Terthna
Professional Lurker
These three studies show that in multiple countries across the world, sex crimes have fallen inversely with the legalization of pornography.
The Political Problem of Pornography
- Thread starter The Name of Love
- Start date
These three studies show that in multiple countries across the world, sex crimes have fallen inversely with the legalization of pornography.
The Name of Love
Far Right Nutjob
To my knowledge, it's the pro-porn people that are the intolerant, rigid ones, not myself. If they can't handle being in the same coalition with someone who disagrees with them, then this is clearly not an alliance I want in on.
I'm saying that you don't have a plan. You just want to keep porn legal for whatever reason.
If you don't want me being snarky on the Internet, then don't give me ammunition. For Heaven's sake, you're basically claiming you'd join the enemy because someone on the Internet disagreed with you. Have you no self-awareness?
Seriously, I'm willing to work with homosexual anarcho-capitalists and fascists who think the Holocaust was justified in order to defeat the Left. Are you?
Where are the theocrats? I'd like to meet them!
Also, I support limited government too. I'm just not a libertarian about it.
Paleolibertarians and minarchists, I think, still are subject to a lot of the same critiques outlined here, though I would probably reword a lot of the arguments slightly. I think the paleolibertarians in particular are doubly vulnerable to the first critique I gave (there is no right to do wrong) because a lot of them do have a thick moral framework that opposes certain behaviors. Either they give up their libertarianism and accept that the state has the right to intervene (in which case, they'd simply be a conservative) or they reject their thick moral framework and embrace something like contractarianism or utilitarianism, giving up the "paleo" aspect of their libertarianism.
For minarchists, my critique would remain largely the same. Nozick and Rand would as vulnerable to my critiques as Rothbard.
almostinsane
Well-known member
You started the thread. @LordsFire had a very reasonable critique on the merits of your plan. If you want it to be at all considered outside of people who already agree with you, then you need to address those points. To do otherwise is intellectual laziness.
As I said in the other thread, no serious political party in the Western world will pursue banning porn on a national level, and the Israeli example is unlikely to go anywhere meaningful.
So really, the 'political problem' of porn only exists in a few poeple's heads, not in society at large.
So really, the 'political problem' of porn only exists in a few poeple's heads, not in society at large.
The Name of Love
Far Right Nutjob
I respectfully disagree on the "reasonable" part. I mean, what points has @LordsFire actually raised? That I haven't planned in detail what I'd like to see implemented politically? I mean, I already did point to Israel's proposed policy as an example of a good way to curb porn use (which would prevent children from accidentally seeing porn on the Internet and gaining a lifelong, life-destroying addiction as a result, incidentally). What more does he want? I'm not exactly a polisci major.
I think that there's a blatant double standard here: Lords Fire hasn't addressed how he'd address the problems I pointed out with "social pressure," while I've pointed to an actual policy being implemented in a first world country.
"If the majority of people don't think it's a problem, then it's not a problem" is not an argument. Also, do you consider Britain's Conservative Party and Israel's Likud Party "serious political parties in the Western world"? Just curious.
almostinsane
Well-known member
Is it being implemented or is it being proposed? Last I checked, Israel was in a political deadlock.
And I've been clear what I want. I want to know how you will get a government in position to pass and implement this ban and how to keep it from being overturned when the Left takes power and/or see the Left use the precedent this sets as you've now made it acceptable for the government to regulate the flow of information on the internet.
D
Deleted member
Guest
I think it depends on whether or not someone adheres seriously to the philosophy of those movements, or uses them as a functional position in a pluralistic society. I mean, when I call myself a monarchist I am doing so from the perspective of strict philosophical correctness: The Matriarchies of a Filianya's ideal society were ruled by Queens in a direct, material imitation of the Order of the Queen of Heaven; for a patriarchal Christian the equivalent is the epithet of the Byzantine Emperors as "The Shadow of God upon the Earth" which the Ottomans loved so much they adopted for themselves as Caliph. But I'm also a loyal citizen of a pluralistic society in which there is a strong and well-established custom of liberty which is completely in tune with the local environment, in imitation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. Accordingly my functional position could be called paleolibertarianism, particularly since self-regulation by each confession would be necessary to maintain the privilege of the community I adhere to in this society, but also because I must uphold the constitution as a point of honour, faith and loyalty; and paleolibertarianism is a moral position I can effectively be comfortable with that is congruent with that constitution.
