The Politics Megathread

[okdudeswow]

@Tamerlane
And I'm saying it's not censorship to change books for the intent of firring modern society, regardless of your personal connection to said book, why should it stay in curriculum otehr then "I'm against ALL censorship" (even though you eradily admitted it's a roundabout consclusion to call this censorship, as it would take a few preconcieved notions to declare it so.

It also seems like you're conflating actual banned books (as in, listed as unnaceptable in curriculum, in libraries, literally banned from print) and a book going out of print. Your faux "consclusion" is one of someone who doesn't understand how print works. Should an outdated textbook taken out of print censorship? Should we keep printing it to "preserve the historical value?" These books are tools for learning. That is their intention. In fact they are only supplementary for other basic moral lessons.

Also taking logic to absurdities is a fallacy in itself you know, but you seem to only pick and choose those that suit your argument.

Little will change, and in a few weeks this latest media outrage will be forgotten. You've even acknowledged that it's what you fear will come after that is the problem (i.e. more censorship). Doesn't cange your access to the book and what you can teach your kids, and really, I don't care, maybe it is racist. It's a kids book.

TIL Doctor Seuss going out of print= hardcore heroin AND The burning of Alexandria

 

[nutman451]

@Stupid_Goo

And also how Lion King has that one scene with the clouds, it literally says "SEX" as it slowly drifts by in the sky.

Oh yea, I remember watching a youtube video pointing that out, shit's hillarious.

I think you're misattributing malicious intent to what could possibly be the animator just goofing off.

Unless you can prove Disney movies with these elements will cause irreparable damage towards children's well being or prove that Disney knowingly added these elements for malicious purposes, I think we can let these seemingly innocent (albeit inappropriate) jokes slide.

All the Disney princesses with their small waist, curvy hips, plunging neckline and ample bosom with cleavage showing

What's wrong with women having small waists, curvy hips, plunging neckline and ample bosom? You do realize these are objective and universally recognized feminine characteristics, right? There's nothing wrong with depicting women with very feminine traits just as there's nothing wrong with depicting women with very few feminine traits.

while I say no, you'd have to explain why people draw Family Guy and Gravity Falls porn.

Because people are weird and tends to do whatever they want.

anyways, who are these "people"? are they affiliated with Disney? If not, why should Disney be responsible for what other people do with their own and other company's Intellectual Property? It's like throwing you in jail just because someone shanked his neighbor with a pen you designed.

The original tales that all the Disney movies are based off of being rather gorey, grotesque and/or sexually violent in nature - give those a read sometime.

Are the contents of Disney movies gorey, grotesque and/or sexually violent in nature? You can't just judge the contents of a movie using contents of it's source material. Judge the merits of a work by it's own contents, not by other's content including the source material.

And I have read some of the source material, some of them have very few similarities with the movie adaptation (Snowhite, the little mermaid, Aladin). Not to mention several other children tales of the time aren't as bad as people make it out to be.

And on that note, I find it funny that you complained that Disney is "teaching kids that nobody likes uggos" despite the movie "the hunchback of notre dame" has a character who looked pretty grotesque (compared to the character around him) but learns that he can love and be loved by everyone, yet you want to cancel it for being "grotesque"

In comparison to these and people drawing 2D characters that are literally and lore-wise stated to be under 13-18, I find that Dr. Seuss is a small matter.

In comparison to Uyghurs being sent in to concentration camps and litterally being raped and oppressed, I find that People drawing 2D characters that are literally and lore-wise stated to be under 13-18 to be a small matter.

Y'see why this is a falacy? People have the freedom to argue whatever they think are important, If you want to bring forward a problem you think is worth talking about, they you better wait until someone's willing to argue with you. If you want to speed up the process, you may make bring it up and hope someone will engage with you, other wise sit down and wait for your turn.

also what's wrong with drawing minors? Do you want to put most cartoonists in to the woodchipper?

But there's a difference between looking underage and being underage

And you have immediately lost, because artists can make erotic loli/shota art and state that these characters are aged 18+ but has child-like bodies. This includes established works, because how can you prove that statement to be false? I know that's not how it works, but that's how legalese works. I don't make the rules, honey.

won't change my mind that it'd enabling them.

