Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Truean]

Very simple:

It's basically because the hardline Republicans are "Americans" (tm), also "Christians" (tm), "Naturally Moral" (tm) and of course "Correct" (tm). If you're not one of them in every single detail, then you're "unamerican," a "heathen," "immoral," and of course, "wrong." How on earth could people be turning on them? O noes! This can't be possible. After all, they're so right!. It must be some brainwashing plot or something by those evil people things that couldn't possibly be right! It must be the Democrats fooling people with their "Liberal Media!" (tm) It's like a nazi propaganda machine.... Isn't that the real gist of the article? http://news.yahoo.com/fla-congressman-draws-ire-nazi-comparison-204402366.html

Or, you know.... Maybe it's finally become a little hard to ignore the obstructionists and that frankly all of Congress is not doing much of anything right now?

[fqllve]

Carried over from the sad thread:

Sexual gratification isn't bad in any way shape or form. The method of obtaining it might be, but again, no victim, no crime. Once there's a victim or attempt to victimize someone, then I'll call foul. Not before.

I'm not saying it's bad so much as trying to explain why it's reasonable to be offended by it. Sexual gratification is just fine, sexual gratification from the torture and debasement of a fictional character is... disconcerting. I don't think it should be banned, I'm a staunch supporter of free speech, but I think there needs to be some serious thought put into how appropriate these things are to share.

Rape in the real world is absolutely wrong, which is a viewpoint on pretty damn solid ground.

As nothing that we're talking about is happening in the real world, that is completely irrelevant. True, but irrelevant.

No, but we are talking about how potentially offensive something is and why it may be. Since rape is pretty much one of the worst things you can do anything pertaining to rape is going to be offensive to some degree.

[kaijyuu]

Moving old post here. Will give you a proper reply when I get home from work.

They aren't really. It's not that it's gross, it's that it's putting a character in a situation of significant psychological torture and then perhaps using it for sexual gratification (although not necessarily). Theres a degree of sadism there and that's what makes it so potentially offensive.

Sexual gratification isn't bad in any way shape or form. The method of obtaining it might be, but again, no victim, no crime. Once there's a victim or attempt to victimize someone, then I'll call foul. Not before.

As for sadism, there's plenty of argument whether that's a mental illness or personality trait. So long as it doesn't translate to hurting real people though, I don't care.

Rape in the real world is absolutely wrong, which is a viewpoint on pretty damn solid ground.

As nothing that we're talking about is happening in the real world, that is completely irrelevant. True, but irrelevant.


EDIT: If your beef with this stuff has entirely to do with the sadistic nature of it, then sure, we're on much closer ground. I don't have a solid opinion on whether sadism is an illness or not, so if you do, I would not object to you thinking that being into this stuff is indicative of them needing therapy for said sadism. The sexual aspects absolutely do not make it any worse, though.

[kaijyuu]

Carried over from the sad thread:

Sexual gratification isn't bad in any way shape or form. The method of obtaining it might be, but again, no victim, no crime. Once there's a victim or attempt to victimize someone, then I'll call foul. Not before.

I'm not saying it's bad so much as trying to explain why it's reasonable to be offended by it. Sexual gratification is just fine, sexual gratification from the torture and debasement of a fictional character is... disconcerting. I don't think it should be banned, I'm a staunch supporter of free speech, but I think there needs to be some serious thought put into how appropriate these things are to share.

Rape in the real world is absolutely wrong, which is a viewpoint on pretty damn solid ground.

As nothing that we're talking about is happening in the real world, that is completely irrelevant. True, but irrelevant.

No, but we are talking about how potentially offensive something is and why it may be. Since rape is pretty much one of the worst things you can do anything pertaining to rape is going to be offensive to some degree.

Yeah I've got no problem with you finding it offensive or whatever. I only have a problem with people wanting to ban it, or people who judge those who do like it. If you don't want to ban it, nor look down on people who do like it, then there's no argument because we agree on anything that matters


Finding stuff offensive or gross or whatever is fine justification for asking it to not be shown to you. In fact that's the only reason I find remotely plausible for say, hiding sexual things on public television. Similarly to how I wouldn't really want to see someone defecating on public TV, I understand why someone else wouldn't want to see <insert something they find disgusting here> on TV. It's just courtesy. Other concerns might override it of course; banning gay couples on TV would have other, quite negative effects that would outweigh any concerns of it being "gross" or "offensive", for example. But if there aren't other concerns? Sure, hide it away.

[Rose]

I think it's more a case of 'if you enjoy reading about people being raped, then you likely also enjoy raping people' which just plain sets off alarms.

I'm not saying it's true, but the inference is there.

[EveryZig]

I think it's more a case of 'if you enjoy reading about people being raped, then you likely also enjoy raping people' which just plain sets off alarms.

