Not even close. Giving it a new name doesn't magically fix the problem. Join the real world, no matter what name you give something, it's still the same thing.

If I really wanted to seek some sort of discrepancy in the way its being named I'd argue youre changing the name so you can one day defend yourself by calling your noncey stash "legitimate" and therefore it is abuse material.

All in all, who gives a fuck what name its got. It's pure, unadulterated idiocy to think abused children are hurting because of the fact us non-abusers call it child porn and not sexual abuse material.

[–] madejackson@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Well I didn't say it fixes the problem. I'm just saying you're ignoring it. By ignoring the issue, you're empowering the issue. Which is definitely worse than not doing anything. So your opinion is wrong and ill-educated.

[–] Afghaniscran@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly what issue is being ignored by not changing an already established name for something thats already widely agreed to be vile and disgusting?

[–] madejackson@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Are you serious? Instead of doubling down on your ignorancy by asking rhetorical questions you could also try to inform yourself. The answer to your question is in OP's post:

The children in these photos/videos can’t make pornography, they’re sexually abused into making this material. CP insinuates that it’s legitimate porn with children. CSAM, on the other hand, calls it what it is: sexual abuse of children.

[–] 01189998819991197253@infosec.pub -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Edward Bernays would disagree on the lack of power of words.

[–] Lutz69@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you have an ad deal for this book or something? Bernays can eat a bag of dicks, this is case where the name doesn't matter. The concept of it is always bad full stop. There's no need to be pedantic. Honestly, I feel calling it CSAM could be detrimental because I didn't know what that stood for before this thread. If I had just seen a post with "CSAM" in the title, I would have scrolled right on by because it meant nothing to me. Everyone knows what CP is and everyone knows it's disgusting.

[–] 01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 1 points 1 year ago

Nope. But he's the father of modern propaganda. Doesn't really matter if you agree with him, you've been influenced by him and you wouldn't have known it (me, too. Everyone). The thing is, CP is only disgusting if you're right in the head. Many people aren't. They see it as exciting child porn, when it's abuse (you see it as abuse, I see it as abuse, they see it as porn). The term change is a type of rebranding. I didn't know what CP stood for until a few months ago, when they started talking about CSAM on tv and radio. Before then, I would have seen CP on this post and would have scrolled past. Being concerned with formal rules is the basis of our society, what brands CSAM as 'abuse material' and not 'child pornography'.