The Political Problem of Pornography

FriedCFour

PunishedCFour
Founder
Sure, in theory. My issue is with adults here. In practice, this leads to problems. What's porn? Renaissance paintings in museums? Artsy photos in a gallery? And what does exposing constitute? A kid sneaking into their parents room to look at Playboys?
None of these are remotely an issue. It’s the internet that has radically changed the issue unlike anything prior.


You don't seem to understand that while America in its constitution made great promises, it didn't much stick to them for a very long while, notably the Alien and Sedition act. Also, the constitution originally mostly only applied to the federal government, not the state. But they did write down what they meant, and it included freedom of speech. My standards for what is and isn't un-American are quite simple, and they are laid out in the constitution. You've presented no argument that porn isn't somehow speech or press. You just say it's harmful, but newsflash, the founders new 'harmful' speech would happen. They wanted it legal.
I did, I explained how it’s more akin to a drug and how obscenity laws have been present since the founding.
I care about the founding document, while you apparently want to toss it away to institute a theocracy. You don't seem to understand that when they had the option, the founders thought that was so fucking stupid they made laws to stop it.
If you think my beliefs are theocracy than almost every government in history is theocracy. And while the founders were alive, obscenity laws were passed. I care about the founding ideals. The constitution isn’t there for the constitution in it of itself, it’s to try and ensure longevity of the founding ideals. You find the ideals in the Declaration of Independence and in the writings of the founders and just a bit in the preamble to the constitution. The constitution doesn’t give you much of ideals, it just shows what protections are in place to ensure the function of government. You also completely ignore the characteristics of the founding stock and identity of the people of the nation, which I care about preserving as much of too, not just the political theories of their elite class. That’s the problem with y’all, you made it into a religious text. And no, they didn’t think what I’m saying is “fucking stupid”. There was zero conception of internet porn, and what porn there was was very often regulated and/or banned while they were alive.
 
Last edited:

Fleiur

Well-known member
And? I still see no reason it should be discussed outside of it being the motive. We don't consider banning drawing Mohammed when someone's head is cutoff for discussing it, why should we consider the possible harm of pornography now? It's despicable to give that evil man anything useful.
Remember George Floyd? The man that launched those riots and caused a lot of destructions. That's what you will get when you don't address the truth. It will default to racism as the reason.
 

prinCZess

Warrior, Writer, Performer, Perv
Lol. Its fucking not at all. Leftists love only fans. There’s a small cut of older people like Radfems that aren’t but the majority will tell you “sex work is real work.”
Then proceed to do everything in their power to make such work difficult (see California's AB5 on contract-work) and preach against the toxic impact of OnlyFans and such (while ignoring big porn production houses in California...unless they're pressuring actresses to film with certain people to prove their lack of transphobia or homophobia), and more broadly than 'Only Fans', decry the female body appearing in art in general because of promotion of unhealthy beauty standards, encouraging the male gaze, fatphobia, shaming of trans individuals, and a chile con carne of different bullshit that differ in particulars to older 'exposing ankle offends God' but overlaps in the broad schema (and also, notably hypocritically, ignore or even lauds as 'different cultural standards' foreign thought on dress and modesty that are exotic--ala burqas and niqabs).

"Sex work is real work" is a slogan with no backing to be deployed at political opponents--kind of like 'Believe All Women' in that respect. It's missing an entire foundation of allowance for personal or artistic depiction of titillating shit that doesn't rise to active sex or porn which is condemned as toxic (and silent on toxic elements within outright sex or porn work).
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Ah, I see the usual suspects are defending pornography as well as open political subversion as 'free speech'. This is my shocked face.
As usual, you show no comprehension of free speech. Free speech must include political subversion, or it isn't free. Hitler also liked free speech that only applied to the Nazi Party. But thanks for providing yet more evidence that this porn exception is just a Trojan horse with which you plan to push totalitarianism.

Remember George Floyd? The man that launched those riots and caused a lot of destructions. That's what you will get when you don't address the truth. It will default to racism as the reason.
So again, you didn't read my post. I have no problem with saying that the guy wasn't racist but instead had a sexual problem. My problem is that if one uses this to push for limitations on sex work or something similar, you are surrendering to the murderer's ideals.

I did, I explained how it’s more akin to a drug and how obscenity laws have been present since the founding.
See, you didn't. I didn't ask for a comparison between porn and something illegal. Leftist can do that too by saying words are violence. No, what I asked for, and you still have failed to deliver, is an explanation of how porn doesn't fall under speech or press. Saying it's addictive doesn't make it not speech. Saying it's harmful doesn't make it not speech.
None of these are remotely an issue. It’s the internet that has radically changed the issue unlike anything prior.
No, in any legal attempt to restrict children from porn, this will set precedent that could apply here. If porn is illegal on the internet, what makes it legal on books or in pictures? And then one needs to define porn to make sure not to cover art.
And while the founders were alive, obscenity laws were passed.
... By states, which weren't restricted by the first amendment. Funny how you leave that out. See, that only happened in 1873, at which point the Supreme Court had taken a grand total of 0 free speech cases. See, the Supreme Court for many years, especially in the early 1900s, failed to support free speech because they didn't seem to care what the constitution said.

