling what those bullets carry over to. Hats off to Pisco though for having the brain power to keep feeding them push-back even though it felt like he was talking to a wall with 3 "feel good" sentences graffitied on it. Also, thought policing about fantasies? Boys, we've literally gone to the farthest end political extremism and are just casually glazing over it cuz giggly voice delivery.
I have a question: If I look at AI generated porn, and it happens to be a 1 to 1 recreation of a real person _who I've never seen before or heard of..._ is that different, or the same as looking at REAL porn of that person that was made against their will? Does it even matter at that point?
@@Sue_Me_Too its only a recreation if its intended to be a copy of something and it cant be intended to be a recreation of something if its AI generated its just not how they are programmed to work.
@@stevepenn2582 The AI randomly generates faces and bodies and by coincidence it happens to make a 1 to 1 *likeness* of a real person; it wasn't intentional, but now if I ever see that person I will recognize them.
@@Cashout95 yea there are people that disagree on a lot of stuff but I can still understand where they are coming from, but pxie Is just in her own little world. It's not a fun debate to watch its just irritating
@@nathanwinhusen6017 If you believe that you have ownership over your likeness, then people shouldn't be allowed to use it without your permission. I don't think that was her argument (hard to tell) but that would be my argument if I was defending her position.
It is very important for mental health and wellbeing to accept thoughts without judgment, especially if they are intrusive. Therapy and mindfulness tend to do this. The belief that thoughts are "wrong" and "harmful" in themselves is the pathway to serious psychological problems, anxiety, depression, paranoia etc that can be harmful to both yourself and others.
Well that's true but there's more to it. One thought doesn't define you, but thinking it every day will. So while accepting intrusive thoughts and not judging yourself, you should still cultivate a healthy headspace and take bad thoughts seriously if they don't go away
@@resir9807 You cant change the thoughts so accepting them as "just thoughts" is essential to bracket them to be able to live. This is also an essential part of cognitive therapy. Mindfulness is a technique where you separate yourself from your thoughts and percieve them non-judging, relaxed and calm as you were a bystander to a river of thoughts separate from yourself. The idea that thoughts themselves are dangerous, should be taken seriously or that they will guide or force your actions is way more harmful since you will then never be able to handle them and it will cause mere thoughts to wreck your emotions.
@@JemyM My man I've been practicing meditation for about 5 years now, I know exactly what you mean. You can't stop a thought that is occupying your consciousness in the present, that's almost trivially true. The idea is that if you continue having, say, rape thoughts, then you assess what contributes to these thoughts, then change your life in some way so as to not have them anymore. All of this can be done without any self judgement. If you're familiar with buddhist thought, then you know that "acceptance" does not imply that something should not be changed, it just means finding the peace to live with what is. Once you have found that peace, you can assess you don't want to live with it anymore ALTHOUGH you are at peace with it, and bring about change
@@resir9807 You say that you can assess what contribute to the thoughts, and "change your life so you do not have them anymore". That is what I think is not possible or necessary in many cases. For example I do not think you can change pedophilia, necrophilia, coprophilia or rape fantasies, but you can try to interpret them as "just thoughts" and let them pass. Personality disorders such as Borderline and Sociopathy often requires you to train yourself to second guess your own thought patterns. You will then still have the same thoughts for the rest of your life, but you learn to interpret them differently. There is also a benefit of learning to not take your thoughts seriously rather than process all of them since the former is a faster catch-all skill to learn.
@@JemyM I agree some thought patterns can't simply be changed, but dude, the idea that this applies to rape fantasies, pedophilia etc is laughable. Heck it even applies to suicidal ideation. Literature containing suicide always leads to a huge increase in suicides, that's how much people's thoughts are externally influenced. So once again, having a rape fantasy in the moment doesn't mean you're a bad human being, but if you keep having them on a daily basis, you should absolutely try to change that. And I'm not saying will the thought out of existence, that's not possible, I'm saying implement real life changes. Like, make more friends, go to a psychologist, etc, this will all make those thoughts come less. This is really not a controversial take
Pixie’s takes are way too terrible for her to be this confident. “There’s a difference between making it as close to a physical reality as you possibly can” What? It’s like she comes up with stuff she thinks just sounds good
It's thoughts she has that she can't come up with with counterpoints for herself, so she thinks it's watertight, but then she verbalized it and someone else immediately gave a counterpoint.
@@talkingtakotaco8611 She never commits and just takes the position that supports the acceptable narrative then tries, unsuccessfully, to intellectualize into those positions. It’s the typical drivel and belligerence we see from the left.
@@haruhirogrimgar6047 it’s not a good example because there is no intent to take their picture irl. Deepfakes are superimposed faces on pornstar bodies. Intent is way different. Situation is way different. You can’t compare photoshop to taking a picture irl 😂
My stance on deepfakes: There's nothing wrong with making or even selling deepfakes, so long as they're distributed along with the knowledge that they're deepfakes. If they're being presented as genuine, that's when there should be issues. Outside of that it's basically the same as drawing someone.
Yeah, no. Firstly distributing them is probably infringing on copyright in regards to the original porn underneath it But it's also you using the identity of someone else in a way they didn't consent to publicly.
@@sammykent5752 Your argument is invalid. I can photoshop an image of you and distribute it to whoever I want. That’s my intellectual property since it was altered. Deep fakes are altered images so the same principle applies. As long as they arent being represented as real they can be distributed (but not necessarily sold) to anyone we wish.
@@MaskOfCinder if you Photoshop an image of me, it's not your intellectual property, it's still an image of me and falls under copyright of either me or the person who take the original image. And depending on what you do with the image then, I have every right to sue you. You do not have the right to use my likeness however you want. And the same goes for fanart as well, honestly, but that depends on how good the fanart is.
If you take anything from this, remember that fantasies aren't bad until there's intention, but only if the intention is the intention to draw a titty, but only if the intention to draw a titty also is paired with the intention to think of someone who is real. These are the real issues people.
I understand exactly what Sejun (excuse if misspelled) is saying; in the scientific community if you borrow even a single concept from someone you didn't discover on your own, you credit that source. If you sample a song or beat from someone else in your music, it doesn't matter how little or large their contribution was, you credit them. I see where the disconnect is, it's asking us to change our mindsets, not actions, so naturally any action taken to forward this idea other than word of mouth will seem like too great of a step taken.
This deepfake stuff really presents a lot of odd questions. Basically on the far end of the arguments you're gonna have to argue me out of the position that I can't masturbate to anyone I want to that I can imagine, and you're never gonna win that one. My thoughts are the final frontier of my own personal privacy, and I will never cede them to anyone else, nor should anyone else. As the guest said, we don't need consent to think about people, and there's only extreme dystopia that lies in that direction. That said, I am definitely willing to listen to the arguments against my position. This is new technology, and we definitely haven't thought this through as a society.
@@skullingtonfx4441 Criticize me all you want. Good luck getting me to care about your opinion. Fair enough, or would you care to elaborate on how deeply you'd police everyone's thoughts?
@Zenweaponry I don't care about thoughts please re-read what I said. Then re-read again. After you speak those thoughts, it's out of your hands! Go to work and say you fantasize about lighting it up like the gun range. See how fast you're fired lol
Depending on where you are from, brosex, lots of grape juice, and dolly-abuse. By the way, 'porn' existed since ancient times in some form or another. Though people back then had less of a theory of mind and more of 'every hole is a goal' mentality.
