Welcome to the Fest
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

What Is Porn
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 11274
Location: PDX

PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This post took forever because it was sitting in my laptop, with no internet at home, and I was not about to retype it on my iphone. So, here you go, a day late and a dollar short!

Darqcyde wrote:
I disagree. There is no shortage of people who honestly think to criticize the President is wrong, and the reason they feel this is wrong is because 'it's the President and instead we should always show him respect'. I've had personal interactions with these sorts as well as seen various comments on news articles here there and all the hell over the place. I think it's not because of misplaced loyalty so much as they view him as being above our moral judgement, they misunderstand what criticism actually is, or some other such faulty reasoning. And you can find them on all sides of the political field. I think anyone who votes for a party candidate solely based upon party affiliation (and you can't argue there aren't people who vote this way) is engaging in objectification; if they aren't looking into the what kind of person the candidate actually is when they make their decisions to vote then those voters are, in my opinion, engaging in a form of objectification. Also I feel that the persona's we see displayed publicly is always just a shadow of the actual person themselves and the inability for people to realize there's a difference between the two is part of the problem.

I'm fine with the concept of positive objectification (just like there are positive stereotypes, like that asians are good at math). I just haven't seen anything yet that's risen to the level of objectification in my mind. In order to be objectified a person would have to be unable to view the President as a person with thoughts and feelings. I don't think believing you shouldn't criticize him rises to this level. Mainly because there's a difference between public and private behavior, and the idea of "respecting the office," doesn't mean you have to respect the man, just that if you don't respect him you keep it to yourself. So I don't see anything inherent in that idea that necessarily implies objectification.

People who vote party line all the time is kind of a different issue. I've never voted anything but Democrat, and at times it's been because I seriously disliked the Republican candidate (I was not a huge fan of Kerry, for instance). But I don't know that being ignorant is the same as objectifying. If a person votes Democrat because he's always voted Democrat and he generally believes the Democratic party is more closely aligned with his ideas than the Republican party, but knows nothing about the candidate as an individual, is that really objectification, or simply assumption? I don't think making assumptions about people is objectification. Harmful, sure. But not objectification. Because you can make all kinds of assumptions about people in order to make less intellectual effort, but then turn around and regard those people as individuals in other situations (for instance, when they stop living up to your ideals).

I don't think it's simply a childhood mental error. I think it's something we continue to do throughout our lives to varying degrees; some kids figure out "hey teachers are people too" and some never do. Anytime we look at people as good guys (police , teachers, doctors, fireman) and bad guys (criminals, drug users, prostitutes) we are engaging in objectification. Also I'd posit your assumption that teachers never hate kids (you're implying it) is also based upon this. I know there are at least a few racists teachers around here (which is extremely racists area btw, you don't live someplace for almost 25 years and not pick up on these things) that talk about the "nigglets" in their classes. I know that's an extreme example, but to say there's not biased and mistreatment enacted upon students is just silly. Heck, where I live is a trailer park (mostly double wides) and I've seen reactions change right in front of my eyes when they find out

I didn't really make any argument about teachers, so this seems tangential. I said I love it when kids tell that particular lie, not that there's no instance when teachers actually dislike kids (that is, I said "I like it when this is the case," and not, "there is never a time when this is not the case"). I still don't see making assumptions about people as a group as the same as objectification, unless you are incapable of also viewing those people as individuals. That's the part of which I've yet to see any evidence.

I don't think that's the case. An idol is a thing, a persona, it is not a person. I think there two sides to the objectification coin, a positive and a negative. We've been looking at the negative but I posit the positive is just as bad. I think having a notion that someone is above you or better than yourself can be just a damaging. I think that it's a large part of why people in positions of power and authority can get away with corrupt acts w/o people calling them on it. I know you've heard cases where respected community figures (be they football coach, politician, priest, police officer, etc.) get's convicted of child abuse and then it comes to light that people had made prior accusations yet were dismissed. "Fireman Bob was flashing little girls? Nonsense, he's a good guy. Why just the other day he saved my neighbors daughter from a burning building. Week before he did CPR and brought back that Johnson kid that fell off the pier. Someone like that couldn't be a bad guy."

But the definition of objectification you provided specifically says that it's denying their personality and sentience. Applying positive labels to them may be harmful, wrong, ignorant, prejudiced... but assuming people in prestigious positions have positive personality traits is still the opposite of the definition you provided. Unless you mean that it's denying their true personality and putting assumptions in place, which would be fine, except...

Also you're right about their opinions carrying more weight, but it's also why if negative personal details (i.e. facts about them as a person, not their performing persona) come to light they can loose that status.

... this tells us that we can rewrite those positive assumptions if they're challenged, and recognize how the individual diverges from the assumption.

Also, have you ever worked in the hospitality field or customer service? I think there's this notion that if we pay for service we are thereby entitled to treat the workers with less humanity than we would otherwise.

I worked in retail from ages 18-22. People are assholes, but no one ever treated me like an object. Then again, I was in a position where they had to ask me for information and to explain things to them. And I would tell them to leave if they were abusive. So, maybe my experience was different.

But again, being treated badly isn't the same as being treated as an object. Abuse isn't objectification necessarily. We've got a definition of what it means to be objectified. If you're my cashier and make a mistake and I say, "What are you, stupid?" then I'm an asshole, but there's nothing inherent in that that says I fail to see you as a human being. Just that I think you're bad at your job, or want to make you feel bad for irritating me. Those are also not objectification, even though they're wrong.
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. I’ll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 535
Location: Balboa Park Atheist booth [Every Saturday] http://unitedcor.org/san-diego/page/home

PostPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Delakando wrote:
I have a question - Why do feminist feel that 2D characters have humans rights? :?