And second, when America's founders are kind enough to write down their ideals in the constitution, and you think No, I know what they really wanted, and it's the direct opposite of what they wrote, that's idiotic and as unAmerican as communism.

And this is backed up by history. For example, James Madison was a huge proponent of free speech as a matter of republican principles:
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
No, I understand that the very idea of 'free speech' was never about any sort of abstract 'freedom' but rather explicit political and moral subversion, from the beginning.
Yes, exactly. Free speech is explicitly about letting people not in power speak their mind, something anathema to a totalitarian like yourself, but a foundational value of America.

And yes, I have enough evidence to show you as a totalitarian, from hating free speech to endorsing the economics of communism in the Thid Position.
 

DocSolarisReich

Esoteric Spaceman
Yes, exactly. Free speech is explicitly about letting people not in power speak their mind, something anathema to a totalitarian like yourself, but a foundational value of America.

And yes, I have enough evidence to show you as a totalitarian, from hating free speech to endorsing the economics of communism in the Thid Position.

Ah yes, because the media and the pornographers are 'not in power', rofl!
 

Battlegrinder

Someday we will win, no matter what it takes.
Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
Obozny
I've talked before about how toxic the porn industry is (there's a reason you don't see loads of articles by retired porn stars praising the industry), and I agree with fried about the potentially addictive element of it as well. Most people probably do, it's why you hear phrases like "outrage porn" and the like being used.

The problem, as @Abhorsen has said, is that there's a gulf between "bad for you" and "so bad for you the government has no choice but to step in and protect you from yourself", and I don't see how porn crosses that line, or how that line could be redrawn without giving the government power it must not be allowed to have.

Let's say there's a law passed banning porn, and lets be extremely generous and say that, unlike every single other time the government has banned something despite popular demand for that thing, this time it's so airtight there's no loopholes or workaround. That law dies the second it hits a judges bench, because it's absurd to say "yes, all of this other harmful, destructive stuff is still totally fine, but looking at boonies is not, because reasons". That principle is indefensible in open court.

The only other route would be to ban everything harmful, and the fulitity of such a policy, along with the obvious dangers of it, should be self explanatory.
 

DocSolarisReich

Esoteric Spaceman
I mean, it applies to everyone though. That's the point. If you get rid of free speech, you don't get to speak. At another point in time porn studios don't get to operate. The solution is free speech so all get to participate.

Except under the reign of quantity over quality, not all speech is equal. Mass media mediates reality for the thoughtless consoomer and the power of the dollar compels slavish obedience. You think you can actually say anything under the current regime of corporate 'free speech'? Go on twitter and say ni66er. Have fun with that.

The simple fact is that every society (even anti-societies) has something sacred and separate that is exempt from criticism and is protected by censorship. Especially ones that claim to be 'free'.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
The root issue of pornography is not that it's legal, it's that it's socially acceptable.

I agree that porn is a horribly corrosive and addictive thing that needs to be done away with, but trying to do that through law both will not work, and will cause a lot of collateral damage.

Even legal measures to try to protect children from porn is a difficult thing to implement without causing collateral damage, and that's something I actually support at least attempting.

If we want pornography to wither away, we need the culture to change how it views pornography first and that, bluntly put, will require a radical shift in the direction that the culture has been going for decades.

This nation needs a revival.
 

Fleiur

Well-known member
Is it that huge of a social issue that it needs a special discussion? This is literally one dude.
Society is going to discuss the cause either way. Either we stay silent while the leftists go after white men for being white or we can discuss how his sex addiction was his motivation and why.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
The root issue of pornography is not that it's legal, it's that it's socially acceptable.

I agree that porn is a horribly corrosive and addictive thing that needs to be done away with, but trying to do that through law both will not work, and will cause a lot of collateral damage.

Even legal measures to try to protect children from porn is a difficult thing to implement without causing collateral damage, and that's something I actually support at least attempting.

If we want pornography to wither away, we need the culture to change how it views pornography first and that, bluntly put, will require a radical shift in the direction that the culture has been going for decades.

This nation needs a revival.
You know what's ironic though? Pornography isn't socially acceptable; or at least, not to the degree that you die-hard Christians insist it is. You're still mocked and belittled for indulging in it, and the regressive left in this country are always trying to censor or even outright ban everything that could be considered even remotely pornographic; because they don't want us to have healthy outlets for our sexual desires (which porn is), when we could be out there raping children.