It's all a matter of whether or not it's public. That's the only point of contention in this issue, in my opinion. It's like having a fantasy about somebody in your head. If they don't know then it won't really matter. But as soon as you choose to inform them and you put that image in their head as well, you have no control over how they perceive it and that can lead to serious problems.
I agree. The deep fake is directly analogous to drawing a picture, there's nothing wrong with _doing it,_ but once you start showing it to people and/or explaining it to them then it starts getting weird.
@@Sue_Me_Too I disagree. It's not like drawing a picture because the drawing isn't trying to make it pass as real. I don't know why so many people have trouble understanding this. People who see a deepfake can't know it's a deepfake unless they made it or searched it. They can believe it's real. That's the entire issue. A drawing never does this. No one looks at a drawing of Destiny beating up Melina and thinks: "I can't believe Destiny actually hit Melina... what a monster".
@@vulcanh254 I separated *making it* from _showing it to people_ on purpose. If the person who made it *is the only one who sees it* _then it's the same as a drawing._ *If you're passing off deep fakes as real* _then it doesn't matter if you're the one who made them or not._
@@Sue_Me_Too If you're creating those deepfakes using an AI app or web service, you are sharing it. Everything is stored and collected. Also the entire controversy is deepfakes that the public can look up. It's obviously not an issue if other people can't see it. That's a given. But the topic isn't about things no one can see.
@@Rex13013 what i mean is that with deepfake, your perverted thought is now manifesting irl, with actual evidence, which make it a rare instance where thought police can be possible. Im not supporting it, just say that its possible.
Pxie has a feeling, and then attempts to retroactively fit her arguments to that feeling instead of exploring that feeling and seeing if it comes from an irrational basis, this is a large roadblock in the way she thinks currently
The twin argument is actual brainrot. People don't lose the rights over their own bodies just because they have famous siblings. The fact that they're discussing this for more than 5 seconds is baffling to me.
It’s sad that everyone in this video is having such a hard time figuring how why this stuff is bad. I’m not calling them stupid, our society just really sucks at teaching people how we should treat others.
@@3rdHalf1 Puberty has literally nothing to do with sexual thoughts in adult years, or how genetic evolution has had a part in the psychology of men or women, and using a strawman argument isn't a good way to debate either. You may want to do more research on basic psychology, social norms, evolution, and debate acumen.
@@HulkTheSurgeon Using “but muh biology” as argument for ethics, is as lazy as using straw-man argument. For us, social animals with ability to exchange ideas with language, ethics is guiding or evolution as much as biology.
This trend is definitely going in the direction of "If you don't want deepfakes made then don't post pictures/videos of yourself on the internet" and society will probably benefit from this tbh.
These people think it's wrong if your create-a-sim looks too much like a girl you like. The fact that these questions are being asked without shame in a public setting is absurd to me. These people have rediscovered puritanism on the left and are asking questions about daydreaming about a girl crossing a line. This is such an absurd conversation
I didn't hear them say that. Pretty sure their contention is with using real peoples faces in porn without their consent. Sounds like a reasonable position to me.
@Nedak2003 my Sims thing was a joke but one person contested that looking at girls in bikinis was morally wrong because it was too intimate.... listen to the whole video Way crazier claims are made than the deep fake porn.
Pxie: "...We view sexual things as intimate and private and we believe that people should have some level of privacy and expectation of privacy in their lives!" (1:53:53) Pxie: People don't have a right to private sexual fantasies! (rest of the video) 😵
39:42 Enjoying the awkward pause after this where all the thought agents see themselves in the mirror with silent horror. Followed by the attempt to ignore or discard that realization with "We're getting off track". lol
I would have hammered down on "Why does it become wrong if other people find out?". Then I would answer it myself with "Because as a society, we find it morally wrong." It would be like saying stealing isnt morally wrong so long as no one realizes the item was stollen.
No because if someone stole something even if they don't realise it they would still be deprived of the stolen things. This is not the case with the deep fakes. They didn't actually share their naked pictures without knowing it.
The issue with the whole conversation on thoughts informing actions, is that single thoughts people like to point to as "problematic" don't exist in a vacuum where they can influence one specific behavior with impunity. The granular nature of beliefs and opinions existing in a wider mental eco-system or nexus makes it extremely hard to map out and insert them into equations of behavior. For example, if you want to posit that imagining, or artistically simulating, sex with a person can amalgamate into sexually predatory behavior, we have to presume that the mental disposition of the person engaging with this behavior is one of increased desire to realize that fantasy while also exhibiting a reduced appreciation for the bodily autonomy of the subject of the fantasy. This is tenuous and difficult to demonstrate because there's a near infinite amount of separate but connected beliefs and attitudes that could modulate that process even if we accept it as possible. For example, I might strongly believe that actual sex should only be between consenting adults and have a mind conditioned into compartmentalizing and distinguishing fantasy/fiction from reality by a continued exposure to the harsh distinction between what I wish were the case and what actual is the case in my day to day life. I might fantasize with impunity about sex with a girl who'd never have me in reality, but both recognize that and respect her boundaries as a person outside of my mind - the ability to do being reinforced by my engagement with everything from all the other exercises of fantasies I engage with but don't pursue or expect in reality(like being able to use magic or riding giant mechs), or by engagement with philosophy etc that advocates for ethical behaviors and views as far as interacting with real people is concerned. The idea that consuming porn, deep-fakes or not, magically deteriorates your appreciation for women's autonomy and ability to treat them with respect as individuals without considering this seems seems as reductive as it is asinine. I'm sure there are dog-shit studies out there that "demonstrate" correlation between bad attitudes and behavior by habitual consumers of porn, but ultimately it all kinda falls apart when you realize that there's no way to control for all the lateral factors involving the participants in said studies - such as what attitudes and behaviors they exhibited before comsuming the porn, or what social lives they lead concurrently to consuming the porn, etc. Like, consider some random and shitty American dude-bro- Do people really believe his views on women are a reflection of his porn consumption, and not all the other shitty cultural influences that permeates his life? Saying this as a pretty progressive guy in his mid 30s who's consumed porn regularly since he was 13 or so and hasn't experienced any of the issues that porn supposedly manifactures and who doesn't have a habit of engaging in predation on women =P
To think, this entire drama spawned because a dude wasn't smart enough to use incognito mode/bookmarks or a cheap laptop for porn instead of the machine he streams to thousands on. Up your browser game fellas, incentivize learning how to cover your tracks better, lest your favorite morally questionable porn genre gets scrutinized and dog-piled on next.
Pixie missed the obvious, very clear argument. If you take a picture of someone naked they did not consent to, the method of taking said picture is irellevant. Whether it is a digital or analogue camera doesn't really matter right. It is the fact that you are obtaining sexual material depicting said person against their will, not the technology, that is the issue at hand. So with deepfakes, what you are doing is using technology to create sexual material depicting the person that they did not consent to being made. Which is an inherent violation of their bodily autonomy. The technology used to create the image isn't the problem, the problem is the image was made.
I figured out why Pixie drives me nuts. She doesn't base any of her claims on an Axiom it is all just intuition dumb. And is willing to reach for anything that can make her point sound ok.
They want to implement the Minority Report, but only for people who fantasize about them. Because to a rich female streamer this is the biggest form of harm/oppression they can experience: someone else masturbating to them without their knowledge. So we must invade their houses, their brains and their computers to stop this epidemic. It's funny how they lie about caring about cOnSeNt, when they clearly don't.
