29 May 11, 6:33 PM
verte
UK(E), 8 yrs
 |
Attitude_Adjuster wrote:
verte wrote:
CookieMonster wrote:
Empress_Martine wrote:
The Guardian idea that porn is corruptive is based on a victorian view of the world.This is a misplaced idea that can be disposed of,as if porn had corrupted people then by now the porn of 1890 french flea markets would have destroyed society. It has not and the paper is stuck in past. It needs to wake up and see that porn has little of a corruptive efffect except exstreme porn.
|
This is total rubbish.
It comes from the lefts view, and obsession, that we are a product of our environment, a tabula rasa or blank slate Hence porn will have an influence. The other exstreme is that we are hard wired the way we are on the right.
biologists/sceintists etc give these groups little time, thankfully, its just a pity they influence politicians and journalists with degrees in "Media studies".
I agree with most of what Ishmael says also.
|
You really do talk some nonsense. All the studies that suggest there is a direct link between pornography and violence are conducted by scientists -- generally experimental psychologists,
|
*gasps*
|
Sorry AA, I forget that IC doesn't regard psychology as a proper science...  Railing against the tyranny of 'common sense'.
http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk
http://www.kinkysalonlondon.co.uk
|
29 May 11, 6:36 PM
CookieMonster
UK, 6 yrs
|
verte wrote:
CookieMonster wrote:
Empress_Martine wrote:
The Guardian idea that porn is corruptive is based on a victorian view of the world.This is a misplaced idea that can be disposed of,as if porn had corrupted people then by now the porn of 1890 french flea markets would have destroyed society. It has not and the paper is stuck in past. It needs to wake up and see that porn has little of a corruptive efffect except exstreme porn.
|
This is total rubbish.
It comes from the lefts view, and obsession, that we are a product of our environment, a tabula rasa or blank slate Hence porn will have an influence. The other exstreme is that we are hard wired the way we are on the right.
biologists/sceintists etc give these groups little time, thankfully, its just a pity they influence politicians and journalists with degrees in "Media studies".
I agree with most of what Ishmael says also.
|
You really do talk some nonsense. All the studies that suggest there is a direct link between pornography and violence are conducted by scientists -- generally experimental psychologists, to be precise, who in the main have no investment or interest in feminism whatsoever. I could cite you many studies of this sort, but I'm sure it's a waste of my time.
The audience studies stuff, which might actually tell us something useful about media effects, is generally done by those in media/film studies and ignored by government in these circumstances completely.
As I've said to you before -- you fundamentally do not understand feminism; that much is sparkling clear. Feminism is an expansion of liberalism, in the main (read your John Stuart Mill), and always was. It is also critical of some tenets of classical liberalism, depending on the feminist.
What we're dealing with re: porn/sex right now is a new (well, 10 year or so) moral panic about sexuality, and some feminist theorists have been swept up in it, as well as those on the right and left pretty well equally. Personally, I'm absolutely certain that if Andrea Dworkin read the kind of crap written by Gail Hines she'd turn in her grave. What we ended up with in the CJIA was classic Devlin, not radical feminism.
And given that Nadine Dorries wants to promote abstinence in place of proper sex ed and the Tory government have just brought in an anti-choice group to sit in their sexual health forum who also promote abstinence, I'm afraid those who seem to be gleefully anticipating some kind of libertine utopia while the Tories are in power may be waiting a long time.
|
I dont know why I bother with another of your rubbish posts as its as clear as day you either dont read properly what I have wrote or dont care.
You said...
"-- generally experimental psychologists, to be precise, who in the main have no investment or interest in feminism whatsoever."
Meaning scientists ignore political catawalling.
I said...
"biologists/sceintists etc give these groups little time, thankfully, "
Meaning scientists ignore political catawalling.
In other words you try to pick an argument by agreeing with what I say. You laughably claim to be a progressive, and yet you respond to critisism in the manner of a despot, snide remarks and insults. Which would got to explain your hackney-eyed veiw that feminism is all sweetness and flowers. Hence your attempts to reabilitate Dworkin.
You are nothing more than a pretentious Pseud who I would guess is in receipt of an afirmative-action education.
"What we ended up with in the CJIA was classic Devlin, not radical feminism."
