Call Me Mañana

When you responded to @SlothMama@lemmy.world, you said that you were against all porn.

Yes, and I also didn’t suggest banning pornography or anything like that. If you think that my statement alone that I am against pornography threatens pornography as a whole, you are greatly overestimating my influence.

You simply generalized all sex work as harmful to the worker/performer.

It is a convention, at least as I understand it, that when we are talking colloquially about a phenomenon, we are talking about how that phenomenon generally happens, even if we don’t use the word “generally” or something equivalent, since it is common sense that for everything there is at least one exception. If you feel like your case doesn’t fit into any of the issues I’ve outlined, with all honesty in my heart: good for you. However, most cases are not that lucky. Exception, instead of contradicting the rule, proves it, otherwise, it would not be an exception, it would be the rule itself.

Did you understand that I defend legalization, I just don’t defend it being controlled by big companies?

much like the failing war on drugs

It’s insightful of you to associate these two problems, in fact, in that they are similar. In both cases, there is also no point in legalizing so that large companies control activities, creating, in the case of drugs, big tobacco 2.0.

I linked an article that talks about the problem in general, two studies that talk about specific subjects and cases and an article that talks specifically about the content of porn films (I corrected the link, I was linking another text, not the one where the information originates ). There is exception for everything. Despite your individual experience, most pornography consumed does not involve direct compensation from viewers to actors to begin with. I do not aim to talk about prostitution and pornography in its entirety, but in general.

But anyway:

I was probably going to jerk off anyway

Yet, you only streamed because you needed to pay rent, or didn’t you?

Also, I did not propose immediately anything that would threaten the activity in the way you practiced it,on the contrary, banning pornographic networks would possibly encourage this type of pornography. If we got to a state where most porn was like this, we would have made a huge progress.

Obviously, no censorship measure can reach all cases, especially when it comes to pornography, you can find it in every corner of the internet. But it can cover most cases if it targets the most popular sites. For example, there is a lot of child pornography on the surface web, despite it being banned in most countries, but the ban makes access difficult and guarantees punishment in any case that the law takes notice of. It is not a definitive strategy, as it aims at the effect and not the cause, but it is something.

To be clear, I’m reading your response as against porn in all forms and for all audiences based on your wording, is that what you mean?

Yes.

How can you be against porn?

I am against porn because I am against prostitution, and porn is a type of prostitution, with the same problems of prostitution plus some more. The central problem is sexism.

It’s neither good or bad, it exists and I basically don’t watch it, but I recognize that others do, why is that a problem that needs solving?

Good and bad are Manichaean categories, as a materialist, I avoid using them. My problem with pornography is the reality of it as well as the reality of prostitution in general. The porn industry is the home of abuse, in every sense. First in the rawest sense, the physical and mental abuse that actresses go through; second in the reproduction and propagation of the culture of abuse, considering that it is the most recurrent theme in porn films; third in the economic sense, pornography, like prostitution in general, is the sale of consent: the actress or prostitute receives money to have sex with someone she would not have sex with under other circumstances, in short: paid rape.

I do not, however, advocate banning either prostitution or pornography, mainly because it would not solve the problem and could even worsen the vulnerability of women in these professions. I however think that pimping should be criminally punished, just like porn networks, which are just a socially accepted form of pimping. Several social problems produce prostitution and pornography, mainly economic inequality, but also the misogyny embedded in the culture of our society, and only a different form of sociability could put an end to these practices. As long as we are not living in this new system, governments can take palliative measures to alleviate the various problems of these practices, but this is not the case at all with this measure by the Spanish government.

EDIT: I have corrected the third link to the article where the information comes from.

I am against porn, but this don’t solve anything.

Easy, they can set guidelines and block in the country sites that do not follow these guidelines.

very cool my man

investigative journalists in authoritarian countries

You mean like the US? Who achieved the feat of persecuting a foreign journalist as if he were an American citizen?

EDIT: I know that Mullvad is also critical of american surveillance, but I find it very funny that when in the West they call a state democratic that does exactly the same (or worse) than a state in the East that they call “authoritarian”. It really reveals how empty of meaning this word is. “Ah, but these Western states have ‘democratic institutions’.” News for you: the states you call “authoritarian” have them too. In both cases, they can be and de facto are dictatorships.

I agree that is a extreme example. That’s precisely why I started with keyboard shortcuts. I don’t think anyone is required to know LaTeX and Markdown, but it seems to me that fewer and fewer younger people know them. If there are fewer people who know the basics, there are proportionally fewer people who know the advanced ones.