One question I have for pixie is, is it morally wrong to take a picture of someone, make an AI 3D modell of that person and creating a game where you kill that person over and over again? As creepy as that might sound, it is not morally wrong in my opinion and the exact same thing as the AI porn. edit: of course this is a private game
I'm 30 minutes in and i want to remind anyone reading this that you shouldn't feel ashamed of your thoughts, ever. Your brain gets great stimulation from fantasizing, it's perfectly natural. Your brain is going to throw weird stuff in there, it's OK to enjoy it. Have a great day everyone and don't be too hard on yourself
I can literally trace parallels between everything she's saying and every anti-minority policy enacted in the US during the last 100 years. The arguments are verbatum the same. "I feel icky, this is degeneracy, this is sexual anarchy, those blacks in the corner look awfully suspicious to me so I must arrest them, etc" - it's every argument that's been used against gay marriage, trans people, black people, etc. Funny to see how their alleged """progressivism""" ends at WOMEN's issues, and with the oppression of Men.
I think the main counterargument to pixie, is that she believes that the action of making a deepfake is wrong because it is made for a certain visualization/thought about someone else, but she earlier agreed that we don't censor peoples thoughts or view them as immoral, so therefore you can't say the action of making a deepfake is bad because the "bad" is still fully based in thought, and she agrees that thoughts are neutral
She said we don't censor people's thoughts, because we CAN'T. She never said we don't view them as immoral. Also the actual steps of making a thing is different than having a thought. That was the crux of her point.
The comfort with which these people were discussing potential punishments for thought crimes was disturbing. Utterly ignorant of how that has been used in the past and present to police behavior that governments, largely authoritarian ones, find "wrong." If you're going to push us all down this slippery slope, I'm going to need more justification than what was given.
As an identical twin fts. I own my image just like my brother owns his. Neither of us would owe each other anything for using our own images. I’m not going to try and hold my brother down and take something he earned using his likeness just like I wouldn’t want him to do to me.
*sings a song by August Heinrich Hoffmann von Fallersleben* I know a very obscure name but it's a song about freedom of thought "die Gedanken sind frei" Maybe look for an english translation because it's one of my favorite old german songs.
Pixie isn't against fantasies; she's just against the type of fantasies she doesn't engage in
Yep. Talks about entitlement while trying to police peoples thoughts.
@@onesquirrel2713 its a pretty bigoted way of thinking just holding everybodys sexual desires to standards you hold yourself too
That's probably why she is less concerned about girls/women writing fanfics. As men are more visually stimulated and women are more into written pornography
@@JindexTheVillain exactly.
fanfic = society
fanart = society, example realistic drawings (created by women) of male Supernatural characters engaging in acts
Anything created by males = morally wrong
Can someone deepfake Pxie making a good argument, or would AI refuse to make up something that fantastical?
As a computer science major, I can assure you technology isn't that far advanced
Doesn't AI need you to give it examples before it can do it? If so, no, we genuinely couldn't.
@@jamiehayes7353 you could use AI to copy her voice and mannerisms, then write it a proper script to read.
She made multiple good arguments
We could do it, but there's a paradoxical problem in doing so. Even if we get the deepfake to perfectly resemble her likeness, making a good argument would immediately give away it's inauthenticity. We can make a thing that looks like her say things that are *correct*, but the moment we do so, it becomes someone else entirely.
You should be able to imagine whatever you like within your own head. While it’s not close to reality, I like to think of Destiny as a man’s name sometimes.
Seek help.
It's not but ok ☺️
You have a vivid imagination.
Based
King 👑 🫡🤝🫡
she's just vibes, no argument, just making it up as she goes
I'mma just throw it out there I hate this person with my core. The way she speaks, what she speaks about. She acts like Hermione Granger when she lacks smarts.
always been this argument about her. Even if she does take a moment to think it through, it's likely thinking of ways to rationalize things she already thinks is true due to an emotional response to the initial topic
Its not even that its a feelings argument its that she cant convey her position because her usage of language is horrendous. She's using words that don't mean what she's trying to express and is arguing positions that she hasn't fully thought through. She's not "making it up as she goes" she's figuring it out in real time, they seem similar but they're not the same.
Look, we can be harsh on Pxie, but can we agree that the Seijin guy is equally as much of a babbling moron?
@Emanuel BS. You can think about it for 10 minutes before hopping in and running your mouth.
If we ever become telepathic, we're finished as a species. I used to think that it's because we would unconsciously judge someone's thoughts regardless of whether we should or not, but now I see there's a genuine cohort of people who actually believe certain thoughts are unacceptable, regardless of action. Unhinged.
I mean this is super dumb but it’s not anything new is it? Back in the day if you didn’t believe the right things or in the right god or even the same god but you worshipped in a slightly different way, you were a bad harmful person and you’d burn in hell. This is just a secular version of that.
"Now?" This has always been the case.
@@SuperSecretAgentNein and the secular version of it is not new either. When Stalin exiled and later assassinated Trotsky he went so far as to even photoshop him out of historical photographs, to even speak fondly of him was the kind of offense that could get you sent to a gulag or worse.
Philip K Dick was a prophet.
Good rule of thumb: When you start advocating for thought policing, it's time to u turn
You'd think that would be common sense :^)
@@Canoweissmon ikr?
"People shouldn't be allowed to jack off because of the social contract."
How is it possible for people to have such bad takes? Its mind blowing.
And destiny would say: "she is smart" because having good takes and being smart is not correlated or some shit kinda like when he was hammering the point about lav being super smart even though every take she had was absolutely horrid. I think if you're having bad takes 99% of the time it should count for something.
where is my signature on this "social contract"?
@@BunnyAce this is a quote from sejin lol. so he'd probably say "he is smart" if anything
If nobody had sexual fantasies about anyone who doesn't want it, Pokimane, QTcinderella, Valkyrae and the rest of those streamers wouldn't be millionaire streamers.
@@funicon3689 it’s written in cum lol
Pxie equating "masturbating to someone" to "you want to get as close as possible to r4p1ng that person without actually doing it", has got to be one of the most psychotic takes I've ever heard in my entire life. I've never seen someone this detached from reality. If these are the people who're going to regulate p8rn, relationships and interactions between men and women, the world is completely ffffffffff ked.
Pixie has typical socially aware college girl takes her and Erin are just just a representatives of that school of thought In Destiny’s world. You’d be surprised how many young women think the same way
I mean if you replace the "r4p1" with just sleeping with them, she's correct
I actually thought it was an interesting case to debate over. See, technology as it stands now only allows for the overlay of (usually public) images on a porn video. Giving users a 'similar' visual to what it would be like to have sex with said streamer. So, in this case, technology doesn't really allow for deepfakes to be truly intrusive. But let's say the technology doesn't stop there. And you end up with something similar to a BD. (BrainDance-Cyberpunk) At that point, you would be creating a moment in your brain where everything truly went down. The orgasm, the sweat, everything would feel real. Would that constitute as 🍇? If the person was not interested in pursuing a romantic relationship with you but you programmed a BD to do so, wouldn't that be 🍇? Technically, nothing ever happened in a physical sense. But emotionally, or I guess chemically, it would have all felt real to said user. And if considering the preface of 'streamer doesn't want sexual stuff done', but you made a BrainDance where she did commit sexual acts. That would have been done against her will. 🤔 I think?lol
TL;DR Technology today doesn't allow Deepfakes count as 🍇 but one day it might? 😆 idk I thought it was a genuinely interesting topic.