The Name of Love
Far Right Nutjob
Alright, proposed. Sorry for that minor inaccuracies. But my point stands.
To repeat myself:
I don't believe I or a reactionary party will ever get into a position of power to implement this ban. Already said this several times.
And I don't believe politics actually works like how you describes. Here's how I think it works: conservatives and moderate liberals preaches freedom and a "neutral" political space (as per the tenants of classical liberalism), but since actual political neutrality is impossible, the Left comes to fill the void, dominate it, and implement whatever they want with impunity. Given this, the question of "how will the Left use this precedent" is irrelevant. If the Left wanted to make it acceptable for the government to regulate the flow of information on the Internet, it would have already done so because they dominate all of the relevant institutions of power in America. So asking about "precedent" and "what if the Left uses X?" is a non-starter.
Why paleolibertarianism though? Certainly, there are many, many other views that are compatible with our Constitution.
ShieldWife
Marchioness
I do recall that there was a big push in Iceland to ban online pornography a few years ago. Not by social conservatives, who are virtually nonexistent there, but by feminists. I don’t know what happened with that, though the idea of internet regulations terrify me.
Both studies for and against pornography show correlations and not causation. So is it case that watching porn makes you more socially liberal, being socially liberal makes you more likely to watch porn, both, or neither.
The Israeli law is more reasonable than just banning porn, though I still don’t trust the government to do this, especially the government we have now. GoldRanger is an Israeli and feels similarly.
Both studies for and against pornography show correlations and not causation. So is it case that watching porn makes you more socially liberal, being socially liberal makes you more likely to watch porn, both, or neither.
The Israeli law is more reasonable than just banning porn, though I still don’t trust the government to do this, especially the government we have now. GoldRanger is an Israeli and feels similarly.
D
Deleted member
Guest
I use it only in the broadest terms as something that could describe my beliefs. Actual paleolibertarians, beyond the differing religious backgrounds, could easily and would easily criticise me extensively for a greater willingness of government intervention, but I would challenge that their definition of what is government is excessively broad. Our society could easily be distributivist and I would support that economic order, which no paleolibertarian would ever tolerate. I could also see a possible Integralist society working in which plural communities exchange rights and power by negotiation--but Lebanon makes me wary of such a system succeeding (though India does give it some hope).
Frankly, labels are generally bad for me, and the ones I'm most attached to tend to cause the biggest negative reaction from others.
The Name of Love
Far Right Nutjob
I guess. The Internet regulations by the people who think pornography is a good way to pacify the population is terrifying to me too. I just am pointing out a serious political problem and providing a possible political solution.
I think the porn makes you socially liberal. Read up on Aquinas' Eight Daughters of Lust sometime, and then look at the behavior of liberals through that lens. It changed my views on pornography very quickly.
What do you trust the government to do? I mean, I get that the people running liberal democracies are evil men, but that doesn't change the fact that porn is a political problem. If you have a non-political solution, I'd like to hear, in detail, what that is.
An integralist society tolerant of pluralistic communities is what I'd consider ideal. The idea is "yes, you'll have freedom of worship and yes, we'll protect your life and property; but you'll swear allegiance to us to not undermine our society's values in return."
D
Deleted member
Guest
I can support that and fight for it. My default position is that nobody is interested in my personal life and that not bringing it up is the most polite (and therefore thamelic) thing I can do in any given situation. Unfortunately the leftists in the little fracas which formed this board didn't give me a choice in the matter.
The Name of Love
Far Right Nutjob
Yes. That's why this thread is about the political problem that porn creates, not the ethical problem, though they are related. I believe that large numbers of people being addicted to pornography does have a major impact on society at large, and the science seems to bear this out.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member
Guest
I agree with you. I'm just conflicted because of course the principle of censoring speech is being graphically demonstrated as something that the Left will readily use to crush dissent, and the morality of humanity is maintained only by very great exertions, so it's hard to believe that we could really, outside of specific circumstances not present in the current Age of Iron, have a society which would use that power justly and wisely.
