fne8w2ahMale Student Allegedly Created AI Nudes of 13-Year-Old Girl & School Suspended Her, Not Him
inb4_FoundTheVeganITT: We victim blame.
The principal, Danielle Coriell, said an investigation came up cold that day as no student took responsibility. The deputy assigned to the school searched social media for the images unsuccessfully, according to a recording of the disciplinary hearing.
“I was led to believe that this was just hearsay and rumors,” the girl’s father said, recounting a conversation he had that morning with the school counselor.
But the girl was miserable, and a police incident report showed more girls were reporting that they were victims, too. The 13-year-old returned to the counselor in the afternoon, asking to call her father. She said she was refused.
Deepfake cyberbullying: Schools confront rise of AI-generated nude images
A 13-year-old girl at a Louisiana middle school got into a fight with classmates who were sharing AI-generated nude images of her. She wound up getting expelled — and the students sharing the images apparently were not disciplined by the school. The police took the opposite action, charging two of the boys who’d been accused of sharing explicit images. The case highlights the challenges schools face with AI-related cyberbullying. Experts warn that adults are often unprepared for the digital harm caused by such technology. Lafourche Parish School District Superintendent Jarod Martin said the school system followed all its protocols for reporting misconduct and said a “one-sided story” had been presented of the case.
ITT: We leave out the reasons for things that happened to shape the narrative into what we prefer.
Fed up, she attacked a boy on the bus, inviting others to join her
She assaulted someone and got punished for it. Being a victim of one thing doesn’t justify becoming a perpetrator of something else.
Hey man if you distribute porn of someone non consenting, you deserve at least a solid punch in the face.
What harm is done that is severe enough to justify violence? There was in no imminent threat of physical harm to themselves or others. Nobody is in danger. Being violent just because your feeling are hurt is barbaric and has no place in a society. Violence is not acceptable.
Hard disagree. What other option did she have at this point, she tried following proper channels to get the bullying resolved and when that didn’t work, did the only other thing she could.
I would 100% go far further if this arrive to my daughter. I would go yo police reporting school sponsored diffusion of pedo pornography. And ruin the school reputation and have all parents involved. This would make me go thermonuclear.
𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠To play devil’s advocate, at that point she had photographic evidence of this happening, so she could have gone back to the school/police with it and let them handle it.
Counter devils advocate: our legal system does allow civilians to stop a crime in progress against themselves, physically, even if the crime itself is nonviolent in nature.
For instance, If i witness someone stealing my property, I am allowed to use reasonable, non-deadly force in defense of my property. She faced serious, permanent, and ongoing mental harm, which she had every right to attempt to stop as it occurred
And the police have fundamentaly agreed she was justified in her actions, and upheld this right, as shes not being charged.
(Although personally I think they should threaten school officials with charges of conspiracy after the fact and abetting the dissemination of csam for the expulsion, to force them to recant it.)
The system not making her feel better is not justification for violence. Taking justice into ones own hands with violence is not acceptable. Period. We are not barbarians or wild animals. She could have gone to her parents, a counselor or a trusted adult to help her manage her emotions over the situation until a better resolution could be reached. While it is understandable to want to be violent when feelings are hurt, it isn’t acceptable to throw hands, or to encourage others to help you violently assault someone. Her violence will do absolutely nothing to stop the sharing of the photos, it will only appease her momentary desire to lash out, with worse consequences, like getting suspended.
It was foolish, impulsive, unhelpful and unacceptable.
RivalarrivalShe could have gone to her parents, a counselor or a trusted adult to help her manage her emotions over the situation until a better resolution could be reached.
She did. She fucking did all the things that you say she should have done. She availed herself of all the support structures you say she should have utilized, and they all failed her.
Those parents, counselors, and trusted adults could have helped her “manage her emotions” by separating her from the harasser. Instead, they put the two of them together on a bus, effectively unsupervised. She did everything right. All of the social structures that should have supported her failed, and now you’re all <pikachu face> that the most reasonable course of action she had was direct violence.
The school’s actions were foolish, lazy, unhelpful, and unacceptable. In the specific circumstances she faced, her actions were perfectly reasonable.
Managing emotions can’t be done through external acts, it is an internal act. Those systems she bailed to were still working on the issue, instant gratification is not reasonable. Violence is not a reasonable or effective course of action, it is an impulsive and stupid one and it only made her life worse.
queermunist she/herThey weren’t working the issue, they were ignoring her. The administrators clearly thought she was making shit up.