@@augustineacevedo37 I'd agree with you if we were anywhere close to that tech. but these takes she's giving are clearly something she didn't even think about for 5mins, this is some thought police shit. what about celebrity porn where's the outrage? While I think that creating and distributing deepfakes is wrong for obvious reasons, this is just fake outrage to get views, I'm sure none of these people think it's actually as bad as it is to jerk off in their heads. I mean just look at these fuckers justify thought policing these are the kind of people that want animal farm irl.
edit: sorry my point was that these people have entirely unproductive conversations on points that they don't actually believe; it's ridiculous.
@@augustineacevedo37 Yeah, it is interesting.
"Do you think you have a right to the perception of yourself in other people's minds?"
"Not 100%!"
lol
control freaks on their grind
only with your own actions
@Emanuel it's different if somebody keeps falsely calling you a rapist in public, you can push against that and try to rectify the PUBLIC perception of yourself, but you can't force that specific person to not think you're a rapist in their mind.
Edit: This why you can sue somebody for slander or whatever, but you can't sue somebody for the thoughts they have and keep in their head.
@Emanuel Well in that scenario someone is actively trying to make a very harsh claim that they can't possibly know about someone seem true without evidence. It's also a crime. So yeah, it'd be fine to push back on that.
@Emanuel A more correct comparison would be "a woman writing a story where you rape someone, but she's not saying *you actually did it."*
It should be the same regardless of the genders or the medium, if I draw a picture of "what I think you look like naked" then there's no harm to you....
....HOWEVER, the act of sharing the thought/artwork with other people adds a separate element from whether it's okay in/of itself.
There is something deliciously hypocritical about Sejin being so against the use of other people's images while using Tom from MySpace's profile picture.
Something something social contract
Especially cause his morals are so loose elsewhere too. When that girl admitted on stream she abuses Darius by inserting herself into his friend groups and revealing personal stuff about him. She asked Sejin for help with her onlyfans account and ended up telling him about Darius’s financial history. Sejin then put Darius on blast about the stuff on destiny’s stream chat. Sejin also on the same stream said he wouldn’t stop when Darius asked him to, and she even admitted on the same stream she does have this exact pattern of abuse with Darius. Sejin simped his way into siding with her and shitting on Darius. I lost all respect and just finished that video so I wanted to rant since you mentioned him lmao.
@@Eli1jhosiah Haha, fair enough
this is a perfect example of post hoc rationalization
. . .? One must explain
@@heinz57channel39 pixie is reasoning backwards from her initial reaction to the take instead of building out a world view which then provides her take on the moral end
@@nathankoop5033 That‘s just one way to achieve reflective equilibrium in ethical thinking and it’s totally normal.
Ahh I see 😂
@@cdrksn while post hoc rationalization might not always be a bad thing more often than not it's used to justify a person's knee jerk reaction.
Having a conclusion and working towards it is fine as long as you don't ignore contrary evidence along the way
Pixie has the idea that "x" is bad and is willing to endlessly change and bend her position to get to that conclusion regardless of validity
Imagine wanting to police people's thoughts. We're reaching levels of entitlement previously unheard of.
they have become they puritanical Catholics of the 16th century, literally saying its imorral to lust over people
Only chad can thank about me naked
I'll give this to destiny, when the youtube meta was more right wing he stood steadfast by his beliefs. In the current leftist meta he is still standing by his word. I really respect him for that
hmmm i think this is tricky a little
@@ravenecho2410 elaborate
I mean he has shifted more right... I really doubt that 2017 destiny would refuse to call nick fuentes a nazi
@@luciddoggo5094 He hasn't shifted much on broad political values, just some very fringe stuff. He has more changed his rhetoric and approach to conversations. That's why he won't call Nick a Nazi, because it is rhetoric suicide, and a waste of time for someone who doesn't want to pointlessly virtue signal
imo destiny does have takes that aren't accepted by the right or left, but he still has takes that people will generally accept because he is worried about social repercussions. And most people are, but back in 2015 or something the internet in general was more rabid about crazy leftist stuff and destiny was way more on that train imo. As people have reflected on their ridiculous 2014 woke takes he's also gotten the social opportunity to step back from it more as well.
PIXIE.. GIRL.. YOU GOTTA STOP WITH THE "IT FEELS ICKY THEREFORE ITS IMMORAL" SHIT
That's what 90% of morality is built on.
No really, I'm dead serious. That's how most people operate just in general. It's degenerate true, but that's just how humanity functions.
To be fair, that’s literally how it works in most people’s brains. We just build a structure of logical arguments on top of that which obfuscates how it essentially just comes down to feelings. She’s just… more transparent about it. Maybe because she’s young. She sounds young anyway.
@@SuperSecretAgentNein and that's why we need to teach basic common sense and logic in school.
Well that was pretty much the argument when the cheese pizza example was brought up. Objectively, nobody is harmed in making it from imagination, but it still *feels* wrong to say out loud that it's anything other than bad.
I don't agree with her overall, and I think she's the type to play with the concept of a gray area to come to a Minority Report reality that she thinks will work in her favor, but I can see how she would start from there in the first place.
But if she wants to go down that road, then I can almost garuntee that she would jump through hoops to justify certain music, movies, games, books, etc, that would actively promote those thoughts and get backed into a logical corner.
There's something scary about people unironically considering thought policing.
I find that a whole lot scarier than the deep fakes.
@@InDeathWeLove no point in being scared if the people pushing it are bimbos. It’ll go down as well as the wizard game boycotts
Not as scary as the bullet that's gonna pass through their eyes the second they actually try to do something about people's thoughts......
Deeply frightening.
39:34 "Why should you be able to have explicitly like sexual thoughts about somebody that doesn't present themselves in that way?"
Holy shit this is legit insane. What kind of authoritarian mindset is this?
This level of thought policing is by far the scarier thing to me than the deep fakes.
Logic and reason flying right out the window to justify someone feelings of "it's weird" and "icky"
Literally the same reason white people in 1950 used to justify being afraid of blacks, and not having to live among blacks. It's a 1 to 1 comparison. If these women keep using this logic, men will unironically start becoming a new oppressed class. And all because these D-E-R-A-N-G-E-D thought-police women "feel icky" by virtue of Men's simple existence.
@@feelthebern3783 if these women were alive in the 1950s they'd 100% be one of the people calling for the lynching of black men. The only reason they aren't today is because they live in a culture where racial hate-crimes are (thankfully) socially unacceptable.
those two thoughts should rarely inform someone’s action. it can lead to further investigation, thought and discussion for the possibility of action, but considering those feelings alone can be quite dangerous.
@@phoenixtempleeviltruth8074 considering thoughts can never be immoral... Only actions can be immoral...
@@phoenixtempleeviltruth8074 we are literally talking thought crime... Something that moral philosophers have generally considered a non moral position..
Pxie first in line to sign up for the Thought Police Academy.
Lol
I love hearing Sejin talk about morality after what he did with Darius, what a loser.
Um excuse me sir, but you’re committing a level 4 tu quoque fallacy.🤓
@@Sp00nz4hire Do whut now?
What's the story here?