Oh I dont think so Clare Short attempted to ban porn/page 3 in the 80's, some of the Labour Front bench women have written diatribes against men/porn when they were students, Harriet Harmen for example .
|
29 May 11, 6:46 PM
verte
UK(E), 8 yrs
|
CookieMonster wrote:
verte wrote:
CookieMonster wrote:
Empress_Martine wrote:
The Guardian idea that porn is corruptive is based on a victorian view of the world.This is a misplaced idea that can be disposed of,as if porn had corrupted people then by now the porn of 1890 french flea markets would have destroyed society. It has not and the paper is stuck in past. It needs to wake up and see that porn has little of a corruptive efffect except exstreme porn.
|
This is total rubbish.
It comes from the lefts view, and obsession, that we are a product of our environment, a tabula rasa or blank slate Hence porn will have an influence. The other exstreme is that we are hard wired the way we are on the right.
biologists/sceintists etc give these groups little time, thankfully, its just a pity they influence politicians and journalists with degrees in "Media studies".
I agree with most of what Ishmael says also.
|
You really do talk some nonsense. All the studies that suggest there is a direct link between pornography and violence are conducted by scientists -- generally experimental psychologists, to be precise, who in the main have no investment or interest in feminism whatsoever. I could cite you many studies of this sort, but I'm sure it's a waste of my time.
The audience studies stuff, which might actually tell us something useful about media effects, is generally done by those in media/film studies and ignored by government in these circumstances completely.
As I've said to you before -- you fundamentally do not understand feminism; that much is sparkling clear. Feminism is an expansion of liberalism, in the main (read your John Stuart Mill), and always was. It is also critical of some tenets of classical liberalism, depending on the feminist.
What we're dealing with re: porn/sex right now is a new (well, 10 year or so) moral panic about sexuality, and some feminist theorists have been swept up in it, as well as those on the right and left pretty well equally. Personally, I'm absolutely certain that if Andrea Dworkin read the kind of crap written by Gail Hines she'd turn in her grave. What we ended up with in the CJIA was classic Devlin, not radical feminism.
And given that Nadine Dorries wants to promote abstinence in place of proper sex ed and the Tory government have just brought in an anti-choice group to sit in their sexual health forum who also promote abstinence, I'm afraid those who seem to be gleefully anticipating some kind of libertine utopia while the Tories are in power may be waiting a long time.
|
I dont know why I bother with another of your rubbish posts as its as clear as day you either dont read properly what I have wrote or dont care.
You said...
"-- generally experimental psychologists, to be precise, who in the main have no investment or interest in feminism whatsoever."
Meaning scientists ignore political catawalling.
I said...
"biologists/sceintists etc give these groups little time, thankfully, "
Meaning scientists ignore political catawalling.
In other words you try to pick an argument by agreeing with what I say. You laughably claim to be a progressive, and yet you respond to critisism in the manner of a despot, snide remarks and insults. Which would got to explain your hackney-eyed veiw that feminism is all sweetness and flowers. Hence your attempts to reabilitate Dworkin.
You are nothing more than a pretentious Pseud who I would guess is in receipt of an afirmative-action education.
"What we ended up with in the CJIA was classic Devlin, not radical feminism."
Oh I dont think so Clare Short attempted to ban porn/page 3 in the 80's, some of the Labour Front bench women have written diatribes against men/porn when they were students, Harriet Harmen for example .
|
So many strawmen, so little time...
1. I have never said feminism is all sweetness and flowers. Hence slagging off Gail Dines. I like some Dworkin; I like some Mackinnon. I dislike a great deal of feminist theory/activism, as it happens, but it doesn't mean the basic principles of feminism are wrong or even necessarily out of step with liberalism. As I said, read your John Stuart Mill.
2. I was talking about the CJIA and extreme porn bill in the context of the 00s and the latest moral panic about sexuality, not what happened in the 80s. We no longer live in the 80s.
3. I have a limited tolerance for those who endlessly spout off about something they demonstrably know next to nothing about -- you're right there. Now that's what I call "pseudish".
4. You haven't actually responded to what I was saying about psychological studies of destructive effects of pornography. Do you believe these to be true, then? Should we use these as the basis for legislation over pornography?