I have yet to see any evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that erotic loli/shot art causes people to become pedophiles nor cause them to start didling children when they previously have no interest nor intention to do so.

And while we're at it. Erotic loli/shota art can't be considered CP, because they (normally) do not involve any children during the whole creation process. If it's proven that the art uses a posing child as a base, then that specific artwork can be considered CP, and you have my blessings to throw the artist in to the woodchipper.

If we forego the involvement of real life children, then that means treating fictional characters as actual people. That means killing a fictional character is actual murder, drawing a scene where a woman gets hit is actual abuse, and so on.

 

[readingsit]

@immortalartisan

did you forget to switch alt accounts? Or is that sarcasm?

i do not have an alt account, and yes the first part was sarcasm my apologies for not making that clear the second part is from an old story i read where cathy had said after the interview that she thought it went well but i cant find that story now so feel free to take it with a grain of salt

@Stupid_Goo

I don't see anyone trying to shut Disney down

hrmmmm

And also how Lion King has that one scene with the clouds, it literally says "SEX" as it slowly drifts by in the sky.

oh come on, its a joke. its like walking down a back-alley and seeing a penis spray-painted on a wall. unless i see somthing like "older men are sexy" in a child's film im not going to assume subliminal messaging from what just appears to be messing around by man-children

You can argue against 2D not being CP all you want, won't change my mind that it'd enabling them.

the problem with CP is it makes a victim out of those in the porn. a drawing, unless its a drawing of a real event, is just that: a drawing. you victimize no-one no matter how horrifically the events depicted are. because the people pictured arent real.

@Richman

Soooooo that means she hasn't reached maturity yet and shouldn't be considered as an adult even if she's multiple times the age of a human?

law shouldnt be reliant on the context of fictional worlds imo

@Tamerlane

For starters, I am not socially conservative in the slightest. I consider myself libertarian-left or socially liberal. My anti-authoritarian beliefs mean that I despise censorship in all its forms, no matter the justification or excuse. Remember when that was the left wing position?

sorry but your right of stalin that means your a far-right extremist now XD

Six. It was Six of his books.

dont forget! they said 6 FOR NOW. they hinted that the 'cat in the hat' is next!

@nutman451

and now me post is gone.

yarr!! that be a shame me hearty!

 

[nutman451]

sorry but your right of stalin that means your a far-right extremist now XD

ONE OF US! ONE OF US!

 

[wowfucktron]

@tamerlane
>me, an Orthodox Jew
These are fighting words.

I’m a reform Jew, for the record.

 

[EOTFOFYL]

Also taking logic to absurdities is a fallacy in itself you know, but you seem to only pick and choose those that suit your argument.

Not true, reductio ad absurdum is a valid form of argument, the tricky part is executing it properly.

It's more common in the realm of mathematics, an easy example would be to prove the claim that there are infinite prime numbers.

Spoiler

Suppose there are a finite number of primes.
P is the finite set of all prime numbers where: P = [P_1,P_2,...P_n]

Now suppose we have a number NP where: NP = (P_1*P_2*...*P_n)+1

Since there is no primes outside of P, NP should have a prime factor. However by adding 1 we can no longer use any values in P, thus NP is a prime.
Q.E.D

 

[Tamerlane]

@nutman451

I'm sorry but the length of my post is inversely related to the IQ of the person I am responding to.

@Richman

Zekrom

@wowfucktron

I stand corrected. You're free not to say "shalom" to me

@EOTFOFYL
Yes. thank you, though you have to be sure that you are representing the argument correctly and not reducing in terms of making a nuanced statement less nuanced or highly specific statement more broad, which I tried not to do by using his own quotes to form the syllogisms.

For instance, saying "There is no even prime natural number lower than 2 because if there was, you would have to divide it by two, or it won't be prime," is reductio ad absurdum technically, but it is correct because it's built on axioms regarding strict definitions.