@@Awesomeguy614 Sejin told Darius that his childhood hero (obamna) was visiting for christmas but it was actually fanatiq
I feel like Pxie must only run these through her head or is never challenged. They just have to keep wasting time explaining her analogies are not applicable instead of having an actual back and forth. Was hoping for a more thought provoking discussion. :(
"never challenged" That's all women if you hadn't noticed :^)
@@Canoweissmon bro you’re an incel. You keep commenting on others adding nothing but “that’s all women” with a vague complaint lmao.
@@Eli1jhosiah k
that is how it is if you are closed in your internet echo chamber all the time
Pixie is definitely simped for, somehow. I don't care how blonde, blue, eyed, nazi attractive you are, your personality can immediately turn me off.
It's amazing how sejin manages to have the worst take on everything
Dude Sejin is like the shitty side character that you audibly sigh at every time he walks on screen. Absolute brain rot from that guy.
Smooth giga soy brain 😭
11:01-11:29 She is unironically saying you need permission to fantasize about someone. Pxie is actually insane.
I dont think thats insanity I think its normal for women particularly to feel this way. It clearly doesn't feel nice to know someone is fantasising about you and that feeling is guiding the rational to get her here.
Its not insane, its wrong but its understandable why someone could feel this way.
@@RandomHer03 Yes it is insane. She didn't say it made her feel bad to know people fantasize about her. That would be understandable. She said you shouldn't fantasize about anyone without permission. It makes men feel bad when women reject them. Does that mean it's rational for me to say women shouldn't reject men? No it isn't. And she's a hypocrite anyway because there's no way she has a problem with fantasizing about men.
Sexual revolution '68: everybody is free to live sexually, society shouldnt oppress sexuality
Sexual revolution '23: you are not allowed to have sexual thoughts, every ad you see will try to trigger this deep rooted emotion though and you're not allowed to criticize it
And the pendulum swings once again.
@@TheMarkSasuke64 we're one step from "you shouldnt dress in a way which evokes sexual thoughts" and we're back at the start
@@fensteroffen no bc women are free to be as sexual as they want while telling everyone else it isn't/they aren't sexual.
Meanwhile if a guy ever wants to have sex w/ a woman he's a 'fuckboi' or 'creep' or "shallow" or something
@@sub-harmonik i mean guys can start a stream and strip on cam as much as women. The problem is not as simple as that.
Wokeness and feminism have done more for sexual repression than over 50 years of holy roller bullshit could ever dream of accomplishing
Didn't Pxie advocate for pirating videogames?
Now she's arguing thought crime is morally wrong?
So actual crime is okay but imaginary crime isn't?
Reminder that Piracy doesn't guarantee lost profit 🙂
@@frostpyr0 Neither does deepfaking someone's face onto a pornstar.
legality=/=morality. Whether something is wrong or not is a moral question, whether it is a crime is a legal one. Even at best, law only somewhat reflects morality.
@@Zenweaponry true!
@Charles Henderson Both are illegal, one is morally justifiable
Rule 34 is sitting in the corner laughing at this convo.
Exactly, a deep fake is basically just a really good drawing...
All of these arguments are based on emotional intuition
Emotional intuition can be really valuable and insightful and correct, if your emotional judgement is well calibrated by your rational side.
The problem is having uncalibrated emotional intuition and running with it anyway
@@Mart-Bro If you emotional intuition is 'calibrated by rationality' then it's not an intuition, it's a well organized thought that you find yourself naturally agreeing with. The problem comes in the instances where your emotions are telling you one thing and rationality doesn't agree with it and you still pick to go with emotion. Which is most often the case for bad arguments.
@@Natsukashii-Records No I'm talking about checking your intuitions after the fact against rationality and evidence, so you can develop a good sense of when your intuitions are correct and when they're not. And through doing so improving your ability to intuit so that you can get to a place where you can reliably use your intuition and feeling to correctly judge without having to rely on rationality
The moral framework of literally ALL of the people involved in this discussion are fundamentally based on emotional intuition. Pixie isn't the odd one out here.
@@elite7329 No Destiny definitely bases his moral positions primarily on logical analysis
This single handedly convinced me that deepfakes aren’t bad lol 😂
I think so too, but don't take it too far the other way. It's still bad to sell using someone else's image whether it's deep fake or fanart without adequate permissions.
"Why should you be able to have explicitly sexual thoughts about someone who doesn't present themselves in that way?"
It's one thing for my priest to say in confession that I should police my thoughts because. But hearing it from the lefties is just wild.
Religious fundamentalists and progressive leftists have always been two sides of same coin ( what it comes to a certain amount of tactics ).
@@25taylorkw They're both moral authoritarians. Ultimately what they want is control over others, and the ultimate control is over someone's thoughts.
If I confess to my priest, but then harbor degenerate sexual fantasies about said priest, is that moral or at least permissable? Even further, can you do a single thing to stop me?
@@Zenweaponry I think in that case we'd all quietly agree that you're probably going to Hell.... no offense
I don't think the issue is whether you should have the ability to do so or not. Nobody is gonna force you to think whatever and I don't think anyone here is advocating for that. But telling someone that thinking a certain way is bad, would you call the thought policing? If I told a racist that thinking black people are literal monkeys is bad, would you call the thought policing?
Pixie saying "oh yeah" before every sentence is very tilting to me for some reason
Skill issue
"or whatever"
And nervously chuckling every 5 minutes
pixie:
war is peace
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength
Deep, can't wait for Destiny to insist that she is in fact really smart just like Lav
She's a big Brother agent
I hate it whenever people have a strong belief over something but when they actually have to defend it they say something along the lines of “I think this is wrong but I have to think/read more about it”.
No shit, right? It's like no shit sherlock. That's the entire point, you should think about it before opening your mouth. These people are something else.
Funny because it's literally the post-hoc rationalisation that debates are intended to avoid. You know full well she's going to just post-hoc come up with a different reason why porn for men is bad and porn for women isn't.
Holly fuck that was bad, Pixie and Sejin are actually making me miss Mr. Girl and Lav, they're literally giving the most out there and extreme takes with little to no back-up just circling around with the same 3 sentences, biting crazier and crazier bullets and either not understanding or tackling what those bullets carry over to. Hats off to Pisco though for having the brain power to keep feeding them push-back even though it felt like he was talking to a wall with 3 "feel good" sentences graffitied on it. Also, thought policing about fantasies? Boys, we've literally gone to the farthest end political extremism and are just casually glazing over it cuz giggly voice delivery.
I have a question: If I look at AI generated porn, and it happens to be a 1 to 1 recreation of a real person _who I've never seen before or heard of..._ is that different, or the same as looking at REAL porn of that person that was made against their will? Does it even matter at that point?
Take a chill pill, holy shit.
@@Sue_Me_Too its only a recreation if its intended to be a copy of something and it cant be intended to be a recreation of something if its AI generated its just not how they are programmed to work.
@@stevepenn2582 The AI randomly generates faces and bodies and by coincidence it happens to make a 1 to 1 *likeness* of a real person; it wasn't intentional, but now if I ever see that person I will recognize them.
@@stevepenn2582 Alternatively: the AI randomly generates faces and bodies and by coincidence it looks exactly like somebody I know?
a strange man once said 'I can fantasise about whatever I want'
Was that George Carlin?
God why was Pixie let back into this orbit... The only thing worse then her takes is her talking
I like that destiny has someone that he disagrees with
@@amifunnymynameisbob It would be cool if the one disagreeing wasn’t a bot. She’s worse than sneako at times.