The Name of Love
Far Right Nutjob
Well, I wouldn't agree that the First Amendment was intended to protect pornography and other forms of obscenity, and such an interpretation only become popular after the FDR dictatorship restructured our legal system. Here's another point of disagreement: if the Left had the power you describe, I think they wouldn't use it to ban pornography. We already have obscenity laws on the books that, if enforced, would lead to the prohibition of most pornography produced in the United States. That they aren't shows where the Left's priorities lie.
ShieldWife
Marchioness
I don’t really see a lack of regulation as regulation. I would far rather have the most vile and perverse pornography widely available than risk the free speech that the internet provides.
Cherico made a really good post earlier about all the powers being brought to bear against dissident voices on the right - censorship, being barred from banks, doxxing, and so on. Expecting to benefit from censoring the internet is a Faustian bargain if there ever was one.
That does seem to be a reasonable assumption, though I’m not sure if it’s true or if it is how much of an impact it has.
I’ll check out Eight Daughters of Lust, though keep in mind I’m not a Christian and so my outlook is likely a lot different.
Well, with the government we have now, I don’t trust them to do much. I’m not an anarchist, not really even a libertarian, and theory there are all sorts of important stuff that a federal government should be doing. A federal government should organize a military to defend the nation, they should help create a stable currency and regulate trade, they should protect that nation from illegal immigration. These are some of the big things. Does the government do this stuff? Yes and no. We have a military, but we use it to invade nations on the other side of the world that have never attacked us, bankrupting our nation and creating greater danger. The government regulates currency, but does so to facilitate out of control spending and materialism, placing hidden taxation in the citizens and passing on debt to our descendants. The government regulates trade some ways, but largely allows American people to be exploited while foreign nations or internal corporations benefit. With regard to illegal immigration, that is the worst of all, the federal government actively facilitates and rewards illegal immigration and deliberately undermines law enforcement in its struggle to protect our borders despite the fact that the great majority of American don’t want our nation to be invaded by immigrants.
So I honestly don’t put much faith in political solutions. My vote is watered down by an ocean of uninformed voters and in those rare events that a dissident candidate wins (like Trump) no major changes are made. You can’t vote for media moguls, for bankers, for the deep state, for corporate CEO’s, for University Chancellors. Democracy is essentially useless for the people to represent their interests.
That means I don’t believe that there are political solutions to these problems. Votes are nearly meaningless, an armed resistance can be easily crushed. What can a person such as myself do to save the West? Living a virtuous life. I’m a stay at home mother, home schooling my children, trying to protect them from the malign influence of mainstream culture and entertainment. I’m trying to live without materialism, where we teach our kids about truth and beauty, we try to be a part of community and place value in tradition and fellowship, not in what popular culture says we should value. I can’t make the government good. I can’t make big corporations good. I can’t make democracy work. All that I can do live a virtuous life and pass on my values to my children and try to set an example for friends and relatives. To remove my family from the degeneracy of mainstream society as best I can. If everybody did this, then we wouldn’t need a political solution, we would have a social solution, a grass roots solution where the society improves from the ground up by people leading virtuous lives rather than expected to take charge of completely corrupt institutions and fundamentally change their nature.
almostinsane
Well-known member
And, truthfully, I live in the world as it is, not as I'd like it to be. The fact that a reactionary party will never get into power to implement this ban makes it untenable which leaves other avenues to combat this problem. As you've acknowledged, this proposal has not been implemented by the Israeli government and is not likely to be implemented due to the political deadlock it now faces.
I would dispute that the left is left unopposed in this system, also. With decades of pornography comes a backlash. "NoFap" has become a popular enough meme on the internet for a reason. Dependence of pornography comes from the hedonism, nihilism, and moral relativism pushed by academia and yet, despite all the institutional power pushing it, you see figures like Jordan Peterson getting views in the millions.
