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 

Slightly off-topic: Porn.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Rune



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 1046

PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now I've got the urge to go read some D&D Chick Tracts. Those are always good for a laugh.

Also, a really good example of mistaking illustration for argument, which is what most of Irony's posts amount to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10693
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Irony wrote:
See, here's the thing. I've heard all this before. When I was growing up I heard these arguments constantly, only not about porn. The societal ill of the day then was D&D. I heard all the anecdotes about people driven to worshiping Satan. I heard all the arguments about how my personal experience in which none of those things happened must have been some fluke. I heard how it was inherently degrading to the players, even when they suffered no direct harm; how it taught them bad and unrealistic social skills. I see the exact same tendency to demonize anyone arguing against them by saying they're just trying to justify their vice.

The people there also said they weren't trying to take away my rights. They were lying.

I look at the arguments here, and nothing is different.

Let's dispense with talk of rights. No one is taking your rights away from you, for two reasons: first, there is no inalienable right to watch porn (or play D&D), so there is no right there to lose. Rights are things protected by law or social tradition. They are behaviors and ideas inherent to the human condition in which we have decided all people must be allowed to engage. Throwing the term about to mean anything you like to do degrades it. Quit it. Second, impugning your morals is not the same as taking your rights away, or even the same as prohibition (of something that is not a right). It's considered morally wrong to cheat on your wife, but you can still do it. If people convince you that porn is wrong that is not at all the same as preventing you from watching it.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll 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
Yinello



Joined: 10 May 2012
Posts: 2675
Location: Behind you

PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 10:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

no but srsly my right to watch porn trumps any bad shit happening to people in the porn industry

srsly guiz stop oppressing me because im horny

guizzzz
_________________
Help. Help, my eyes are stuck from rolling so hard. Help.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khan



Joined: 10 Feb 2013
Posts: 168

PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 10:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Irony wrote:

No, I really don't feel bad, just a bit puzzled.

Here's another parallel, and this one is meant as a "proof" of sorts.

Remember the vulgarity trial against "Louie Louie"? Remember when the prosecution brought forth a set of vile lyrics for what the song supposedly said? Listen to the song, look at those lyrics, and you really hear them. All sorts of cussing and vulgarity. But they weren't really there.

Mind you, I'm not saying that they aren't there in porn, in the same way I'm not saying Louie, Louie not containing vulgar lyrics means than no songs do, but you hear what you expect, and you see what you expect.

Suppose we take some borderline case, a little dirty talk, none particularly explicit. You expect to see a woman being degraded so you do. I don't expect to see it so I don't. Is it really there?

Well, maybe, tone isn't like lyrics, there's no necessarily "correct" answer, but if it's not obvious then it's only when the person is predisposed to seeing the woman as "degraded" or as "a sex object" that they see it.


You really dont see the irony of arguing negatively that others are choosing to look for the evil in something, which, shock and amazement, proves pretty unpleasant at least the 9 out of 10 times as mentioned? And its not remotely comparable to demonizing dnd, since nobody gets wanked on by 40 or 50 ugly duded in an easily accesible version of the game. The entire goal of even vanilla stuff is to, at best, present a patently ridiculous world view, and imho more often than that a key aspect is, as stated, general debasement of women as people. The goal of dnd is to OPENLY fantasize about a clearly false world. I know many, many boys that were definately influenced by porn; even if they dont watch it, other boys will mock the innocent ones 'lack of basic knowledge', which always entails lying about experiences (often at a girls expense). Thus, even if youve never seen anything pornographic somehow, you will still be affected by it. Note, i didnt even say might. Dnd doesnt affect those that dont interact with it, since we marginalize it; boys should fantasize about buttsex and facials, not doing good deeds!

You sir are every marketers wet dream; i bet more than a few are fapping to the idea of an impressionable ignoramous actually defending a product despite actual evidence contrary to version being sold to you. I can respect a stupid person, but i find deliberate ignorance offensive, and i find people that stubbornly ignore the suffering of their fellow creatures to be sickening, all the more if that person does it for sexual gratification.

To restate something already stated in a vaguely different way; you as an adult have either directly beheld or have at least heard of examples of 'slut shaming'. In most of the world, if not all of it, women that engage in extramarital sex are seen as lesser, or tainted somehow. There is a reason 16 year old boys will lie about how much sex they are having by greatly exagerating it, even in mixed company, yet i never knew a single woman that did that... perhaps because boys are told that sex for them is admirable, while for a girl sex just makes her a whore, and enjoying it makes her a slut? seeing as everyone is aware of this prevelant to say the least world view, how can you not see the problem? So what if the woman doesnt think shes being debased if she is now a social pariah despite having done nothing wrong, let alone illegal.

I also found great irony when you said that when you watch vanilla porn, you just see people screwing... a statement that implies you see this pornsex as normal, or vanilla sex. But hey, porn COULDNT have affected that!