@@Cashout95 yea there are people that disagree on a lot of stuff but I can still understand where they are coming from, but pxie Is just in her own little world. It's not a fun debate to watch its just irritating
Thought crime 15
burger king foot lettuce
thought crime 16
deepfake of a streamer
@@nathanwinhusen6017 If you believe that you have ownership over your likeness, then people shouldn't be allowed to use it without your permission.
I don't think that was her argument (hard to tell) but that would be my argument if I was defending her position.
It's a Pxie conversation, it's naturally boring, annoying, and it also kills brain cells.
Her voice and tempo is super fucking annoying. It sounds like she's constantly on the verge of crying.
"I can fantasies about whatever I want"
You cant stop what happens in my heeeeeead..... mannn he better not start in on this one lol
🙏 🏆
It is very important for mental health and wellbeing to accept thoughts without judgment, especially if they are intrusive. Therapy and mindfulness tend to do this. The belief that thoughts are "wrong" and "harmful" in themselves is the pathway to serious psychological problems, anxiety, depression, paranoia etc that can be harmful to both yourself and others.
Well that's true but there's more to it. One thought doesn't define you, but thinking it every day will. So while accepting intrusive thoughts and not judging yourself, you should still cultivate a healthy headspace and take bad thoughts seriously if they don't go away
@@resir9807 You cant change the thoughts so accepting them as "just thoughts" is essential to bracket them to be able to live. This is also an essential part of cognitive therapy. Mindfulness is a technique where you separate yourself from your thoughts and percieve them non-judging, relaxed and calm as you were a bystander to a river of thoughts separate from yourself. The idea that thoughts themselves are dangerous, should be taken seriously or that they will guide or force your actions is way more harmful since you will then never be able to handle them and it will cause mere thoughts to wreck your emotions.
@@JemyM My man I've been practicing meditation for about 5 years now, I know exactly what you mean. You can't stop a thought that is occupying your consciousness in the present, that's almost trivially true. The idea is that if you continue having, say, rape thoughts, then you assess what contributes to these thoughts, then change your life in some way so as to not have them anymore. All of this can be done without any self judgement. If you're familiar with buddhist thought, then you know that "acceptance" does not imply that something should not be changed, it just means finding the peace to live with what is. Once you have found that peace, you can assess you don't want to live with it anymore ALTHOUGH you are at peace with it, and bring about change
@@resir9807 You say that you can assess what contribute to the thoughts, and "change your life so you do not have them anymore". That is what I think is not possible or necessary in many cases. For example I do not think you can change pedophilia, necrophilia, coprophilia or rape fantasies, but you can try to interpret them as "just thoughts" and let them pass. Personality disorders such as Borderline and Sociopathy often requires you to train yourself to second guess your own thought patterns. You will then still have the same thoughts for the rest of your life, but you learn to interpret them differently. There is also a benefit of learning to not take your thoughts seriously rather than process all of them since the former is a faster catch-all skill to learn.
@@JemyM I agree some thought patterns can't simply be changed, but dude, the idea that this applies to rape fantasies, pedophilia etc is laughable. Heck it even applies to suicidal ideation. Literature containing suicide always leads to a huge increase in suicides, that's how much people's thoughts are externally influenced. So once again, having a rape fantasy in the moment doesn't mean you're a bad human being, but if you keep having them on a daily basis, you should absolutely try to change that. And I'm not saying will the thought out of existence, that's not possible, I'm saying implement real life changes. Like, make more friends, go to a psychologist, etc, this will all make those thoughts come less. This is really not a controversial take
God I’ve never unironically wished mrgirl was present for a conversation more in my life lmao
Alright, the idea of trying to police people's thoughts is absolutely absurd
Pixie’s takes are way too terrible for her to be this confident. “There’s a difference between making it as close to a physical reality as you possibly can”
What? It’s like she comes up with stuff she thinks just sounds good
It's thoughts she has that she can't come up with with counterpoints for herself, so she thinks it's watertight, but then she verbalized it and someone else immediately gave a counterpoint.
@@talkingtakotaco8611 She never commits and just takes the position that supports the acceptable narrative then tries, unsuccessfully, to intellectualize into those positions. It’s the typical drivel and belligerence we see from the left.
Sorry guys, the AI buck doesn't stop at artists and musicians. But don't worry there is always unskilled labor.
We can imagine Pxie making a good argument but it isn’t reality 🤔
What if the argument is a deepfake?
Pixie was in the right here and the snapping photos of a manequin was a perfectly apt example to highlight why.
@@haruhirogrimgar6047 it’s not a good example because there is no intent to take their picture irl. Deepfakes are superimposed faces on pornstar bodies. Intent is way different. Situation is way different. You can’t compare photoshop to taking a picture irl 😂
@Cesart2499 Now that was a great explanation 👏
My stance on deepfakes:
There's nothing wrong with making or even selling deepfakes, so long as they're distributed along with the knowledge that they're deepfakes. If they're being presented as genuine, that's when there should be issues. Outside of that it's basically the same as drawing someone.
Yeah, no. Firstly distributing them is probably infringing on copyright in regards to the original porn underneath it
But it's also you using the identity of someone else in a way they didn't consent to publicly.
@@sammykent5752 Does that make all fanart of someone without their express consent immoral?
@@sammykent5752 Your argument is invalid. I can photoshop an image of you and distribute it to whoever I want. That’s my intellectual property since it was altered. Deep fakes are altered images so the same principle applies. As long as they arent being represented as real they can be distributed (but not necessarily sold) to anyone we wish.
Agreed.
@@MaskOfCinder if you Photoshop an image of me, it's not your intellectual property, it's still an image of me and falls under copyright of either me or the person who take the original image. And depending on what you do with the image then, I have every right to sue you. You do not have the right to use my likeness however you want. And the same goes for fanart as well, honestly, but that depends on how good the fanart is.
Right in my feeeed.
Yesssss get the popcorn… BATCHEST
If you take anything from this, remember that fantasies aren't bad until there's intention, but only if the intention is the intention to draw a titty, but only if the intention to draw a titty also is paired with the intention to think of someone who is real.
These are the real issues people.
Her whole argument is "it's weird uwu"
Correct answer: "It is weird. And weird should continue to be legal."
Pixie and stardust competing to see who can have the worst take
Edit: Nevermind that Sejin guy is number 1 for worst takes
I understand exactly what Sejun (excuse if misspelled) is saying; in the scientific community if you borrow even a single concept from someone you didn't discover on your own, you credit that source. If you sample a song or beat from someone else in your music, it doesn't matter how little or large their contribution was, you credit them. I see where the disconnect is, it's asking us to change our mindsets, not actions, so naturally any action taken to forward this idea other than word of mouth will seem like too great of a step taken.
No joke, Sejin might actually be an AI
“That’s a future Mouton problem not a right now problem”
Extremely based
This deepfake stuff really presents a lot of odd questions. Basically on the far end of the arguments you're gonna have to argue me out of the position that I can't masturbate to anyone I want to that I can imagine, and you're never gonna win that one. My thoughts are the final frontier of my own personal privacy, and I will never cede them to anyone else, nor should anyone else. As the guest said, we don't need consent to think about people, and there's only extreme dystopia that lies in that direction. That said, I am definitely willing to listen to the arguments against my position. This is new technology, and we definitely haven't thought this through as a society.
