Merged Does 'rape culture' accurately describe (many) societies?

[Skeptical Greg]

Can you please explain your proposal for kids as I am not following it?

In the same way we have banned slavery, we ban porn. No, that won't be efficacious as has been proven with slavery - but that is no reason not to do so.

So, because something doesn't work, is a good reason to do it?

You're funny.

 

[Darat]

Can you please explain your proposal for kids as I am not following it?

In the same way we have banned slavery, we ban porn. No, that won't be efficacious as has been proven with slavery - but that is no reason not to do so.

Perhaps re-read my post?.

That's the problem for Poem's wanting all pornography to be removed. If we can't even, to use their description keep the internet from being awash with child abuse content, which is probably considered by most to be one of the most heinous crimes possible how is criminalising all pornography going to work, how will they stop the internet being awash with pornography? ​

This isn't an issue of the perfect being the enemy of the good, we know in the UK when we implemented very strict laws on pornography back when replicating pornographic content was difficult, expensive and resource heavy and the distribution required physical assets to be moved it was still available. Today pretty much all of us can distribute any content to anyone in the world with a few mouse clicks or touches on a screen.

According to you the internet is awash with child abuse content, making that criminal with extensive prison sentences for those found in possession of such content has not stopped the internet being awash with that content. You are proposing criminalising pornography in the same way, pornography can be produced and distributed in the exact same way content of child abuse is, therefore your "proposal" of banning pornography will not achieve what you want it to do i.e. it will leave the internet awash with pornography. Doing the same thing and expecting it to have a different outcome is not rational.

 

[Ziggurat]

In the same way we have banned slavery, we ban porn. No, that won't be efficacious as has been proven with slavery - but that is no reason not to do so.

I am not convinced you can even define porn.

 

[Poem]

Perhaps re-read my post?.

That's the problem for Poem's wanting all pornography to be removed. If we can't even, to use their description keep the internet from being awash with child abuse content, which is probably considered by most to be one of the most heinous crimes possible how is criminalising all pornography going to work, how will they stop the internet being awash with pornography? ​

This isn't an issue of the perfect being the enemy of the good, we know in the UK when we implemented very strict laws on pornography back when replicating pornographic content was difficult, expensive and resource heavy and the distribution required physical assets to be moved it was still available. Today pretty much all of us can distribute any content to anyone in the world with a few mouse clicks or touches on a screen.

According to you the internet is awash with child abuse content, making that criminal with extensive prison sentences for those found in possession of such content has not stopped the internet being awash with that content. You are proposing criminalising pornography in the same way, pornography can be produced and distributed in the exact same way content of child abuse is, therefore your "proposal" of banning pornography will not achieve what you want it to do i.e. it will leave the internet awash with pornography. Doing the same thing and expecting it to have a different outcome is not rational.

I think you have misunderstood me. I am asking you about this:

......to have devices hardwired so that all content on the device is scanned for being pornographic and blocked if it is judged to be pornographic. That is technologically possible, it would of course not be perfect but as ever perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good. ETA: The above solution is akin to what I think we need to do to protect kids from the unfiltered internet, form the harm the likes of Meta, X and so on knowingly and by design inflict on kids to make money.

How do you see this working specifically for children?

 

[Darat]

I think you have misunderstood me. I am asking you about this:

......to have devices hardwired so that all content on the device is scanned for being pornographic and blocked if it is judged to be pornographic. That is technologically possible, it would of course not be perfect but as ever perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good. ETA: The above solution is akin to what I think we need to do to protect kids from the unfiltered internet, form the harm the likes of Meta, X and so on knowingly and by design inflict on kids to make money.

How do you see this working?

And I am asking you about your apparent point of this thread - what is your proposal to stop the internet being awash with pornography?

 

[dirtywick]

Never change, Poem. Never change.

don’t worry he won’t

 

[Poem]

And I am asking you about your apparent point of this thread - what is your proposal to stop the internet being awash with pornography?

Do you agree that, in general, CSAM is not easily accessible? It isn't like finding legal porn for example. I understand that Tor (The Onion Router) is popular for accessing CSAM.

CSAM is awash but it is hidden...as is human trafficking. Human trafficking is difficult to define - which is why someone might be considered a victim or perpetrator of such depending on one's interpretation of the law.

 

[Darat]

Do you agree that, in general, CSAM is not easily accessible? It isn't like finding legal porn for example. I understand that Tor (The Onion Browser) is popular for accessing CSAM.

CSAM is awash but it is hidden...as is human trafficking. Human trafficking is difficult to define - which is why someone might be considered a victim or perpetrator of such depending on one's interpretation.

Is then your proposal to criminalise pornography in the same way that child abuse content is criminalised?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Is then your proposal to criminalise pornography in the same way that child abuse content is criminalised?

You first have to define it.
(I know you know that.)