*listens to marketer groaning at the next comp, clearly aroused by something he only believed could occur in his most deluded fantasy*

Edit: pretty sure nobody but the lurking nutjob in the corner said all porn is bad. Everyone else has much more reasonable views
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10693
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khan wrote:
There is a reason 16 year old boys will lie about how much sex they are having by greatly exagerating it, even in mixed company, yet i never knew a single woman that did that... perhaps because boys are told that sex for them is admirable, while for a girl sex just makes her a whore, and enjoying it makes her a slut?

In fact, this phenomenon has been shown in research. The social sciences have long known that men and women tend to give different estimates of their number of lifetime sexual partners, with men giving larger numbers than women.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll 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
Thenadathor



Joined: 17 Jul 2012
Posts: 63

PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 1:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
It's interesting that you bring up Malcolm X vs MLK. I was actually going to bring them up as an example of how you need both sides. Quite often, any large social movement needs both sides. The more radical element, so long as it doesn't overtake the whole, seems to have the effect of getting attention, and then driving the society to actually have a conversation with the less abrasive elements.


Thats really interesting. I'm still sort of unsure. I wonder if Malcom X actually was a net benefit to civil rights.
_________________
Don`t give up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khan



Joined: 10 Feb 2013
Posts: 168

PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am hardly qualified to offer an opinion on Mr. X himself, but i think the situation itself could be broken down as follows... black americans had almost no rights, which was bad. The problem with taking the 'hard' approach that i feel he took vs the 'soft' route taken by MLK is that non-white americans were in such a weak position that stuff like the black panthers wasnt really a reason for whites to actually give minorities more rights. Trying to strong arm when you are in a position of considerable disadvantage is not productive.

THAT SAID... remember that guy that set himself on fire in north africa? Violent protest, yep, but he wasnt strongarming, he was showing the world his life was made impossible to live. But whats it all mean? Well, i think it means the onus to create awareness of a problem belongs to the victims, but the actual change has to come from those who have the power. Eloquence comes in many forms, but angry people dont get taken seriously, ever. Period. And if that angry person is disadvantaged? Prepare to be incarnate joke.

So yeah, angry black people picketing stuff, useful. Mot giving up seat? Useful. Eloquent speeches? Useful. Making stodgy empowered white people feel threatened? Prepare to be treated like a rabid dog.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rune



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 1046

PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But it gave some contrast that did, in fact, help the white community to see MLK and others as reasonable by comparison, rather than just uppity. It helped to show that the movement had some teeth to fall back on, should they decide to just throw out some meaningless placations. MLK was the speak softly, X was the big stick.

You are also only looking at it from the perspective of the effect that it had on the whites. Sometimes anger needs a place to go, sometimes a movement needs internal galvanization. Even if you don't agree with their methods and wouldn't participate in them, seeing someone else within your movement react strongly and powerfully against the things that are beating you down can be validating, awakening, and offer courage and inspiration to individuals who might otherwise be too afraid, or too crippled by learned helplessness. It might get them on their feet to face the firehose, or join the rally, or sit in on the bus, or anything that posed a serious risk of retaliation from the oppressing side, no matter how "nicely" it was done.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khan



Joined: 10 Feb 2013
Posts: 168

PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rune wrote:
But it gave some contrast that did, in fact, help the white community to see MLK and others as reasonable by comparison, rather than just uppity. It helped to show that the movement had some teeth to fall back on, should they decide to just throw out some meaningless placations. MLK was the speak softly, X was the big stick.

You are also only looking at it from the perspective of the effect that it had on the whites. Sometimes anger needs a place to go, sometimes a movement needs internal galvanization. Even if you don't agree with their methods and wouldn't participate in them, seeing someone else within your movement react strongly and powerfully against the things that are beating you down can be validating, awakening, and offer courage and inspiration to individuals who might otherwise be too afraid, or too crippled by learned helplessness. It might get them on their feet to face the firehose, or join the rally, or sit in on the bus, or anything that posed a serious risk of retaliation from the oppressing side, no matter how "nicely" it was done.


Malcolm X may well have had a big scary stick with nails sticking out, but the white oligarchy had guns. Lots of them. And they had he police, the soldiers and even crazy militiamen/less crazy hunting enthusiasts. My problem here is that there WAS no threat blacks could make, other than refusing to participate in the economy.

Nothing wrong wih inspiring others, but you can do that by preaching love, even if it gets you shot. Nah, what actually worked would NEVER work in real life!

Eh, im coming across as mean, and im not trying to. I dont see acting tough when you are at a vast disadvantage as likely to achieve your goals.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ShadowCell



Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 6042
Location: California

PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 5:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

even what Martin Luther King Jr had to say pissed off lots of white people. it wasn't because he didn't say it "nicely" enough, it's because it was a racist society and MLK was demanding that people stop being racist. there is no way to say that without pissing off the racists. which is why he got treated like a rabid dog too.

but the constant refrain that "you have to be nicer in the way you present this stuff" is, as often as not, just an underhanded way of getting you to shut up anyways. because someone will always take offense at what you say, so you can never say it "nicely" enough. you will reach the point of being so "nice" you can just be ignored before you'll ever reach the point of being so "nice" that people will listen to what you have to say. especially when what you have to say fundamentally isn't "nice" and is going to offend some people to begin with.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rune



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 1046

PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You've missed the main thrust of my point. Any kind of social movement has needed and will need multiple approaches to get anywhere. Discounting the Malcolm X's because we like the MLK's better (and because they make us feel better about ourselves) is ignorant, and leads all too quickly into Derailing for Dummies territory.

