User Controls
'anyone I don't like personally is a nonce'
-
2023-10-04 at 6:30 AM UTC(Also: "sexual exploitation = rape = act of violence" is the thought process at play here, aldra. Don't be pointing at the S and pretending the E isn't modifying the shit out of it. The people pushing "CSE" are the same people who write "r*pe" because the word might trigger people. You're only tying the change in language to efforts to rehabilitate pornography because you're so blackpilled on degeneracy, on jah fr fr.)
-
2023-10-04 at 6:35 AM UTCall of the things you have described are pornography BY DEFINITION. sure they're extreme pornography, but that's natural progression when by definition it's material meant to elicit a sexual response.
you're trying to amputate the rotted limbs from someone with a blood infection -
2023-10-04 at 7:04 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra all of the things you have described are pornography BY DEFINITION. sure they're extreme pornography, but that's natural progression when by definition it's material meant to elicit a sexual response.
Those pictures of chopped up corpses aren't meant to elicit a sexual response, are they? It's just some freak masturbating to images that were meant to sate some other morbid curiosity, some other vice. The goal is very clearly dehumanizing nonces by drawing a line in the sand and rejecting the idea that it could elicit a sexual response in humans. It's a consequence of pornography already being destigmatized, not an effort to rehabilitate porn. THE BATTLE IS OVER. You probably lost it before you were even born, man. The "porn" cat is out of the bag and no matter how much you point to thelanguage bibledictionary and say "UMM ACKSHUALLY PORN MEANS THIS", the working definition of porn in people's heads is informed by their experiences with porn; not by what dictionaries say porn is.
PS: You do get that shit like "earth porn" is ironic, right? It's just pretty pictures of the Earth. -
2023-10-04 at 7:16 AM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai PS: You do get that shit like "earth porn" is ironic, right? It's just pretty pictures of the Earth.
nobody's literally jerking off (ie. a sexual response) to pictures of the earth
moreover, images aren't being created specifically for that purpose. people jerking off over pictures of corpses doesn't make the images pornography, but it does if those photos were taken or presented for that purpose. -
2023-10-04 at 7:19 AM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai the working definition of porn in people's heads
is exactly what's being manipulated. "well ACKSHUALLY if we restrict pornography to a POSITIVE term it means its POSITIVE. BAZINGA"
objective reality doesn't come from retards rationalising desires they never even try to understand. -
2023-10-04 at 7:26 AM UTCYou ever misused a word that you only half-guessed the meaning based on the contexts in which you'd seen it used before? Yeah. People aren't consulting the dictionary on the regular.
Another way of thinking about this: it's like jedis insisting on the Holocaust/Shoah. The idea is to separate it from the generic concept of genocide. But of course jedis aren't interested in "rehabilitating genocide", they're interested in singling out the genocide of jedis as a particularly repugnant thing to do. Understandable. Apply the same logic to CSEM, and it's an even worse picture: people generally already dislike genocide, but people LOVE porn. It's not about rehabilitating the generic concept of porn (because obviously it isn't: that goal is pretty thoroughly fucking accomplished, m8 - PornHub is one of the most trafficked sites on the interwebs), it's about singling out CP and ensuring people view it as particularly repugnant. CSEM is entirely compatible with your definition of porn, but the issue "CSEM" seeks to address is people don't think of the dictionary definition when they think of porn. "Child porn" is just like "Asian porn" or "BBC porn", and the idea is to separate it from those and single it out. If your head was on straight I think you'd probably see this as noble, but you're too wrapped up in your blackpilled anti-degeneracy retardery to see it.
Originally posted by aldra is exactly what's being manipulated. "well ACKSHUALLY if we restrict pornography to a POSITIVE term it means its POSITIVE. BAZINGA"
objective reality doesn't come from retards rationalising desires they never even try to understand.
Holy shit. IT'S NOT BEING MANIPULATED IT'S JUST WHAT THEY ALREADY FEEL. People already like porn. Way too much. This isn't some nefarious leftoid plot to make porn more permissible, because the internet is for porn. It's already permissible. It's a lost battle. CSEM is addressing the reality of how positively people already feel about porn, not trying to make them like it more. It's over, m8. Cat and bag aren't even in the same solar system at this point. -
2023-10-04 at 7:28 AM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai You ever misused a word that you only half-guessed the meaning based on the contexts in which you'd seen it used before? Yeah. People aren't consulting the dictionary on the regular.