A moderate, relatively left-wing individual has caused more people to return to morality than all the political maneuvering of the right in the US. Furthermore, in places like the Philippines, where pornography is banned by law, its domestic pornographic industry is worth $1 billion and it is the 10th largest consumer of pornography in the world.
Is the non-political solution perfect? No. But it certainly has had greater results than in the countries where pornography has been flat out banned and is actually capable of being implemented.
The Name of Love
Far Right Nutjob
The Right has been bleating on about freedom for decades while conceding every important issue to the Left. And yet you accuse me of making a Faustian bargain? That's not what I see when I look at history. What I see is the Right giving people "freedom," and the Left using that to remake society in their own image. Forgive me for wanting to try something different.
Agree to all of this. I think there's a distinction to be made between the practicality of implementing a policy and the rightness of it. My goal is argue for the rightness of my position and provide a possible political solution.
How can you be countercultural in a society that actively works against you? Company is stronger than habit, after all. If you don't have communities of virtuous wives coming together to lead virtuous lives, you will be spiritually crushed by the machine of liberalism. I do hope you continue to lead a life of virtue; I just ask that, if you are serious about the problem, to recognize it as a political problem rather than an individual one and act accordingly.
Perhaps if countercultural communities are created, then we will see a resistance to pornography in that way. The problem with Jordan Peterson himself is that he actively is against the idea of communities of virtue due to his rigid, dogmatic individualism. He sees himself as "containing the right." I believe such a man will actively preach the virtues of pornography if such a stance becomes popular amongst young men because porn is a way for the powers that be to control us. He did tell us to take our medicine, after all.
I don't know about the situation in the Philippines, but we did have anti-obscenity laws on the books in the form of Hays' Code, and that worked swimmingly.
prinCZess
Warrior, Writer, Performer, Perv
Relevant to note the Hays' Code was a standard self-imposed by (monopolistic/oligarchical) Hollywood studios via the Motion Picture Association in an active effort to curb government, local and federal, agencies involvement...And the degree to which it 'worked' (even within your own standards and desires) is highly debatable itself--some of the highest plaudits it received being from directors saying they just had to invent more devious ways of inserting what they wanted in, and a number of films flouting it anyways.
Outside of your own standards, it stomped down a number of creative works (Betty Boop, famously), and, somewhat making a point others have raised in regards to government agency except as an industry one, which individual films would fall under it or be given a stamp of approval was impacted heavily by personal and political animosities between Holywood personalities and how some rich assholes didn't want competition from their rivals (Hughes' The Outlaw as the standard-bearer for this one).
Well, you don't say...
Seeing you cite the behaviour of the secularist elite as a precedent for what you want has helped crystalize something I've long pondered: how it is that politically, on my personal radar Roman Catholics "ping" as Leftists, despite their goals being superficially different.
Looking beneath the superficialities, one finds:
- The same sort of self-righteous authoritarianism. The mindset that everyone else should be forced at gunpoint to go along with your values.
- The same wilful obtuseness when faced with any sort of practical criticism either of those values, or of the proposed means to attaining to the stated goals.
- The same deification of government - evil will vanish if the king decrees a law against it.
- The same overt rejection of the teaching of the Bible whenever it conflicts with their own man-made philosophy.
- The same desire to treat human nature as something malleable by government coercion.
- The same endgame economically. Whether it's "The Church" or The Party, the goal is a system where "other people work, while we sit and eat."
If they did that, would the secularists leave them alone?
I regret that I could give but one like to your post.
In @The Name of Love 's type of society, you would probably be allowed to live as long as you sincerely converted to Roman Catholicism.
I don't think the Secular Left would be as forgiving. Their goal, as you say, is to eradicate all that is not themselves.
Hey dude, that's an insult to us religious fundamentalists! What he looks like to me is an ideologue caught up in a purity spiral: the more extreme and impractical his ideas, the more virtuous he feels for holding them.
Also, as I recall from that old discussion, he doesn't really oppose medical treatment - that was an over-literalist reading of something he said.