Personally, I do prefer non-violence.

But no member of a privileged group can really tell members of an oppressed one which of the limited powers and means available to them they are wise or allowed, according to you, to invoke. Unless, of course, you are offering to literally magic-fix everything with a snap of your fingers so there's actually no need for anything else.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khan



Joined: 10 Feb 2013
Posts: 168

PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ShadowCell wrote:
even what Martin Luther King Jr had to say pissed off lots of white people. it wasn't because he didn't say it "nicely" enough, it's because it was a racist society and MLK was demanding that people stop being racist. there is no way to say that without pissing off the racists. which is why he got treated like a rabid dog too.

but the constant refrain that "you have to be nicer in the way you present this stuff" is, as often as not, just an underhanded way of getting you to shut up anyways. because someone will always take offense at what you say, so you can never say it "nicely" enough. you will reach the point of being so "nice" you can just be ignored before you'll ever reach the point of being so "nice" that people will listen to what you have to say. especially when what you have to say fundamentally isn't "nice" and is going to offend some people to begin with.


Imho, it can be argued that mlk did say things lots of people didnt want to hear, but i dont see his method as being 'not nice'. Just because some assholes dont like your mesage and claim you arent being 'nice', well, both go killed. I still see mlk as the more civil of the two, and the one that got more actual results.

Seriously, the goal is to change views, right? Angry yelling gets other people to yell back angrily, while actually presenting your view can achieve results.

All that said, in this day and age, i wonder how things would have gone if, as Boondocks made a show about, mlk didnt die... and had to see what many people have done with his legacy after a generation. Feminism has the same problem, only moreso, since that fight stopped being as active longer ago in many areas. Breaking out of a cycle isnt going to be easy, but the cycle of progress vs oppression had better someday. The oppressed need to take up the fight again after a break, not rest on some spokepersons accomplishments. Especially when that spokespersons dream isnt really achieved yet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khan



Joined: 10 Feb 2013
Posts: 168

PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rune wrote:
You've missed the main thrust of my point. Any kind of social movement has needed and will need multiple approaches to get anywhere. Discounting the Malcolm X's because we like the MLK's better (and because they make us feel better about ourselves) is ignorant, and leads all too quickly into Derailing for Dummies territory.

Personally, I do prefer non-violence.

But no member of a privileged group can really tell members of an oppressed one which of the limited powers and means available to them they are wise or allowed, according to you, to invoke. Unless, of course, you are offering to literally magic-fix everything with a snap of your fingers so there's actually no need for anything else.


Okay, let me say this another way; did PETA supporters spray painting people with fur or leather clothing achieve anything but annoyance? Yep, it made them a living joke.

You cannot argue from a position of power IF YOU HAVE NO POWER TO BEGIN WITH. Did slaves in the usa go free because slaves thought being a slave was wrong!? Fuck no.

Racists hated mlk. As much likely as Malcolm X. Yet, ONE GOT RESULTS.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rune



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 1046

PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khan wrote:
Rune wrote:
You've missed the main thrust of my point. Any kind of social movement has needed and will need multiple approaches to get anywhere. Discounting the Malcolm X's because we like the MLK's better (and because they make us feel better about ourselves) is ignorant, and leads all too quickly into Derailing for Dummies territory.

Personally, I do prefer non-violence.

But no member of a privileged group can really tell members of an oppressed one which of the limited powers and means available to them they are wise or allowed, according to you, to invoke. Unless, of course, you are offering to literally magic-fix everything with a snap of your fingers so there's actually no need for anything else.


Okay, let me say this another way; did PETA supporters spray painting people with fur or leather clothing achieve anything but annoyance? Yep, it made them a living joke.

You cannot argue from a position of power IF YOU HAVE NO POWER TO BEGIN WITH. Did slaves in the usa go free because slaves thought being a slave was wrong!? Fuck no.

Racists hated mlk. As much likely as Malcolm X. Yet, ONE GOT RESULTS.


That's because PETA is a f*ing joke. Civil Rights was not. Comparing the two is utterly ridiculous.

And your understanding of power is apparently just as bereft. The Civil Rights movement HAD power, and they claimed it for themselves. They didn't need the whites to "give" them power, and approaching the matter from that perspective is presumptuous and arrogant to say the least. What they were campaigning for wasn't "power" by your apparently violence-and-dominion-oriented use of the word. It was rights.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rune



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 1046

PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khan wrote:
Yet, ONE GOT RESULTS.


Okay, and I have to take some time out for this one especially. I know in the US, we're particularly prone to subscribing to Great Man Theory when we interpret history and events, but do you really, REALLY think that it was JUST MLK who made things happen? I mean, really?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 9 of 10

 
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