 

[Myriad]

Poem has wishes, not proposals. Proposals are work for other people to do, so he can get what he wants. (Which is okay and not at all entitled because what he wants is for the greater good.)

If he ever found a genie lamp, humanity would be doomed. He'd wish for no child to ever see porn, and all the children would die or go blind.

 

[Ziggurat]

How do you see this working specifically for children?

It wouldn't work specifically for children. It wouldn't really work at all. And Darat isn't actually proposing it, he's suggesting that this is the sort of thing you might think would work. Which may or may not be a fair characterization of your position, you would know better than I, but it's not Darat's position.

 

[Poem]

Is then your proposal to criminalise pornography in the same way that child abuse content is criminalised?

I see the way forward is to begin with making the internet safe for children. It's theoretically possible. The OSA will issue fines but they may have to ramp that up, idk.

I don't see it working - too many loopholes.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Edited to delete.

See apology below..

 

[theprestige]

Can you please explain your proposal for kids as I am not following it?

In the same way we have banned slavery, we ban porn. No, that won't be efficacious as has been proven with slavery - but that is no reason not to do so.

The reason not to ban porn is because free expression is a human right. Slavery is not a human right, so your analogy does not work. It makes sense to criminalize all slavery, no matter how ineffective such a step is, because slavery is always unequivocally wrong. When we do catch people doing it, we want to have a clear legal basis for punishing them.

It makes sense to criminalize all CSAM, no matter how ineffective such a step is, because CSAM is always unequivocally wrong. When we do catch people doing it, we want to have a clear legal basis for punishing them.

But porn is not always unequivocally wrong. A lot of porn is free expression by and for consenting adults. We do not want to have a clear legal basis for punishing people who are creating porn - we want the opposite. A clear legal basis for condoning people who are creating porn. Only in specific, narrowly-defined cases, should we make criminals of people who are creating expressions of a sexual nature.

"Kids have the right to access a porn-free internet at all times, with or without adult supervision" is not a good reason to ban all porn. In fact, that part of the UNCRC I disagree with wholeheartedly. I do not agree that kids have a right to access the internet at all. I do not agree that kids have a right to access media, generally speaking, at all.

I do agree with the principle indicated in the UNCRC, that we have a duty to take protective measures, for children, against porn. I do not agree that a ban is the right way to do this. (I also don't agree that the UNCRC is legally binding.)

 

[Ziggurat]

I see the way forward is to begin with making the internet safe for children. It's theoretically possible.

How can humans colonize other planets? I see the way forward is to begin travelling to other planets and building civilizations there.

That doesn't remotely answer the question.

I don't see it working - too many loopholes.

Of course it's not going to work. So what will work? You say it's possible, but how? You can't just pass over that question as an exercise to the reader, you aren't a math textbook.

 

[Ziggurat]

@Poem

Who do you think is your audience here?

What do you think will be the eventual outcome ?

Have you identified someone on the fence here, who is not apparent to the rest of us?

Have you considered standing on a street corner with a sandwich board? It might be time better spent for your purpose.

I disagree with a lot, if not most, of what Poem writes here. But I don't agree with this take. And the reason isn't because I think Poem will persuade anyone, but because dialogue serves a purpose even in the absence of persuasion. It's useful to know what other people think, and why they think those things, even if you don't agree with them. So let Poem speak. Let him tell us what he thinks, and why he thinks those things. That expression serves a purpose even if no one is persuaded, even if everyone disagrees with him.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I apologize if I sounded contentious.
I probably need to bow out for now.

 

[arthwollipot]

You first have to define it.
(I know you know that.)

Not only that, but you need to provide a definition in the extremely nuanced and hyper-precise technical jargon of the legal profession - a cant so notoriously complex that it has its own term - Legalese - to suggest that it is an entirely different language from regular English, and all but unintelligible to native speakers of that language.

@Poem can't do that. Poem only has "I know it when I see it" vibes. Though I doubt very much that Poem has actually seen any porn.

 

[theprestige]

Not only that, but you need to provide a definition in the extremely nuanced and hyper-precise technical jargon of the legal profession - a cant so notoriously complex that it has its own term - Legalese - to suggest that it is an entirely different language from regular English, and all but unintelligible to native speakers of that language.

I think this is a dead end argument. We already have adequate definitions to regulate pornography. Poem can apply those to banning it, without having to re-litigate the legal framework we already accept.

 

[arthwollipot]

We have adequate definitions to regulate certain types of pornography - specifically CSAM and NC - those types that are currently illegal. What Poem wants is to make currently legal forms of pornography illegal, which means that these definitions need to be worked out. Is Game Of Thrones pornographic? It has both male and female nudity and quite graphic gay and straight sex scenes.

It also has graphic violence, blood and gore, and I don't see any calls for banning that due to the harms it can cause to children, but that's neither here nor there.