With how much I go to FA...
Nov. 6th, 2006 01:55 am...I have to say this.
If you're going to leave that archive because they chose the road both of least administrative work for a free site, but more importantly the road of least censorship, please ask yourselves why you were even there in the first place in a place that allows art depicting drug-use, openly sexual art at all, violence, robbery, or any number of other equally-illegal crimes, some of which carry higher penalties than being convicted of being a pedophile.
The "slippery slope" may be as overused as "It's to protect the children!" to my ears, but it doesn't make the former quote any less valid a way to refute the latter quote. If you support censorship of artwork at any level, you are still supporting censorship of artwork. Any 'moral' arguments you make to the contrary are still arguments supporting censorship. And at the same time, you can already opt out of seeing adult artwork at all, and FA is adding support for much higher-granularity blocking of artwork you don't want to see. Don't like it? Guess what, like LJ, you aren't being forced to view everyone's journal entries. Don't argue for a ban when a simple 'Ignore' will function just as well.
And if the above makes you want off my friends list, lemme know. This is just about the only time I'll ever actually remove someone from my actual friends list instead of just my default view, is over issues like censorship, and by request to boot. My outlook is that it is not for myself, or anyone else, to judge another's choices of artwork to draw or share. The risk is entirely their own, and they can and will be judged properly in their own time. But not by me. I may choose not to associate with them, but I have no right to make outright judgements on them.
If you're going to leave that archive because they chose the road both of least administrative work for a free site, but more importantly the road of least censorship, please ask yourselves why you were even there in the first place in a place that allows art depicting drug-use, openly sexual art at all, violence, robbery, or any number of other equally-illegal crimes, some of which carry higher penalties than being convicted of being a pedophile.
The "slippery slope" may be as overused as "It's to protect the children!" to my ears, but it doesn't make the former quote any less valid a way to refute the latter quote. If you support censorship of artwork at any level, you are still supporting censorship of artwork. Any 'moral' arguments you make to the contrary are still arguments supporting censorship. And at the same time, you can already opt out of seeing adult artwork at all, and FA is adding support for much higher-granularity blocking of artwork you don't want to see. Don't like it? Guess what, like LJ, you aren't being forced to view everyone's journal entries. Don't argue for a ban when a simple 'Ignore' will function just as well.
And if the above makes you want off my friends list, lemme know. This is just about the only time I'll ever actually remove someone from my actual friends list instead of just my default view, is over issues like censorship, and by request to boot. My outlook is that it is not for myself, or anyone else, to judge another's choices of artwork to draw or share. The risk is entirely their own, and they can and will be judged properly in their own time. But not by me. I may choose not to associate with them, but I have no right to make outright judgements on them.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-06 10:13 am (UTC)Although personally, I'd much rather those people be drawing the act rather than doing the act they are drawing for issues like this.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-06 10:18 am (UTC)Also, as far as censorship on LJ goes, it has and continues to occur. I won't go into any more detail than that in a public post however, as I don't want to attract the attention of the admin group.
I never claimed LJ doesn't commit censorship.
Date: 2006-11-06 10:30 am (UTC)But what you said is what I'm saying. Don't like it? Don't look. But don't go trying to get every image you disagree with (for whatever reason) removed from whatever archive you're viewing.
Valid point.
Date: 2006-11-06 10:31 am (UTC)Re: I never claimed LJ doesn't commit censorship.
Date: 2006-11-06 01:03 pm (UTC)But what you said is what I'm saying. Don't like it? Don't look. But don't go trying to get every image you disagree with (for whatever reason) removed from whatever archive you're viewing.
Exactly. I'm of the opinion that censorship in general just leads to further ignorance and another step towards a less open society.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-06 02:49 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-06 02:53 pm (UTC)(BTW I dont have a FA account but I have been keeping up with the drama) :)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-06 05:13 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-06 06:08 pm (UTC)i have a personal reason for being upset by it. it brings back a memory i wish i had been able to forget over the years. something that happened when i was only 8 years old and will never, ever leave me.
so i may be throwing a fit or whatever, but i have a good reason for it, although i understand that exactly no one cares. :-P
thanks for not flaming, at least. stings just the same, but. whatever.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-06 06:31 pm (UTC)If, however, we feel that the any art uploaded to Fur Affinity is based off of a real child, or meant to represent a real child, we will take action against that user and report them to the proper authorities and pull their artwork. The administration behind Fur Affinity does not, and will not, ever support pedophilia. We will, however, choose and defend people's rights to freedom of expression and choice.
Which sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Everything's cool until it crosses the lines of reality, in which case they'll come down hard on someone's ass.
While I do agree to a certain extent with what you said about censorship (though we do have some slightly differing opinions that I can't be bothered to go into), this doesn't seem like censorship, more like legality of images to me.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-06 08:18 pm (UTC)I read your reason, actually.