OK. Don't talk about it publically if you don't want criticism. Done.
@@skullingtonfx4441 Criticize me all you want. Good luck getting me to care about your opinion. Fair enough, or would you care to elaborate on how deeply you'd police everyone's thoughts?
your point isn’t invalid but that shit is wild
the way you phrased it i mean. not the point itself
@Zenweaponry I don't care about thoughts please re-read what I said. Then re-read again.
After you speak those thoughts, it's out of your hands!
Go to work and say you fantasize about lighting it up like the gun range.
See how fast you're fired lol
my god, the people destiny talks to are literally insane.
And that's why we watch... mostly.
There's a lot of people like that, just average twitch viewers
Pxie is pretty brain dead and seems to only be thinking about an AI being able to create porn and watering down her worth...
This is one of the least insane things I've seen on this channel, not sure where you got that.
@@Zenweaponry I watch for the yelling, these civil conversations bore me.
Man no one tell pxie about how men got by before porn was widely available
loool
Depending on where you are from, brosex, lots of grape juice, and dolly-abuse. By the way, 'porn' existed since ancient times in some form or another. Though people back then had less of a theory of mind and more of 'every hole is a goal' mentality.
I have a lot of clothing catalogue models to apologize to
Common Mout W.
Common Pixie L.
Extremely common Sejin L.
Those are my takes after an hour.
A good conversation about deepfakes is a fantasy that I can't have.
It's all a matter of whether or not it's public. That's the only point of contention in this issue, in my opinion. It's like having a fantasy about somebody in your head. If they don't know then it won't really matter. But as soon as you choose to inform them and you put that image in their head as well, you have no control over how they perceive it and that can lead to serious problems.
I agree. The deep fake is directly analogous to drawing a picture, there's nothing wrong with _doing it,_ but once you start showing it to people and/or explaining it to them then it starts getting weird.
@@Sue_Me_Too I disagree. It's not like drawing a picture because the drawing isn't trying to make it pass as real.
I don't know why so many people have trouble understanding this. People who see a deepfake can't know it's a deepfake unless they made it or searched it. They can believe it's real. That's the entire issue.
A drawing never does this. No one looks at a drawing of Destiny beating up Melina and thinks: "I can't believe Destiny actually hit Melina... what a monster".
@@vulcanh254 I separated *making it* from _showing it to people_ on purpose.
If the person who made it *is the only one who sees it* _then it's the same as a drawing._
*If you're passing off deep fakes as real* _then it doesn't matter if you're the one who made them or not._
@@Sue_Me_Too If you're creating those deepfakes using an AI app or web service, you are sharing it. Everything is stored and collected.
Also the entire controversy is deepfakes that the public can look up. It's obviously not an issue if other people can't see it. That's a given. But the topic isn't about things no one can see.
@Vulcan H did you watch the vid? Pixie literally said it doesn't matter if you share it or not, it's wrong.
I think the most interesting part of sejin's take is it requires that Jennifer Lawrence's twin should get a cut of Jennifer's acting money.
People really still advocating for thought crimes
They're out of their minds. You can't even think about anything you want in your own privacy anymore smh
@@Rex13013 tbf, this is one of the few instances where your thoughts can be policed
@@QuanQC How? Do you really agreed with that girl who said that fantasizing about someone in your head is still wrong?
@@Rex13013 what i mean is that with deepfake, your perverted thought is now manifesting irl, with actual evidence, which make it a rare instance where thought police can be possible. Im not supporting it, just say that its possible.
Pxie has a feeling, and then attempts to retroactively fit her arguments to that feeling instead of exploring that feeling and seeing if it comes from an irrational basis, this is a large roadblock in the way she thinks currently
The twin argument is actual brainrot. People don't lose the rights over their own bodies just because they have famous siblings. The fact that they're discussing this for more than 5 seconds is baffling to me.
It was wild. I can't believe it had gone on for as long as it had.
It’s sad that everyone in this video is having such a hard time figuring how why this stuff is bad. I’m not calling them stupid, our society just really sucks at teaching people how we should treat others.
Never let this girl ever get near a position of power.
no but real, how can ppl say we need to do sth about men thinking sexually of women? like what exactly do u do thats how nature works lol
The ol’ “but muh nature bruh” argument.
Yes. Do tell me that “technically” puberty begins at age of…
😂
@@3rdHalf1 are you a man?
@@3rdHalf1 Puberty has literally nothing to do with sexual thoughts in adult years, or how genetic evolution has had a part in the psychology of men or women, and using a strawman argument isn't a good way to debate either. You may want to do more research on basic psychology, social norms, evolution, and debate acumen.
@@HulkTheSurgeon Using “but muh biology” as argument for ethics, is as lazy as using straw-man argument.
For us, social animals with ability to exchange ideas with language, ethics is guiding or evolution as much as biology.
@@3rdHalf1 I mean having sexual thoughts is fundamental to human nature, idk what to tell you
Wow we’re getting closer and closer to the literal thought police
The fact this is even a debate, makes me very angry
The debate about thoughts of sexualization
I gotta say, Moot's really good at guiding conversations like this.
This trend is definitely going in the direction of "If you don't want deepfakes made then don't post pictures/videos of yourself on the internet" and society will probably benefit from this tbh.
Jorbsmen Petersdude endorses this message; before facebook everybody knew it was a bad idea to use your real name or face online.
These people think it's wrong if your create-a-sim looks too much like a girl you like.
The fact that these questions are being asked without shame in a public setting is absurd to me. These people have rediscovered puritanism on the left and are asking questions about daydreaming about a girl crossing a line.
This is such an absurd conversation
I didn't hear them say that. Pretty sure their contention is with using real peoples faces in porn without their consent. Sounds like a reasonable position to me.
@Nedak2003 my Sims thing was a joke but one person contested that looking at girls in bikinis was morally wrong because it was too intimate.... listen to the whole video
Way crazier claims are made than the deep fake porn.
@@Nedak2003 pixie explicitly said she thinks it’s morally wrong to wank it to instagram photos
Everything they’re saying applies to cosplay as well, and having her try to place cosplay in a different bucket because she likes it is hilarious
Pxie: "...We view sexual things as intimate and private and we believe that people should have some level of privacy and expectation of privacy in their lives!" (1:53:53)
Pxie: People don't have a right to private sexual fantasies! (rest of the video)
😵
39:42 Enjoying the awkward pause after this where all the thought agents see themselves in the mirror with silent horror.
Followed by the attempt to ignore or discard that realization with "We're getting off track". lol
Pixie just feels like a person who argues for the sake of arguing not about the substance.
She argues based on her feelings and constructs arguments around the feelings. She should be deconstructing and understanding her feelings first.
I would have hammered down on "Why does it become wrong if other people find out?". Then I would answer it myself with "Because as a society, we find it morally wrong." It would be like saying stealing isnt morally wrong so long as no one realizes the item was stollen.
No because if someone stole something even if they don't realise it they would still be deprived of the stolen things. This is not the case with the deep fakes. They didn't actually share their naked pictures without knowing it.
pixie's gotta be the dumbest orbiter, she makes Sneako seem like a genius when he defends ppl without evidence.
my bad its actually sejin.
The issue with the whole conversation on thoughts informing actions, is that single thoughts people like to point to as "problematic" don't exist in a vacuum where they can influence one specific behavior with impunity.