Honestly, the more I listen to people trying to argue in favor of banning pornography, the more I realize that they're fighting for a cause that exists only in their own heads, and have no understanding of the reality of the situation; or the monsters they're allying themselves with in destroying everything that protects what they hold dear. You at least, LordsFire, understand that getting the government involved is a bad idea; but the rest? I can only hope that they're a minority amongst those who supposedly oppose the regressive left, because the only point of contention between them is on the issue of targets; so whichever side wins, we all lose.
 

Captain X

Well-known member
Osaul
How much blame does an addict have if the addiction started at 11?
As much as can be expected of a kid who should have known better. That being said, the idea of porn addiction is much like the idea of internet addition to me, which is to say more like an excuse for a lack of self-control.

Lol. Its fucking not at all. Leftists love only fans. There’s a small cut of older people like Radfems that aren’t but the majority will tell you “sex work is real work.”
It's the leftist intersectional feminists who are sex negative. I've seen these people get cosplayers kicked out of cons for cosplaying a character they thought was too sexy. They also are anti-porn and anti-sex work and also use a lot of the same rationale as the self-appointed moral guardians on the right. I've fought with them far too much for someone like you to come along and claim they are just some vocal minority.

Did I say that? I'm just pointing out that that sex addiction played a major role in his motivation, and it should be discussed in the mainstream media. He himself said it was his motivation.
His excuse, more like. Just another way in which he is refusing to take responsibility for his own actions. How is it any different from some terrorist blaming Charlie Hebdo for making drawings of Mohamed? Or the Son of Sam claiming the devil made him do it?
 

FriedCFour

PunishedCFour
Founder
No, in any legal attempt to restrict children from porn, this will set precedent that could apply here. If porn is illegal on the internet, what makes it legal on books or in pictures? And then one needs to define porn to make sure not to cover art.
No legislation will be perfect but my point is that it’s an entirely different issue now because of the internet and the sheer mass of supernomal stimuli fucking up one of your strongest biological drives also tied to what is the strongest and most important pillar of the longevity of a society.


By states, which weren't restricted by the first amendment. Funny how you leave that out.
Do states not reflect the ideals and character of the people of the United States at the time of the founding?



And second, when America's founders are kind enough to write down their ideals in the constitution, and you think No, I know what they really wanted, and it's the direct opposite of what they wrote, that's idiotic and as unAmerican as communism.
It’s a pretty clear case of the general welfare of the people under threat, which is present in why the constitution was founded. You keep going to “free speech” but this isn’t a matter of speech it’s a matter of a pretty horrible industry pedaling what are in essence drugs that men first partake on average at 11.
 

DocSolarisReich

Esoteric Spaceman
"Any society that places restrictions on arousing the passionate appetites of young men is Totalitarian by definition!"

"Why can't troubled young men without any father figures or rites of passage not just take responsibility for themselves and pull themselves by their bootstraps?"

And how exactly are moderns supposed to be trained in virtue again?
 

Fleiur

Well-known member
So again, you didn't read my post. I have no problem with saying that the guy wasn't racist but instead had a sexual problem. My problem is that if one uses this to push for limitations on sex work or something similar, you are surrendering to the murderer's ideals.
Good, then. As what I have been saying, my main point in all of this is to discuss what is true. I did not say anything about banning pornography. We all know that the mainstream media's take on this is Asian hate and racism. We need to point out the truth.
 

FriedCFour

PunishedCFour
Founder
As much as can be expected of a kid who should have known better. That being said, the idea of porn addiction is much like the idea of internet addition to me, which is to say more like an excuse for a lack of self-control.
it preys on one of your top biological drives lol, it’s ridiculously available. Of course people will get addicted to it. You’d be insane to think they can’t.
It's the leftist intersectional feminists who are sex negative. I've seen these people get cosplayers kicked out of cons for cosplaying a character they thought was too sexy. They also are anti-porn and anti-sex work and also use a lot of the same rationale as the self-appointed moral guardians on the right. I've fought with them far too much for someone like you to come along and claim they are just some vocal minority.
they’re a vocal minority. Most lefties like sex work. Look at pride parades, look at slutwalks, look at their love of only fans, look at literally all lefty internet pundits and they shout and love the praises of internet pornography and porn. But what they prefer is the more depraved and degenerate shit, so like, they’ll complain about a girl with big tits in a video game but if she was naked and fat as fuck or trans and also appealing you’d get a bunch shouting praises.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
No legislation will be perfect but my point is that it’s an entirely different issue now because of the internet and the sheer mass of supernomal stimuli fucking up one of your strongest biological drives also tied to what is the strongest and most important pillar of the longevity of a society.
I disagree. I see it as the same damn issue we've been dealing with since the onset of human civilization; you are offended by this thing, and therefor we must eradicate said thing. Everything else you've been spewing is just an excuse to justify your base desire for power over others.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top