Now he’s facing charges because she forced the police to look into it.
The situation was not resolved when she attacked him and they were not done with it just because they didn’t immediately do what she wanted, neither were her parents.
Giving a bit more context it wasn’t just this one girl. This was a child porn trading ring with multiple victims, and they all had gone to the school administration and some even went to the police.
The principal, Danielle Coriell, said an investigation came up cold that day as no student took responsibility. The deputy assigned to the school searched social media for the images unsuccessfully, according to a recording of the disciplinary hearing.
“I was led to believe that this was just hearsay and rumors,” the girl’s father said, recounting a conversation he had that morning with the school counselor.
But the girl was miserable, and a police incident report showed more girls were reporting that they were victims, too. The 13-year-old returned to the counselor in the afternoon, asking to call her father. She said she was refused.
Her father says she sent a text message that said, “Dad,” and nothing else. They didn’t talk. With the mocking unrelenting, the girl texted her sister, “It’s not getting handled.”
And so she handled it herself.
Every moment she waited she was being further victimized, further harassed, and further threatened. Sexual harassment is considered sufficiently threatening behavior for self-defense to be justified, and that’s how the police are handling it.
She could have gone to her parents, a counselor or a trusted adult to help her manage her emotions
…
Managing emotions can’t be done through external acts, it is an internal act
Pick a lane.
the situation didn’t just naturally become worse. it’s only worse because the school shares opinions with you.
It did naturally become worse. That’s what happens by not intervening, nature occurs. Becoming violent when you experience injustice only leads to more problems. It is not a wise or effective response.
did the school not intervene by punishing her? the problems only arose because they agree with you.
For violently assaulting someone, yes. The problem arose because children decided to do something hurtful to a child, not because the adults in the situation didn’t resolve it before it escalated to violence.
the problem (her punishment) was not a natural result of her actions. it ocurred because the school interfered
Just like the police do when there’s a shooter. What’s natural doesn’t define what is acceptable.
i really cant understand the need to pretend that this is a sensible analogy
Just because you don’t understand it, doesn’t mean anyone is pretending. Do you often assume people are pretending when you can’t make sense of things? Is that how you cope with being confused?
well, it is easy to understand when not being charitable with your intentions
As soon as society refuses to adequately intervene to stop the harm, any degree of harm justifies any level of force necessary to end that harm. Your position is only valid so long as society is willing to intercede on behalf of the victim.
The content in question also isn’t actually them.
The content in question is harassment at a minimum. It is harm. Serious harm.
Being violent just because your feeling are hurt is barbaric and has no place in a society.
So long as society is willing to intercede against the harm caused by harassers, I agree. Here, that intercession was explicitly denied. The school refused to act. The school failed to even separate or supervise the two parties. Consequently, society lost its ethical justification for criticizing the victim’s efforts to end her victimization. With the school failing to act reasonably or responsibly, we don’t get to criticize the victim’s actions.
So if a man is hurt by a woman and the world doesn’t stop that harm, is any degree of harm justified and any level of force necessary to end that harm, justified?
So if a man is hurt by a woman and the world doesn’t stop that harm, is any degree of harm justified and any level of force necessary to end that harm, justified?
Yes.
Society fails at justice
I see the problem. You are conflating “stopping harm” with “justice”. There is a massive difference between the two concepts, and we aren’t talking about justice here.
Asking police to stop the woman from keying his car is an attempt to stop harm. Asking the prosecutor to charge her with destruction of property is an attempt to seek justice. You described a scenario where the woman is actively harming the man. He is, indeed, justified in using any level of force necessary to end that harm. You did not describe a scenario where the woman has previously caused harm, but is no longer doing so.
Keep in mind that the boy on the bus was actively engaged in harassing his victim at the time his victim used physical force against him. She was not attempting to retaliate for past harms; she was not attempting to seek justice. She was attempting to end the harm he was in the process of perpetrating.
Then by your reasoning, if a woman rejects a man and she hurts him, he can beat her. Glad that’s clear.
What?
Not quite. You shortened the phrase. You dropped five critical words that were present in the original phrase:
and any level of force necessary to end that harm
Further, you’re dishonestly relying on a colloquial definition of “harm”, rather than a legal one. “Rejection” does not qualify.