@okdudeswow

And I'm saying it's not censorship to change books for the intent of firring[sic?] modern society, regardless of your personal connection to said book, why should it stay in curriculum otehr[sic] then "I'm against ALL censorship" (even though you eradily[sic] admitted it's a roundabout consclusion[sic] to call this censorship, as it would take a few preconcieved[sic] notions to declare it so.[sic]

I'd say changing an artistic piece in any way without express approval by the original creator or author is censorship in some sense, though if it's like a Beowulf where if it wasn't Christianized it would have been destroyed, I'd take it as a lesser of two evils.

Also, I never said it was a roundabout conclusion to call this censorship, I only used your definition of censorship and tried to take it to its logical conclusion. By my understanding, censorship is the removal or editing of art, or the restriction of said art that is not due to authorial desire or fixing of grammatical/printing errors, but must be done with the intent to remove certain elements of said art which is deemed offensive or inappropriate. It's a broad definition, and it's not strictly as black or white as "no censorship," and "100% censorship," but I believed nothing for an age-appropriate audience should be censored so long as it is intended specifically for that auidience.

It also seems like you're conflating actual banned books (as in, listed as unnaceptable[sic] in curriculum, in libraries, literally banned from print) and a book going out of print. Your faux "consclusion" is one of someone who doesn't understand how print works. Should an outdated textbook taken out of print censorship? Should we keep printing it to "preserve the historical value?" These books are tools for learning. That is their intention. In fact they are only supplementary for other basic moral lessons.

"Challenged" books means books which are attempted to be censored for inappropriate materials.The ALA has their famous yearly list, for instance. Having one that cited "racial caricatures" would not be out of place.

Also, I would argue it's a false equivalency to compare textbooks, which are not meant to be pieces of art and are meant to hold up to date material as much as possible, with those of artistic expression, such as Seuss's works. Arguably, it would be important to preserve outdated texts for future historians to see how the editions have changed over the years for studies on changes in knowledge and attitudes. Granted, that doesn't mean you should teach out of them as objective fact, but as period pieces to see how the understanding of a field has changed over time.

Books which teach morality are not empirical like textbooks are, and so are more likely to be categorized as "art." Paired with the fact that the textbooks are most likely not going out of print or changed for political or ideological reasons, (which I think we both would be opposed to) whereas THESE BOOKS EXPRESSLY HAVE BEEN STATED TO BE GOING OUT OF PRINT FOR POLITICAL AND IDEOLOGICAL REASONS, and I think you can see why your conflation falls apart.

Also taking logic to absurdities is a fallacy in itself you know, but you seem to only pick and choose those that suit your argument.

See what our favorite haiku enthusiast said, but there's a difference between representing a position as accurately as possible and leading it down to its logical conclusion, and strawmaning the position. I tried my best to do the former, whereas it seems you consistently are doing the latter, by intention or not.

Little will change, and in a few weeks this latest media outrage will be forgotten. You've even acknowledged that it's what you fear will come after that is the problem (i.e. more censorship). Doesn't cange[sic] your access to the book and what you can teach your kids, and really, I don't care, maybe it is racist. It's a kids book.

Even if we forget about over time, it doesn't change the question of if it is right or wrong. An injustice no one remembers is still an injustice.

And yes, the fear is that the censorship will only get worse. It reminds me of the poem about the Holocaust:

Spoiler

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

You have to oppose even seeming trivial or inconsequential cases of censorship if they show a consistent pattern of escalating until even the most innocuous of things are being censored, because that just means that the more important issues, the truly important and consequential causes that may cause controversy or contention, will only be censored and suppressed all the harder, making real change or discourse in the free market place of ideas impossible as a select few control the narrative.

TIL Doctor Seuss going out of print= hardcore heroin AND The burning of Alexandria

Your framing is wrong and excludes key details. Mostly that I was not comparing Dr Seuss being censored to hardcore heroin, but I was making an example that your line of logic on that point could be used to literary justify almost anything. It was a criticism of your logic, which is the same as the Library of Alexandria. Don't try to misrepresent my points here, even if it's all you seem capable of doing.

@okdudeswow

 

[EOTFOFYL]

@Tamerlane
Not gonna lie, the wording in your example got my sleepy mind into wild rollercoaster of confusion for a moment.

 

[Stupid_Goo]

@nutman451 @Richman ;

You've both lost.