The granular nature of beliefs and opinions existing in a wider mental eco-system or nexus makes it extremely hard to map out and insert them into equations of behavior.
For example, if you want to posit that imagining, or artistically simulating, sex with a person can amalgamate into sexually predatory behavior, we have to presume that the mental disposition of the person engaging with this behavior is one of increased desire to realize that fantasy while also exhibiting a reduced appreciation for the bodily autonomy of the subject of the fantasy.
This is tenuous and difficult to demonstrate because there's a near infinite amount of separate but connected beliefs and attitudes that could modulate that process even if we accept it as possible.
For example, I might strongly believe that actual sex should only be between consenting adults and have a mind conditioned into compartmentalizing and distinguishing fantasy/fiction from reality by a continued exposure to the harsh distinction between what I wish were the case and what actual is the case in my day to day life.
I might fantasize with impunity about sex with a girl who'd never have me in reality, but both recognize that and respect her boundaries as a person outside of my mind - the ability to do being reinforced by my engagement with everything from all the other exercises of fantasies I engage with but don't pursue or expect in reality(like being able to use magic or riding giant mechs), or by engagement with philosophy etc that advocates for ethical behaviors and views as far as interacting with real people is concerned.
The idea that consuming porn, deep-fakes or not, magically deteriorates your appreciation for women's autonomy and ability to treat them with respect as individuals without considering this seems seems as reductive as it is asinine.
I'm sure there are dog-shit studies out there that "demonstrate" correlation between bad attitudes and behavior by habitual consumers of porn, but ultimately it all kinda falls apart when you realize that there's no way to control for all the lateral factors involving the participants in said studies - such as what attitudes and behaviors they exhibited before comsuming the porn, or what social lives they lead concurrently to consuming the porn, etc.
Like, consider some random and shitty American dude-bro-
Do people really believe his views on women are a reflection of his porn consumption, and not all the other shitty cultural influences that permeates his life?
Saying this as a pretty progressive guy in his mid 30s who's consumed porn regularly since he was 13 or so and hasn't experienced any of the issues that porn supposedly manifactures and who doesn't have a habit of engaging in predation on women =P
To think, this entire drama spawned because a dude wasn't smart enough to use incognito mode/bookmarks or a cheap laptop for porn instead of the machine he streams to thousands on. Up your browser game fellas, incentivize learning how to cover your tracks better, lest your favorite morally questionable porn genre gets scrutinized and dog-piled on next.
Sejin sounds like brendans friend that dressed in orange from home movies
making a deepfake of someone is no different than drawing a picture of someone.
Pixie missed the obvious, very clear argument.
If you take a picture of someone naked they did not consent to, the method of taking said picture is irellevant. Whether it is a digital or analogue camera doesn't really matter right. It is the fact that you are obtaining sexual material depicting said person against their will, not the technology, that is the issue at hand.
So with deepfakes, what you are doing is using technology to create sexual material depicting the person that they did not consent to being made. Which is an inherent violation of their bodily autonomy. The technology used to create the image isn't the problem, the problem is the image was made.
I figured out why Pixie drives me nuts. She doesn't base any of her claims on an Axiom it is all just intuition dumb. And is willing to reach for anything that can make her point sound ok.
Pxie has not thought this out at all
Truly one of the sillier debates I've heard
I can't visualize fantasies of my own, men stop thinking too it's unequal!!
IKR pornography is killing that ability to imagine someone in your head.
Pxie's personal motto: "Hmm..I'd have to think about that more, but like yaaah."
Minority Report is a utopian dream to these people
They want to implement the Minority Report, but only for people who fantasize about them. Because to a rich female streamer this is the biggest form of harm/oppression they can experience: someone else masturbating to them without their knowledge. So we must invade their houses, their brains and their computers to stop this epidemic. It's funny how they lie about caring about cOnSeNt, when they clearly don't.
Weirdly that guy who said they talk about bs for 5 minutes with something that could have been said in 1 minute, this… this legit summed up the convo
One question I have for pixie is, is it morally wrong to take a picture of someone, make an AI 3D modell of that person and creating a game where you kill that person over and over again? As creepy as that might sound, it is not morally wrong in my opinion and the exact same thing as the AI porn.
edit: of course this is a private game
The only issue I have with it is if they profit off it. Or if they actually go out and do it irl. The game itself is not morally bad.
@@Oxtrooo same. but pixie seems to think the act of creating that game by itself is already morally wrong which is completely absurd
@@Oxtrooo They wouldn't have to profit off of it, sharing it with other people for free could be MORE harmful than charging money.
If it's completely private and you don't tell that person about it, or act like a freak to them then I'd say that it's weird, but not immoral.
“A guy learned my name. I didn’t want him to know my name. That’s identity theft”
- Pixie
I'm 30 minutes in and i want to remind anyone reading this that you shouldn't feel ashamed of your thoughts, ever. Your brain gets great stimulation from fantasizing, it's perfectly natural. Your brain is going to throw weird stuff in there, it's OK to enjoy it.
Have a great day everyone and don't be too hard on yourself
I used to be Sejin neutral, but now I don't think I like hearing him very much.
Pixie is making the argument for "impure thoughts" as immoral
I wonder if she recognizes the circle back to traditional religious tenants. Lust.
I can literally trace parallels between everything she's saying and every anti-minority policy enacted in the US during the last 100 years. The arguments are verbatum the same. "I feel icky, this is degeneracy, this is sexual anarchy, those blacks in the corner look awfully suspicious to me so I must arrest them, etc" - it's every argument that's been used against gay marriage, trans people, black people, etc. Funny to see how their alleged """progressivism""" ends at WOMEN's issues, and with the oppression of Men.
I think the main counterargument to pixie, is that she believes that the action of making a deepfake is wrong because it is made for a certain visualization/thought about someone else, but she earlier agreed that we don't censor peoples thoughts or view them as immoral, so therefore you can't say the action of making a deepfake is bad because the "bad" is still fully based in thought, and she agrees that thoughts are neutral
She said we don't censor people's thoughts, because we CAN'T. She never said we don't view them as immoral. Also the actual steps of making a thing is different than having a thought. That was the crux of her point.
Can we go back to MrGirl? Pixie and Erin just ruin every conversation by default.
At least Max was an interesting whacko
The comfort with which these people were discussing potential punishments for thought crimes was disturbing. Utterly ignorant of how that has been used in the past and present to police behavior that governments, largely authoritarian ones, find "wrong." If you're going to push us all down this slippery slope, I'm going to need more justification than what was given.
Imagine having a doppelganger and they tell you you can't share lewd photos of yourself.
It’s still annoying women who do only fans feels anything outside of OF is bad for people 😂😂😂
Make it make sense.
The Precogs scanning all minds for wrong fantasies. 25 to life for the wrong thought.
"Stop right there imperial scum! You've committed wrong thought! 3-5 years minimum criminal scum!"
As an identical twin fts. I own my image just like my brother owns his. Neither of us would owe each other anything for using our own images. I’m not going to try and hold my brother down and take something he earned using his likeness just like I wouldn’t want him to do to me.
Her vocal fry makes me fantasize about unaliving myself.
Lol I thought I was the only one.
*sings a song by August Heinrich Hoffmann von Fallersleben*
I know a very obscure name but it's a song about freedom of thought
"die Gedanken sind frei" Maybe look for an english translation because it's one of my favorite old german songs.