Do fictional characters have human rights? Feminists working with the Japanese government apparently think so.
From a series of documents published on the Japanese cabinet’s Gender Equality Bureau, who may already be familiar:
Media depictions of sexual violence against women constitute a violation of the human rights of women, and are a major obstacle to the creation of a gender-equal society.
Where violent or sexual media depictions of women are concerned, we must promote public understanding of this as a “human rights violation,” and ensure media are subjected to voluntary restraints.
Voluntary censorship of media depictions of sexual violence should be promoted, and laws including censorship of virtual sexual violence against women in DVDs, video and PC games should be considered.
Rarely has the concept of “human rights” been abused so egregiously as by the latest wave of feminist inspired moral panic over two dimensional media.
In fact even the most cursory consideration reveals censorship according to “virtual human rights” could easily threaten a complete elimination of freedom of expression – if fictional women and children have human rights, by extension even men may have them too, meaning any story dealing with nonconsensual violence against men (practically all fiction of any interest) involves massive human rights violations.
Indeed, any criticism of the brave defenders of the rights of non-existent people might as well be condemned as promoting human rights violations.
The fundamental irony of using the rubric of “human rights” to rob people of one of their most fundamental rights seems lost on the advocates of this new wave of moral hysteria – hardly surprising considering it appears they have simply decided to parrot a serious sounding UN buzzword in the hopes of giving their extremist writings an air of legal credibility, with no appreciation of the ridiculousness of what they are saying.

If I'm watching a cartoon with my parents, I'd feel really uncomfortable if it suddenly switched over to a rape sequence where my favorite female character is being violently raped. This has nothing to do with the fact that my mom is a extremist Christian evangelist. It has more to do with how much suffering a fantasy character should be exposed to. After all, we watch these happy 2d stories to get away from the real world. Why would you taint that by reminding us that the real world sucks? I have the same problem with comedy. You are supposed to distract me from the problem, not drag me back into it by requesting that audience members do a pagan, ritualistic rape of a heckler on stage. Either way, I'm very lazy and I didn't ask for this. I just wanted to play a game where no one gets hurt.

ShadowCell wrote:
and you probably don't want to have a history of saying misogynistic fuckwitted things like

"Grow up. Get over it".. Very interesting words but I'm not speaking out against feminism simply because they are feminists but against the fact that there are other problems in this world that they overlook because of smaller issues. The black movement and feminist movement both want equality amongst races and sexes but just like any group there are the bad-apples amongst the group who have brought bad views of them by their out-spoken opinion. In the black movement there were groups of black individuals who were interested in war with whites and still are to this day with the "New Black Panthers" who were recorded recently wanting to start a war against whites. There are also feminists who seek not only equalization but subjetification of males to pay back all of the years men have subjectified them.


I do agree with this but how could you handle multiple small issues as well as large issues without there being losses in the mix? When large issues are mixed with smaller issues then some times they are over-looked or even passed over entirely. Focusing on the smaller issues in today's society isn't really going to help though because like stated there are men who are in power that just further those smaller issues. Women do have a good proportion of power though and to say that they submit to gain that power does not really support how they got into that situation.

Women in the media on the other hand cannot be minimized to the media of television. The internet has pretty much the widest media coverage in the world and men do not have power on something they cannot control. There is no internet censorship and so women are equally powerful online as men. Yet women are starting to influence it by actually speaking of ridding the internet of pornography in which case I'd agree with them. The internet is a tool in which we have taken for granted far too long.


Sorry but no amount of protests are going to suddenly make men stop being jackasses. No matter how much you teach them about respect and equality there is always going to be a jackass. Its not about sexism in how they treat a woman but rather their libido and unless you plan to lower the hormones in all men it might never change. This should not effect the overall male population. They claimed I hated feminism simply because they were feminist all because of the actions of fanatics. To hate men simply because of some jackasses would be the same then.

Yes there were also people who tried to claim that rape victims were "Asking for it" but that is smacked in their face as a "NOT AN EXCUSE". They teach that to everyone already that no matter how they dress it does not mean they are sluts or whores.

You can also claim I'm not properly acknowledging the problems in our culture but honestly I've given up on our culture as a whole. We have too many lazy, horrible, abusive people that sexism is over shadowed by all the problems we have.

and...whatever this is

Yeah, that's pretty much it.

Hello dear heterosexuals, just to let you know: "The protocols of the learned elders of Zion" is a hoax written by a bitter, unoriginal old lady in Russia named: Maurice Joly. Compare the text in "Dialogue in Hell" to "Elders of Zion". This didn't deter Henry Ford, who after discovering the truth, stood by his inaccurately racist and anarchist statements all the way to the grave. If you knew your history better, you wouldn't be embarrassing yourself by promoting the Church of England who are the ones responsible for ordaining royalty in the name of God to have you be oppressed. Separation of church and state is a ongoing battle. Don't be so awake that you miss the obvious. Give it a rest. Seriously.

While we are on the topic of evil woman who made a profit out of oppressing men, think about Ayn Rand. She'd even suck on a phallic cigarette on camera for cash out of spite ! Today's women deserve so much more respect than these ancient women of the past. It's a shame that no one reads about the past to realize what wonderful women we are surrounded by today. [No, I'm not saying this to get laid, shut up.]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 11919
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was all like "WTF is this necro shit!?!?!??!?" . . .

And then I saw who did it.

Who was it in the old forums that used to randomly do that?
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13
Page 13 of 13

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group