Actual women irl exist that are of legal age and of petite/young stature, either well-endowed or modest of body, but you want to argue that it's different with 2D. Colour me unsurprised.

And "some old guys joking around," come on: you have all sorts of things you could squeeze in to humour in kid's shows and movies, and you want to sneak some sexual word into the clouds or stereotype the perfect girl? 🤔😑

But you're right about mentality of said old person - not that it matters in 2D or this discussion, as you want to claim towards age.
_{^{Remind me next time to use Nowi as an example and not Tiki.}}

 

[pandascepter]

@Mr_Detective
Mot******* where is ERISSSSSS

 

[okdudeswow]

@Tamerlane
Textbooks certainly go out of date for political reasons. They're directly connected, as they cover a variety of subjects with contentious material, and there is certainly political resistance to some things being included/ excluded, which includes examples such as: creationism, depictions of slavery, or in a more specific case directly related to art as a function, Nazi textbooks that are detailed because of their inethical production: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-49294861 which is a good reference point for outr discussion in my opinion, as this book is no longer in print but is still used in some capacity, despite being an actual Nazi book. Which is part of the reason why I see your prediction of over-reaching censorship as doomsaying.

Political change IS social change. They're literally inseperable. You're really going to bring out the Holocaust poem about putting a book deemed "racially insensitive?" Isn't that a bit deaf to the intention of the party looking to put the book out of print? (At least unless you think their intentions are not in good faith but are more sinister).

 

[nutman451]

@Stupid_Goo

I think you mistakenly tagged richman, or forgot to tag readingsit

Actual women irl exist that are of legal age and of petite/young stature, either well-endowed or modest of body, but you want to argue that it's different with 2D.

Is this in regards to what you consider "overly sexualised female bodies"? or the loli argument?

If it's the former, then No.

As you said "Actual women irl exist that are of legal age and of petite/young stature, either well-endowed or modest of body" by your own acknowledgement then it isn't unreasonable to depict women with "overly sexualised female bodies".

and before you argue that it's inappropriate for children, Disney doesn't have their princesses act in any inappropriately sexual manner, they don't put obscene focus on the girl's body part. They only draw the princesses with those qualities to make it more convincing that these princesses are indeed females.

If you are arguing the mere existence of these qualities are by themselves inappropriate for children, then you are also arguing that women regardless if it's IRL or fictional who have these attributes should not be allowed to be in the view or presence of children because they're very existence is damaging to their wellbeing. Which is absurd and really sexist.

If it's the later. then...

but you want to argue that it's different with 2D

Yes, but first some groundwork.

I'm not advocating for children to be able to view purposely erotic loli/shota art, or any purposely erotic art for that matter. But you must understand that these works are made for adults and are to be enjoyed by adults.

The reason pedophilia, child-didling, and explotation of children cannot be accepted in society is because children lack the cognitive maturity and moral understanding to be able to understand what they're getting themselves in to and take responsibility for their actions. For that reason alone, children can not consent.

But of course that leaves the question, when does someone stop being a kid and become an actual adult. The legal system has recognized when a person has reached the age of 18, then they are assumed to have sufficient cognitive maturity and moral understanding to give consent, which is why it's acceptable for a 20 YO to have a sexual relationship with a 40 YO while it's not acceptable for a 10 YO to have a sexual relationship with a 30 YO despite both having the same 20 year age difference.

Now that all that IRL stuff is out of the way, we move to the realm of fiction.

Art can be considered a representation of reality, however it is not the same as reality itself. Which is why stabbing a painting of Donald Trump is not the same as murdering him, touching the chest area of a drawing of a woman is not sexual harassment, and proclaiming an anime character as your wife does not make you married. Because of this, an interaction between a piece of art and a person, only the later is recognized as a legal individual while the other can only be classified as an object

By that logic, erotic loli/shota art can not be considered as CP, for there are no children involved in the act of indulging in erotic loli/shota art. The only time it is considered CP, is when actual children are involved during the creation process, such as posing for the artist to use as reference. Even then you have to prove that the person enjoying said art is aware that children were involved in the creation of such an art to convict him/her of possession of CP.

but what if the erotic art is based on a fictional minor?

