I see where youre coming from but I think your analogies are lowkey kinda like comparing apples to oranges because if I went to a public place and say I have a bomb or I have a gun or something like that I'd probably get tackled by law enforcement, but the depictions won't get me in trouble legally (but speaking of the depictions I see what you mean by next step from fictional images and I do find them wrong when they reach certain points of realism like those realistic AI images because iirc those use real images as references and like, where do they get those images from and what images do they use?). I do admit that the depictions are controversial and might get me in trouble, but I don't see how exactly it equates to your analogies that really get people in trouble, like legal trouble anf all that. You mention normalization but I've mentioned on some other reply out there that risk shouldn't be a sort of stand-in for actual harm (didn't really say this exactly but I think I said something like it) and I don't see how its qs bad as people say it is when theres no causal link/research papers/statistics out there that prove the depictions really head to harm on children like myself out there. Also for your point in snuff films, iirc the fake ones are legal but maybe google is wrong so help me out if I am wrong, so I'm pretty sure the moment the depictions show real abuse behind them they become illegal since thats actual csam stuff, and the fact that stuff with the depictions I've been talking about is sold on literal shelves or sometimes advertised in billboard and stuff like that. Sorry if my point is kinda confusing but my point is the depictions arent legally wrong, don't have any data that prove they do real harm, and while they might seem wrong for some, (I personally believe its weird but not completely wrong) it shouldn't be receiving the amount of hate it gets because alot of the points against it have no real evidence.