I'm not saying it's true, but the inference is there.

Which quickly brings us back into the territory of Jack Thompson and the 'murder simulators'.

[Frumple]

I think it's more a case of 'if you enjoy reading about people being raped, then you likely also enjoy raping people' which just plain sets off alarms.

I'm not saying it's true, but the inference is there.

Which quickly brings us back into the territory of Jack Thompson and the 'murder simulators'.

Or books. Yanno', books? What might as well be all of them? "You enjoy reading about people getting slaughtered, so, yanno', probably going to go do that. Or hey, plagues. You like plagues, right? Obviously going to go make up some plagues and spread 'em around." Doesn't work that way.

I really wish folks without a heavy -- and diverse -- grounding in current psychological research would just shut the hell up about that subject. Last time I bothered checking one one of said people, the response was "Well, yeah, a little. Very minor contributing factor, sometimes, but not cause," iirc, and th'actual situation is bloody-hell complex.

Naively playing up on that connection is what just plain sets off alarms to me; whoever's making the point is mostly likely either not qualified to be making the point (read: They haven't bothered to check with the years of research data involved or they're not exercising a single ounce of rationality.) or trying to 'baffle me with bullshit' while they pull something underhanded. When you're talking about banning (forceful censorship or repression) something, bring statistical significance or go th'hell home

Distasteful fiction is just one of the costs of not living in a(n absolute) crapsack world.

[kaijyuu]

Statistics?

Violent people will likely play violent video games (assuming they're into video games at all), as it's cathartic. This is fact. But of course, correlation != causation. Banning violent video games won't stop violent people from being violent. In fact it may increase it since they don't have as many "outs."

Similarly, someone who participates in <insert illegal activity here associated with sex> will likely also be interested in the not-so-illegal porn version. Taking away said porn though will, again, probably increase occurrence of the real thing as they, again, no longer have an "out."


As for making assumptions based on these statistics, in both cases it's one-way. So, it's moderately reasonable to assume violent person -> likes violent video games/movies/etc. It is NOT however reasonable to assume likes violent video games/movies/etc -> violent person. Same for the other junk we've been talking about.

[ChairmanPoo]

I think you don'tundersand what statistics means. Those weren't statistics, but a series of reasonings based on guesses.


I wasn't going to point out the obvious, but for that line at the end which implied that you believed, in fact, that you had provided statistical data on the issue

[kaijyuu]

Ha, true. I didn't actually cite anything.

Too lazy to do so, but anyone's welcome to. I'd be more surprised if there wasn't a correlation than if there was.

[Miggy]

Nothing to see here: http://news.yahoo.com/fbi-considered-sting-aimed-gingrich-014000611.html

Wow, that's incredible.

This summer Denmark got a new government, and as a link to this all the minister-slots had to be filled. One of the high-profile social-Democrat politicians, who was almost assured to be given a high-profile ministry, was denied any access to the government because one of his close friends had been seen hanging out with a semi-high-profile biker. The biker might persuade his friend who might persuade him, and that's a security and corruption risk. Door's closed.

I don't get it, it seems the final conclusion of the article is: If we actually went after his wife, people might not vote for him and that would be a shame for him. Am I reading that right?

[MonkeyHead]

Meanwhile, in the UK, our Ex-Defence Minister Liam Fox (so pretty high fucking profile) recently resigned over an issue where he took a "special friend" on official buisness, and even allowed him to sit in on highly classified meetings and breifings. Apparently BAE systems or suchlike were bankrolling this more than dubious behaviour (chaps name was Adam Werrity IIRC)... corrupt much Conservative Party?

[Frumple]

Violent people will likely play violent video games (assuming they're into video games at all), as it's cathartic. This is fact. But of course, correlation != causation. Banning violent video games won't stop violent people from being violent. In fact it may increase it since they don't have as many "outs."

Short form, and the reason why I emphasized statistical significance -- read, that the correlation being mentioned actually exists in a meaningful way and has the numbers to back it -- that catharsis thing? That is not fact. I'd have to go haul out m'psych book to pull up the citations, but actual (and recent) research into that catharsis theory has shown that there's not actually basis for that assumption. It (actions seen to be cathartic) doesn't have a meaningful influence on whether someone will or will not do something, in most cases. Iirc, it doesn't even reduce stress (in relation to the acts that are supposed to do so.).

Bloody-hell complex, and some stuff is not obvious. Some times what's seen as common sense (and/or the generally held consensus) can be wrong (or at least unsupportable, which is almost as bad in most situations).

[Nadaka]

http://news.yahoo.com/mannings-sexual-orientation-raised-hearing-215925641.html

[Pnx]

So he's using "I'm gay" as a defence? That's a new one.