Because that character isn't real I think it's irrelevant to the above reasoning but there's no reason to not add extra layer of protection ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°), because of the nature of art, time and maturity doesn't apply the same way as in reality. Regardless how much time passes in the real world, a fictional character will not age. However, due to artistic freedom, it is also possible to reimagine a character to have reached maturity in a very short span of time. An example is Bart Simpson, when he debut in the first episode of the Simpsons in 1987 he's 10 years old and even now, despite 30+ years have passed, he's still considered 10 years old or at least a minor. However in one episode in 1995, Bart has been depicted as a 25 year old adult in the far future of 2010 even though in real life only 8 years have passed. Not to mention in an episode aired in 2005, Bart is depicted as an 18 year old... in 2013. Clearly there is a disconnect between reality and fiction in regards to the flow of time.

If you believe that an artist's adaptation has no influence over the age of a fictional character, then plenty of shows have depicted minors commiting under-aged drinking and other unsavory things (I think I remember an episode of the simpson where a Sherri and Terri were pregnant, yikes).

If you believe that artists are allowed to depict fictional characters as whatever age they desire, then you can't say argue otherwise if an artist depicts a character as 18+ despite looking no different at all, because due to artistic freedom, artists can depict an adult version of a character as whatever they want.

you have all sorts of things you could squeeze in to humour in kid's shows and movies, and you want to sneak some sexual word into the clouds

You have not proven any malicious intent nor damage towards minors, thus this can be dismissed as humor and there is no legitimate reason to remove it nor give Disney a hard time over it.

stereotype the perfect girl

Again, prove that Disney is explicitly enforcing these beauty standards (which for whatever reason you consider damaging towards minors) along with the explicit rejection of other concepts of beauty.

And no, just because Disney doesn't mention nor depict other types of beauty doesn't mean they reject it. That's like assuming someone hates cats because they really like dogs.

and while at this topic, what the fuck is wrong with depicting women with very feminine traits? Is it unrealistic? Do you actually think women who look or have similar attributes to Disney princesses do not exist?

Demanding that depictions of females with "overly sexualized female bodies" is explicitly saying that these traits are wrong and those who like, desire to have, and/or have (regardless whether they intended to or not) those traits as morally wrong.

What a terrible message you're sending to kids. "remember kids, big breasts and wide hips are bad for society, and people who like them are the scum of the earth". My God I can't imagine how a growing adolescent would feel when her breasts begin to grow pass "acceptable" boundaries.

Advocating for representations of different beauty standards is fine, but demanding the removal of particular traits leads to terrible implications.

 

[Stupid_Goo]

@nutman451; dunno if I wasn't supposed to ping Richman seeing my Notifs said I had a ping from them, but readingsit doesn't sit well with me, so... 👀
However...
You ever hear of subliminal messaging? That thing where they lowkey brainwash or otherwise convince you that doing something is okay or that this kind of look is or is not alright based on other people's reactions in advertising or shows?
Well, what do you think having a whole town of guys whistling and catcalling in a musical towards a bunch of "hot girls" wearing "modestly" provocative outfits is? Subliminal messaging.
How about that little short fat guy with Gaston (iirc the antagonist's name in Beauty and the Beast) being kicked around and flat-out ignored while he's ogling? Subliminal messaging.
The intent is obviously not obvious, but us hidden within the actions and appearance of the cast and script - just because it isn't the object of attention doesn't mean it's not doing something.
You might be correct on the "2D art isn't real people and isn't victimising a real person, therefore it's not CP" according to law, and yet there's states and etc still pushing and even actively going for people owning arts and books concerning such - if you couldn't tell with the conversation we're having because I'm a stupid goo, I'm not seriously against what people are into because if you ask me, I've got some pretty out-there stuff I like as well (not that you'll get me to say any of it seeing how aggressive and offended people have gotten on this thread specifically, let alone the entire forums) and to each their own: you like what you like and short of a heavy electrotherapy or some sort of near-desth experience, that's not likely to change.