5. Oh, and the idea that my department or university is interested in "affirmative action" (ginger positive, perhaps??) is completely laughable. On the contrary, it's one of the more conservative departments in that subject in the country.
Railing against the tyranny of 'common sense'.
http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk
http://www.kinkysalonlondon.co.uk
Edited 29 May 11, 7:00 PM by verte
|
29 May 11, 6:49 PM
Attitude_Adjuster
UK(N), 6 yrs
|
verte wrote:
Attitude_Adjuster wrote:
verte wrote:
You really do talk some nonsense. All the studies that suggest there is a direct link between pornography and violence are conducted by scientists -- generally experimental psychologists,
|
*gasps*
|
Sorry AA, I forget that IC doesn't regard psychology as a proper science...
|
LOL. With some amount of seriousness, it illustrates a point. That research (which doesn't fulfil scientific criteria) can be taken as verifiable, specific proof of something or other that needs to be legislated or acted against. The problem is mainly in the lack of definitions of any of the nouns or verbs involved... Porn destroys society!
And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard,
Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word,
The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!
Edited 29 May 11, 6:51 PM by Attitude_Adjuster
|
29 May 11, 7:00 PM
CookieMonster
UK, 6 yrs
|
verte wrote:
So many strawmen, so little time...
1. I have never said feminism is all sweetness and flowers. Hence slagging off Gail Dines. I like some Dworkin; I like some Mackinnon. I dislike a great deal of feminist theory/activism, as it happens, but it doesn't mean the basic principles of feminism are wrong. As I said, read your John Stuart Mill.
2. I was talking about the CJIA and extreme porn bill in the context of the 00s and the latest moral panic about sexuality, not what happened in the 80s. We no longer live in the 80s.
3. I have a limited tolerance for those who endlessly spout off about something they demonstrably know next to nothing about -- you're right there. Now that's what I call "pseudish".
4. You haven't actually responded to what I was saying about psychological studies of destructive effects of pornography being carried out by scientists. Do you believe these to be true, then? Should we use these as the basis for legislation over pornography?
|
1. Your blog "In defence of Andrea Dworkin" seemed to give a different impression. Glad to hear your more eclectic than ive painted you oh and ive read Mill, On Liberty and Utilitarianism thanks.
2. And yet you over look it was Labour that passed the CJIA, and so far the Tories haven't done anything(Heres hoping).
3 Its more to do with understnading, and on that score your range is limited.
4 Hmmmmm you did use the term "suggests". The problem with this like the Climate change issue is that Politicians demand certainty and thats rarely how science works. Ive yet to see a study that clearly links violence and pornography. If you have one then please post it.
I'm not into porn but I'll defend the freedom to publish and use.
|
29 May 11, 7:09 PM
The_Majickian
UK(SW), 9 yrs
|
lush_london wrote:
That's not the left that I am familiar with. I think you are confusing the Communist regime in China with all things left wing.
The left wing I am familiar with is one of ideas, challenges, social justice, co-operation, a more equal society, inspired by thinkers such as those in the Fabian society, early pioneers like Tom Paine, Robert Owen, John Ruskin, Octavia Hill, Rowntree, and later Beveridge and Nye Bevan rather than Marx or Engels.
|
The left wing I am familiar with is the one which seeks to pull achievers down to the level of the disadvantaged, rather than to pull the disadvantaged up to the level of achievers. This may not be their avowed intention, but it usually ends up as consequence, unintended or not.
As a result, it tends to encourage fecklessness - after all, if you're going to work fifty hours a week bringing home fifty grand a year only to see ninety percent of that going to the Government, you aren't too long in thinking why do I fucking bother.
Add to that the typical leftist attitude of political correctness, where you can't call a spade a spade just in case it offends someone, and you can't say you can see the emperor's bollocks because you're supposed to be admiring the weave of his cod-piece, and you can criticise the BBC for being "hideously white", but if you criticise Tesco Metro for being "hideously black" you get called racist. It all adds up to a pretty illiberal regime.
Holmes: Meretricious
Lestrade: And a happy new year
|
29 May 11, 7:30 PM
verte
UK(E), 8 yrs
|
CookieMonster wrote:
verte wrote:
So many strawmen, so little time...