I used what was necessary for the reference, I assumed you didn’t need the entire quote.
Are we at the ‘define your terms’ stage of the conversation, then, or are you starting to probe with the plausibly deniable personal attacks?
We’re at the point of the conversation where you recognize her actions in these specific circumstances were at least understandable, if not reasonable and rational. We’re at the point of the conversation where you acknowledge she was the victim. We’re at the point in the conversation where you acknowledge the school failed to properly supervise her and her harasser on the bus, and erred greatly in their disciplinary action.
We’re at the point where you point out that violence is not acceptable, but that given his actions and the multiple failures of the school pushed her to do something that she would not normally do, and should not have been punished for.
We’re at the point in the conversation where you recognize you have been improperly assigning excessive blame to the victim, and decide to delete, or at least amend your previous arguments to portray yourself as a reasonable person.
So cede to your position even though I disagree, with good reason? Almost all those things you ask for are things I’ve never denied or refuted. Perhaps you should have asked to confirm your assumptions before continuing to argue against things I never argued for.
Perhaps you should stop blaming the victim.
Indeed. Why would we not blame the school and the harasser for creating this situation?
Indeed. Let us quantify that:
- What percentage of the total blame for the physical altercation should be assigned to the harasser?
- What percentage of the total blame for the physical altercation should be assigned to the school?
- What percentage of the total blame for the physical altercation should be assigned to the girl?
Yes, indeed. Quantify your position, please. How much responsibility for the physical altercation does each party bear?
I would say that the boy is primarily responsible for the altercation. Without his egregious, deplorable, and criminal harassment instigating her response, there would have been no altercation. That translates to 51% to 100% of the blame.
The school bears secondary responsibility. The school acts in loco parentis. They are obligated to adequately supervise and protect their students. Here, they put harasser and victim, unsupervised, in close proximity to eachother. That is completely unreasonable. That translates to 0% to 49% of the blame.
The girl’s responsibility is less than that of the school. She was suffering undue sexual harassment. She reasonably asked for relief from that harassment, and her requests were refused by the school charged with providing that relief. She was under duress at the time of the altercation. That translates to 0% to 24% of the blame.
Do you believe she bears more than 24% of the blame for the physical altercation? Do you believe she bears more responsibility than either the boy or the school? Quantify your position, please. I want to know exactly how much blame you are assigning to the victim.
Schrödinger accountability ? Be harassed and humiliated daily : nothing. Defend yourself : punition.
She would have not strike him but the society forced her.
Responding to a non-physical threat with physical violence is not acceptable. Society did not force her, she chose to be violent.
When you say ‘society did not force her’, what exactly do you mean by this?
Can you spell out the scenario that you concocted in your head as to how a girl, harshly bullied by having faked nude material of her passed around school without her consent, in front of her should correctly behave in this situation? Keeping in mind, of course, that she already went to the socially acceptable and correct official channels which did nothing to help her?
It 100% is: legally, you have the right to physically defend yourself from nonviolent crime- im allowed to hit the guy trying to break into my car if he doesnt stop when I yell at him to do so.
He’s damaging your property and putting your physical security at risk. Both are crimes of violence. It isn’t an emotional crime. If he says something mean, you don’t get to punch him.
If you genuinely think that breaking into a car is less violent than making and distributing child porn of someone then there is something very wrong with you.
The boy was committing a sexually violent act that was designed to intimidate, humiliate and harm.
It is absolutely less physically violent, I was never discussing violence in the broadest sense of the term, but physical violence.
It is absolutely less physically violent, I was never discussing violence in the broadest sense of the term, but physical violence.
Which is interesting and perhaps you should review why you are selectively focusing on this - it is the reason people are saying you are victim-blaming, after all.
You selectively pick the physical violence the victim employed as a reaction to the sexual violence she experienced. You consciously choose to ignore the sexual violence having been done to her, and in fact spell this out very clearly in your response here.
In other words, you choose to ignore the violence the perpetrator originally employed, and only want to ‘discuss’ (i.e. delegitimise) the responsive violence employed by the victim as her last method of harm reduction. That is the classical rhetorical device used to victim-blame, and if you still actually can’t see it I’d suggest reading up on that and investigating your own ethics.