Date: 2006-11-06 08:19 pm (UTC)But I make the distinct effort to draw the line between being upset because I ran across something, and trying to get something removed or disallowed because I ran across something. An artist draws art that upsets me? I no longer view art by that artist if nothing else. Does that difference make any sense?
Re: I read your reason, actually.
Date: 2006-11-06 08:20 pm (UTC)i don't even like it being condoned. cub art is masturbatory material that shouldn't exist.
but that's just my opinion, yanno?
thanks for not flaming!
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-06 08:43 pm (UTC)The fact that these vocal fans of the cub art, and their hundreds of sock puppet accounts swung the voting on
I have never been a free speech absolutist. and Free Speech without a moral spine just leads to useless noise.
Scott
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-06 09:29 pm (UTC)You know me, I totally agree with you. :) I first heard about this by someone complaining about how it brings the fandom down. But I am celebrating!! *dancedance*
But I'm a lolikon/shotakon lover, so go fig. :D
Re: Valid point.
Date: 2006-11-06 10:36 pm (UTC)I'm glad to see you're so ethical, hon. :) *SNUG*
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-06 11:57 pm (UTC)Yet the way to fight the pain is not to completely ignore it -- it WILL sit and fester and find other outlets. The way to fight it is to accept that it happened, accept that it can't ever be undone, and accept that the only person who can do anything about your reaction to it is you. (So says my therapist, anyway.) Yes, it hurts. Yes, it will keep hurting. but ignoring it isn't going to make it get any better, since the mind keeps all the memories linked. And the memories WILL find a way to get linked to other, only barely-related concepts. (As I found to my distress.)
But ethics are ethics. I don't want my own speech to be shut down... so I push for others' speech not to be shut down. I always have the choice not to listen.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-07 12:00 am (UTC)...even though about 50% of the furs who voted on FA voted to "protect the children".
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-07 12:03 am (UTC)I don't agree with cub art. But.
I'll be damned if I'll let something that isn't against the law be treated as though it is.
Re: I read your reason, actually.
Date: 2006-11-07 12:11 am (UTC)And so far, it seems most people are being relatively level-headed in the comments to my two posts, thankfully. Heated, sure, but it's a topic I have to acknowledge as being emotionally-charged, so that's somewhat expected. =^.^=
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-07 01:21 am (UTC)this wasn't about free speech for me. but thank you for being kind in your reply.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-07 01:23 am (UTC)*applause*
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-07 02:06 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-07 02:10 am (UTC)and as to "memological Supremacy, Well so be it, because I do think there are ideas out there, like having sex with minors that do not deserve debate..
Scott
Sex + Minors = Bad!
Date: 2006-11-07 02:36 am (UTC)Well stated.
Date: 2006-11-07 02:41 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-07 04:29 am (UTC)The problem with memeological supremacy is that it's the reason why Islam is so dangerous to Western culture -- it allows no room for debate, no room for other ideas, no room for other religions, no room for any question of the rites or rituals or trappings or the stamping of "WHORE" across every page of the passport of any woman who comes from a different culture who does something totally normal in her culture, but not in the culture within which she is travelling (such as sitting in the front seat of a car with a male driver, discussing business).
Thus, I reject any notion that memeological supremacy in any form is a good thing. (One bad apple spoils the whole barrel... and right now, we have more than a single example to reference. I merely chose Islam because the other examples I could cite are more incendiary.)
I do not debate that having sex with minors is a bad thing. (I'm a survivor of sexual abuse between the ages of 3 and 12, myself, and I know how much it fucked me up.) I must question, though, what your idea of a "minor" is. Does it mesh with mine? Does it mesh with the law? Does it mesh with, say, WolfWings's? And if it does mesh with the law, which jurisdiction?
Saying "the law is the most important guide in determining the age of majority" is a cop-out, as it has been shown time and time again that the law is made by self-serving politicians who have absolutely no connection with the real world. As well, it's been shown that in many jurisdictions, the age of majority is seriously... lacking. And in others, the age of majority is artificially high for no good reason.
Further, what about the other cultures where it's alright, where the social mechanics are in place such that kids who have sex young don't have to hide it, and don't have to go through many, many years of therapy in order to learn to deal with cultural normality?
There are certainly ideas that do not deserve debate... but there are many more that do, that are ignored by those too self-righteous to discern any kind of legitimate difference in the ideas that are brought up for debate.
Kyle
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-07 05:03 am (UTC)As I said, I have my own painful memories to work with, and to figure out how to deal with. Regardless how much I wish I didn't.
I wish you luck with learning to deal with your own.
Re: Well stated.
Date: 2006-11-07 05:51 am (UTC)So what happens now if someone drops a dime on FA?
Scott
Re: Sex + Minors = Bad!
Date: 2006-11-07 07:42 am (UTC)Scott
Re: Sex + Minors = Bad!
Date: 2006-11-07 11:31 am (UTC)And it may very well be because I am a programmer quite often by trade if not by hobby.