I don’t think that’s a fair analogy when she’s still being just as abusive. And I don’t think it makes sense for you to try and shame everyone else for abusive behavior but ignore hers.
That said, I do understand that desire to defend the person like that. Thing is, I think Beck is counting on that as a way to avoid having to take accountability.
Well Said.
Anyone is of course free to start a new thread dedicated to Beck, but they’re also free to keep hashing it out here if they prefer.
If I’m told to stop. I will. I’ve privately been told to stop. I probably should.
Sounds good. Thank you. Less work for me anyway.
Right–but I’m not convinced that anyone else (with the possible exception of Beck, who has the reading comprehension of a blind parakeet) is reading it the same way. So I’m pushing back on your misunderstanding of what I’m saying.
@BigT, I am not abusing anyone. Quit saying that.
That’s right, BigT, get in your place! And stop having an opinion!
/beckimpersonation
Yep. I do accept your explanation of your intent.
Thank you!
I was using MJ’s own words. That’s usually easier than trying to get into semantic arguments.
I do agree that abuse is not the best word. But you are being just as shitty to others as they are being to you. And you did attack me, when I has been going out of my way not to attack you.
Literally anyone else would already be on my ignore list by now.
Though, at this point, I am genuinely worried you are a lost cause. You said you were going to stop, and so I thought maybe I or someone else had gotten through to you to at least stop making things worse.
As you yourself have said before, you have to realize when to stop digging.
People with half an ounce of decency don’t knock other people’s teeth in over words.
There, now I’ve probably managed to piss off both sides of that discussion.
– having thought about it, I have a set of opinions of my own:
If pornography is defined as “work intended to be sexually arousing”, then:
There does exist pornography which is harmful to neither the producers nor the consumers; of whatever gender.
There also exists pornography which is harmful to the producers and/or the consumers, of various genders, in one or more of the following ways:
Some of the producers are being forced to do the work, either by physical force or by having no other way to make necessary money. The work itself depicts abusive behavior and may encourage consumers to act likewise. The work depicts seriously unrealistic behavior to people who may take it as realistic, thereby harming both them and any partners they may have by causing unrealistic expectations.
In this society there is unfortunately probably a hell of a lot more of the latter than of the former.
A society which fully accepted the former would probably get significantly more of the former; maybe more of the former than the latter. This is one of the reasons why dissing the former is IMO a bad idea; as is insisting that any form of sexually arousing material must be the latter. (The other reason it’s a bad idea is that it’s hard on the people producing the former.)
And here’s a kicker: it can be really hard for the consumer to tell whether they’re buying/watching the former or the latter. Case in point: I watched Deep Throat many many years ago with some friends of mine. We thought it was the former, and we also thought it was funny – that nobody would take the unrealistic parts seriously.
I found out some years later that we’d been watching, and laughing at, an extended rape. Leaves kind of a bad taste in the mind. People who are watching porn: try and be careful what you’re getting, OK?
– Beck, would you by any chance like to back down a step and say that your definition of the word only means the second kind, and you acknowledge the existence of the first? I’ve seen some people distinguish between “pornography” and “erotica”; but I’ve seen others use “pornography” for both, and seen an occasional thing described as “erotica” that I thought was the first.
Three things:
One, see just above.
Two, I think Beck’s more likely to change her mind if she’s attacked less.
Three, a lot of the attacking going on in this thread doesn’t seem to me to be about that issue.
FWIW, “attention junkie” or “attention addict” seems to work equally well. I mean I suppose a person could complain about stigmatizing substance abuse disorders, but not even I am that fussy.
I also don’t even care about the attention-seeking part. It’s the grotesque, hypocritical, stupid advocacy of repressive policy, coupled with ugly attacks on anyone who disagrees, that gets up my nose.
I guess someone hacked your account to make all the posts where yoy accused men of only disagreeing with you because they are pathetic wankers who can’t find anyone to sleep with them?
This is all something I could sign onto, and I think you said it really well. Thank you!
Disagree. Somethings cross a line. Denigrating a grandmother by talking about whether she had anal sex with her husband is well over that line.
I like attention junkie, I’ll use that until the next language shift. Now I have to remember it for the next time I need it.
Thank you.
Hopefully this is just tour internet tough guy persona speaking, because if you act that way in real life, holy shit you’re pathetic.
I absolutely feel the same way about many that have posted today.