Warning: different and controversial add-on -

Spoiler

I could even start talking about some stuff I've read on the particular topic "how people into CP aren't being helped whatsoever" or how plenty of them would never willingly act or even attempt to act upon them and would rather seek real help on it, but government and society have made it so if they so much as utter a word of it to a professional, they're required to immediately call and report the individual regardless of the fact said person came to them for help on it - but that's an entirely different story and derailing the current discussion.

 

[Tamerlane]

@okdudeswow

Textbooks certainly go out of date for political reasons. They're directly connected, as they cover a variety of subjects with contentious material, and there is certainly political resistance to some things being included/ excluded, which includes examples such as: creationism, depictions of slavery, or in a more specific case directly related to art as a function, Nazi textbooks that are detailed because of their inethical[sic] production: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-49294861 which is a good reference point for outr[sic] discussion in my opinion, as this book is no longer in print but is still used in some capacity, despite being an actual Nazi book.

This entire portion is a bit irrelevant because what my point was that I think we would both be opposed to changing the material of textbooks SOLELY for political reasons, and NOT because the information is inaccurate or incorrect. Creationism is unscientific, and I'd assume the depictions of slavery are meant to glorify it, which is probably contrary to fact.

It's weird that you've fixated on this point because it's tangential at best to the larger conversation we're having.

Which is part of the reason why I see your prediction of over-reaching censorship as doomsaying.

It's not a prediction, it's a diction. It's already happening, and has been happening for years, slowly escalating in intensity across various platforms and media. Twittered censored a sitting president, my dude. They literally can come after anyone.

Political change IS social change. They're literally inseperable[sic]. You're really going to bring out the Holocaust poem about putting a book deemed "racially insensitive?" Isn't that a bit deaf to the intention of the party looking to put the book out of print? (At least unless you think their intentions are not in good faith but are more sinister).

Political change is not always social change, they're correlated, sure, but just because a politician does something or congress does something, that does not mean people at wider society agree with their actions. Hell, sometimes they're inversely related where the majority of people disagree with the direction politics is going or are against the establishment orthodoxy.

The point of the Holocaust poem is to illustrate a core theme: that you will have to defend the rights of those you disagree with. It's a cautionary tale. Notice how the poem starts with a more fringe, extremist group, and gradually pushes the line closer and closer until it reaches the narrator. It will start with the censorship of a group everyone agrees has horrid views, and gradually, it will shift to encompass more and more dissidents until a large amount of people are censored, which is why you must apply a principle consistently.

Also, whether the company which stopped printing did it out of good faith or because they wanted to save their asses is irrelevant. No one was complaining, and even if there were, it is not an excuse to change or censor the art of another person on an arbitrary whim. I do not care about if it offends people, you do not have the right to restrict artistry like that.

 

[immortalartisan]

You know what fuck it let’s talk about something not even relevant anymore thoughts on cannabis anyone?

 

[Stupid_Goo]

Cannabis needs less trash smell and more actual good smell.

 

[Richman]

@Stupid_Goo
I guess you at'ed me because of teh 104805912309 year old comment thing. I was talking more about mental maturity but I didn't ephasize that, like that other guy said,

The legal system has recognized when a person has reached the age of 18, then they are assumed to have sufficient cognitive maturity and moral understanding to give consent,

if a person or in my example, a character doesn't show this characteristics, then I, Richman, would not consider them an adult, regardless of what the legal system or artist interpretation would say.

bla bla bla, i think i'm going to back out of this one.

You know what fuck it let’s talk about something not even relevant anymore thoughts on cannabis anyone?

weed is wack and i couldn't care less.

 

[Hornyturtle]

Give your thoughts on it first so their is something to discuss. Throwing out random topics in the air is extremely lazy.

Democracy doesn't work because it requires too much time investment to know whos who and whats what. Once a country gets too big It's almost guaranteed to collapse due to greed and incompetence. Politicians don't make the right decisions for the country because most people are too ignorant to care for the truth

 

[Stupid_Goo]

@Richman ; fair enough.

Now, on towards the less controversial topics:
Call of Duty vs Halo vs Battlefield 👀

 

[Xennith]

@immortalartisan

Spoiler

https://youtu.be/NpS4ebEtLUE