1. I have never said feminism is all sweetness and flowers. Hence slagging off Gail Dines. I like some Dworkin; I like some Mackinnon. I dislike a great deal of feminist theory/activism, as it happens, but it doesn't mean the basic principles of feminism are wrong. As I said, read your John Stuart Mill.
2. I was talking about the CJIA and extreme porn bill in the context of the 00s and the latest moral panic about sexuality, not what happened in the 80s. We no longer live in the 80s.
3. I have a limited tolerance for those who endlessly spout off about something they demonstrably know next to nothing about -- you're right there. Now that's what I call "pseudish".
4. You haven't actually responded to what I was saying about psychological studies of destructive effects of pornography being carried out by scientists. Do you believe these to be true, then? Should we use these as the basis for legislation over pornography?
|
1. Your blog "In defence of Andrea Dworkin" seemed to give a different impression. Glad to hear your more eclectic than ive painted you oh and ive read Mill, On Liberty and Utilitarianism thanks.
2. And yet you over look it was Labour that passed the CJIA, and so far the Tories haven't done anything(Heres hoping).
3 Its more to do with understnading, and on that score your range is limited.
4 Hmmmmm you did use the term "suggests". The problem with this like the Climate change issue is that Politicians demand certainty and thats rarely how science works. Ive yet to see a study that clearly links violence and pornography. If you have one then please post it.
I'm not into porn but I'll defend the freedom to publish and use.
|
Indeed, I did post that blog. That was to do with her position on certain sexual paradigms being "natural" and some unnatural, not pornography. I don't think there's a single political theorist whose ideas I agree with in their entirety -- I was just pleasantly surprised that some of the strawman beliefs I'd previously held about her were overturned when I actually took the time to read her work properly.
Yes, it was Labour (though a huge number of Tories also voted it through and it hasn't been repealed, has it...?). I don't really understand how this changes my argument? I'm hardly a fan of any of the mainstream political parties. However: in connection with the CJIA, in the end, rather than radical feminist arguments about the cultural harms of pornography, the government ended up falling back on a conservative, morality-based framework; in essence, Patrick Devlin and his theory of the "reasonable man". As I've said, the debates about sexuality in recent years seem to have taken a turn for the authoritarian on both left and right. This is a problem.
And no, there is no study I'm aware of that links pornography and violence without serious flaws in its methodologies that pretty much render the results meaningless. This is precisely my point.
Railing against the tyranny of 'common sense'.
http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk
http://www.kinkysalonlondon.co.uk
Edited 29 May 11, 7:37 PM by verte
|
29 May 11, 7:55 PM
redcat
9 yrs
|
verte wrote:
Yes, it was Labour (though a huge number of Tories also voted it through and it hasn't been repealed, has it...?).
|
Brief note at this point.
Labour voted for it becuase they WANTED it...it was part of their 5 point plan to rid the internet of smut...ALL smut.
The Conservatives voted for it becuase they didn't want to be seen to be voting against it.
When Backlash met Sir Edward Garnier (then shadow Home Affairs spokesman) he said it was am affront on liberty but becuase of the tabloids they couldn't bee seen to oppose it and thereby stick up for extreme porn.
Buy a copy of Beyond the Circle
CAAN statement of principle.
|
29 May 11, 8:25 PM
verte
UK(E), 8 yrs
|
flibbertigibbety wrote:
When Backlash met Sir Edward Garnier (then shadow Home Affairs spokesman) he said it was am affront on liberty but becuase of the tabloids they couldn't bee seen to oppose it and thereby stick up for extreme porn.
|
This is true.
But then again, when I confronted a pretty senior Labour MP over the issue their response was very similar..... Railing against the tyranny of 'common sense'.
http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk
http://www.kinkysalonlondon.co.uk
|
29 May 11, 9:35 PM
CookieMonster
UK, 6 yrs
|
tortoise wrote:
lengthy discourse and smart argument aside I'll say what I think - The Guardian and its readers are cunts and wankers (choose your denomination) and every time I get near either I feel I'm being patronised by a twat - and don't start bleating about profanity and sweeping fucking generalisations
|
How about the collectivist attitude to a group of people, I doubt you know all of them, isn't that a bit leftwing? To not treat people as individuals?
|