Another way of thinking about this: it's like jedis insisting on the Holocaust/Shoah. The idea is to separate it from the generic concept of genocide. But of course jedis aren't interested in "rehabilitating genocide", they're interested in singling out the genocide of jedis as a particularly repugnant thing to do. Understandable. Apply the same logic to CSEM, and it's an even worse picture: people generally already dislike genocide, but people LOVE porn. It's not about rehabilitating the generic concept of porn (because obviously it isn't: that goal is pretty thoroughly fucking accomplished, m8 - PornHub is one of the most trafficked sites on the interwebs), it's about singling out CP and ensuring people view it as particularly repugnant. CSEM is entirely compatible with your definition of porn, but the issue "CSEM" seeks to address is people don't think of the dictionary definition when they think of porn. "Child porn" is just like "Asian porn" or "BBC porn", and the idea is to separate it from those and single it out. If your head was on straight I think you'd probably see this as noble, but you're too wrapped up in your blackpilled anti-degeneracy retardery to see it.
are you literally advocating for objective meaning to disappear in favour of 'this means whatever I want it to'? -
2023-10-04 at 7:32 AM UTCobjectivity is the point of a language so that one person can concisely communicate an idea to someone else; if you're just going to drop definitions you might as well just go back to vague pictographs
-
2023-10-04 at 7:34 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra are you literally advocating for objective meaning to disappear in favour of 'this means whatever I want it to'?
No, I'm advocating for being realistic: people already like porn. Porn's rehabilitation was done by the internet, and porn itself. It's not about "protecting porn", it's about singling out the bad thing and giving it a unique label for people to latch onto to distinguish it from the other thing. -
2023-10-04 at 7:37 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra objectivity is the point of a language so that one person can concisely communicate an idea to someone else; if you're just going to drop definitions you might as well just go back to vague pictographs
I'm not dropping definitions, I'm just not a linguistic prescriptivist. The "objectivity" is derived from consensus and from common usage, not from what Oxford says. Languages are descriptive. Words describe concepts that are gained through messy processes and the meanings of words, the concepts they describe, are recorded for posterity in books - words are not assigned meanings by Oxford and that meaning is not then uploaded into the minds of every man, woman, and child. Language is pure chaos, constantly shifting and updating based on messy processes that are impossible to control. -
2023-10-04 at 7:40 AM UTCPornography lost its connotations over the course of decades. CSEM is, as I said, COMPATIBLE WITH THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION. It's just not how people actually think about porn. The goal is to sever the connection between porn and child porn, but not to make porn look good. It's to make child porn look worse, because porn already looks good to people.
It is manipulative, you're just assigning the manipulation to nefarious and degenerate leftoid plotting instead of where it actually belongs: the unifying hatred for noncery shared by most of western civilization, even leftoids. -
2023-10-04 at 7:41 AM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai No, I'm advocating for being realistic: people already like porn. Porn's rehabilitation was done by the internet, and porn itself. It's not about "protecting porn", it's about singling out the bad thing and giving it a unique label for people to latch onto to distinguish it from the other thing.
you can like something just fine while understanding that it has all sorts of problems. I like drugs, but now generally try to avoid them. even when I was doing them all the time I didn't pretend that it was all sunshine and butterflies.
general social problems aside (see: wariat, the extreme case), pornography is an effective tool to control behaviour, to consolidate power and to push certain ideologies from above. all of the major pornography platforms are owned by small groups of people who have a vested interest in normalising both the consumption and production of pornographic material. distancing their product from things that people hate is a common business tactic. -
2023-10-04 at 7:44 AM UTC
-
2023-10-04 at 7:46 AM UTCDrugs are a great example actually: people love drugs. The kind they get from doctors. But those NARCOTICS (a word people use even for illegal stimulants, despite the fact that it refers to drugs that make you sleepy btw - language do be crazy)? Those ILLICIT, CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES? No no no.
Was that Bayer's doing? Pfizer's? Or politicians' and activists'? -
2023-10-04 at 7:48 AM UTCyes, same thing.
the Sacklers were selling MEDICINES, not DRUGS. very aggressively. -
2023-10-04 at 7:48 AM UTCIs the war on drugs about making sure people love tylenol more? Or is it about making them hate weed/cocaine/whatever? The war on drugs has been going on for a hundred years, aldra. "Muh Sacklers, Muh Fentanyl" is such a fucking copout.
-
2023-10-04 at 7:49 AM UTC
-
2023-10-04 at 7:51 AM UTCboth heroin and cocaine were MEDICINES before they were recategorised as BAD DRUGS.
-
2023-10-04 at 7:52 AM UTCThe war on drugs is a war on inebriation that has its roots in the temperance movement. People say "abolition ended", but only the abolition of one particular substance ended. It's not about Bayer wanting people to be more comfortable with aspirin, it's about advocacy groups and politicians wanting people to hate altered states of consciousness.
-
2023-10-04 at 7:55 AM UTCso drugs and medicines being separated, even though they're effectively the same thing was a purely political distinction?
they changed definitions because SOMEBODY wanted them to be thought of differently, even though they all have the potential to cause negative effects?