In my country, this generational divide doesn’t make much sense. But comparing those born in the 90s and early 2000s with those born from the late 2000s onwards, there is a fundamental difference: there was, even in the public education system, a variety of computer courses available to many people. With the arrival and hegemony of the app model, which is designed with the idea that it is intuitive and does not require anyone to be taught how to use it, computer courses have been disappearing. As a result, millions of young people use computers daily and have no knowledge of simple concepts such as shortcuts Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V, let alone advanced features of Office suites, not to mention that they have no idea what LATEX and Markdown are.

Untrue, I was born in 2003 and torrenting go brrrrrrrrrrrr

And when you say collective action is the only way, which, if I am not mistaken is a core authleft belief.

It’s a core Marxist observation, based in history. Every system that has ever fallen has fallen because of the organized action of a class or a set of classes, not necessarily in a party, since the very notion of a party is extremely recent, but organization in some form. It’s a process that is always violent, usually doesn’t happen all at once and may not be definitive, but that’s how things have happened so far. There’s no evidence that it will happen the way you think it will, but honestly, good luck with that. It would be great if we could move to a fairer system without all the burden of having to organize and having to respond to reactionary violence in the same level.

I do take special exception with your notion that these egregors come into being out of conscious and renewed informed consent.

I don’t know exactly what in my answer led you to the conclusion that I think so, but that’s not the case. In my opinion, these “egregors”, which I call ideologies, arise according to the need that material conditions require. As material conditions change, mainly because of the sophistication of the means of production, new ideologies emerge from the new socioeconomic conditions produced by this change.

Every aspect of human society exists because we, as a society, believe in them, including society itself. The very tools we use to measure the world beyond man are human fabrications. However, the maintenance of a social model does not necessarily depend on all its members believing in or agreeing with it, only on continuing to work for it. Cultural, social, and physical constraints exist and are very real. For example, it was common a few years ago in the “Free Palestine” online community to say that Israel is not real, but this statement has never stopped any of Israel’s oppressive actions from happening. Understanding that all systems are fabricated is a fundamental step towards the possibility of replacing them with better systems, but for this to happen, realization needs to evolve into organized action: the only tool capable of changing the world. And yes, it is only possible to replace one system with another, and it is not possible to live without a system, because what makes us human is precisely this characteristic: we created the social system to overcome the evolutionary system.

And to rationalize the world we live in, we create rules to legitimize our other creations. We can use any factors to generate these rules, but to avoid chaos, we agree, in materialism, to use historical, cultural, and economic factors to justify the control of a territory by a nation state. Considering these factors, in a comparative sense, the control of the United States over any of its constituent territories is much more illegitimate than the control of Tibet by China. Does this mean that we should dismember the United States and return its territories to their original owners? No, it means that someone who believes that China should grant independence to Tibet should also advocate for the dismemberment of the United States. Since in this case the decision came from the United States government, which, I imagine, has no intention whatsoever of dismembering the United States, we can conclude that the only motivation for this is to antagonize China, and it does not stem from a concern for the right of peoples to self-determination.

In fact there are NO countries in the world immune to the “you displaced a previous civilization” argument. They’ve all done it.

Yet, some did it much more recently than others, and many of the peoples they stole from still exist and are still being exploited (not China-Tibet case). At the very least, one would expect countries not to go around questioning the legitimacy of other countries’ territories when their own have no legitimacy at all.

CN lawmakers pass bill that questions US’s claims over Hawaii

Imagine if that was the headline…

The problem is that any claim by the United States to any territory is infinitely more absurd than China’s claim to Tibet. I used Hawaii as an example, but it could be Puerto Rico, Alaska, Texas, California, New Mexico, all the way to the entire country that has been despoiled of its indigenous population.

😱 👻 👻 👻 ☭

Seriously speaking, YES.

“The modern revisionists and reactionaries call us Tankies, thinking that they insult us and, in fact, that is their aim. On the contrary, however, they glorify us with this epithet: it is an honour for us to be Tankies, because, since we were Tankies, the enemy could not conquer us, and never will conquer us as long as we remain Tankies.”

–Enver Hoxha, paraphrased.

(As far as Hungary is concerned, I don’t advocate for anything that Khrushchev did)

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Liberal is a term for a real ideology, Tankie is not.

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0