Outlaw of Romance Writing

[madelinemasoch]

It's less vague than your arguments.

See, it always goes like this:

X: We should implement ABC.

Y: No, ABC will get exploited and abused to do this other thing.

X: No no no, it's not intended for this other thing, so no one will abuse it.

ABC goes through and gets rampantly abused.

See, this isn't what I said at all. I actually argued against obscenity laws at the same time, but ok.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

See, this isn't what I said at all. I actually argued against obscenity laws at the same time, but ok.

The argument was made that such an authority over artistic works should not be trusted. You flat out disagreed with that. Then you doubled-down stating unequivocably that the issue was not about gatekeeping (ie watchdogging, ie merit-judging art) but of course that is exactly what censorship is, gatekeeping and merit-judging. So you're against censorship but ok with a watchdog - a central scrutinizer with the power to book burn and prosecute. If your two tenets contradict each other, perhaps it means that your understanding of censorship needs some clarification?

 

[jaF0]

Lit 'censors' stuff all the time for bad writing and banned content. See all of the threads on various story rejections.

 

[SimonDoom]

Sigh.
Why is it that all we always hear comes either from far left or far right? When did pure idiocy become our reality? Each side should learn to silence the extremes and morons in their ranks so the rest of us could finally enjoy freedom of speech and some peace of mind.

Freedom of speech is always precarious. It always has been. Just look at this forum. There are plenty of voices that have advocated shutting down certain types of stories.

The test of whether you really believe in free speech is this: do you ever stand up for the rights of people to say things that you hate? If you don't, then you don't support free speech. Supporting the right of people to say things you like doesn't prove that you support free speech.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Huh, I am surprised at some replies here. I thought we would get a universal condemnation of this law. This is an erotic board after all.
It's certainly amusing to see that some people believe that such powers would be used to steer writers towards higher quality writing rather than for censorship and general curbing of freedom of speech.
The primary goal of every government in history, anywhere, has been to tighten the control over the people. The only difference was about the lengths they were willing to go to to achieve it, and how much civil discontent they were willing to risk for it. Most of the time it it would work because people take their freedoms for granted, but sometimes it would backfire badly. It's all up to us, always.

 

[jaF0]

Freedom of speech is always precarious. It always has been. Just look at this forum. There are plenty of voices that have advocated shutting down certain types of stories.

The test of whether you really believe in free speech is this: do you ever stand up for the rights of people to say things that you hate? If you don't, then you don't support free speech. Supporting the right of people to say things you like doesn't prove that you support free speech.

I stand up for the rights of Lit to refuse to publish stories with certain content or grammar/spelling issues.

I also advocate that those limits be expanded to include stories with violence.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Freedom of speech is always precarious. It always has been. Just look at this forum. There are plenty of voices that have advocated shutting down certain types of stories.

The test of whether you really believe in free speech is this: do you ever stand up for the rights of people to say things that you hate? If you don't, then you don't support free speech. Supporting the right of people to say things you like doesn't prove that you support free speech.

I agree with this. I am always for increasing freedom even if that sometimes produces some negative effects as well.
If we are talking about Literotica, there are problems in the way it draws its lines and applies its rules. Remarkably, even though you will find truly despicable stories on AO3, ten times worse than anything on Literotica, I have no problem with that website's policy as it doesn't draw any line whatsoever. I find their policy more principled.

 

[SimonDoom]

I stand up for the rights of Lit to refuse to publish stories with certain content or grammar/spelling issues.

I also advocate that those limits be expanded to include stories with violence.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. There's no principled way to eliminate "violence" from fiction. Violence is a fact of life, and life is the stuff of fiction. If you were serious about eliminating violence from fiction you would delete half of Shakespeare's plays. Every Agatha Christie novel. It doesn't make any sense. You can choose not to read such things. Why would you want to deny others the right to read them?

I think this is an important point in the speech debate. Either you support it or you don't. If your attitude is "I support freedom of speech, except with regard to the stuff I don't like" then you don't support freedom of speech. Once you establish the right to ban stuff you don't like, then everybody else, in principle, has the same right to say, "I want to ban something too!"

 

[madelinemasoch]

The argument was made that such an authority over artistic works should not be trusted. You flat out disagreed with that. Then you doubled-down stating unequivocably that the issue was not about gatekeeping (ie watchdogging, ie merit-judging art) but of course that is exactly what censorship is, gatekeeping and merit-judging. So you're against censorship but ok with a watchdog - a central scrutinizer with the power to book burn and prosecute. If your two tenets contradict each other, perhaps it means that your understanding of censorship needs some clarification?

I did not disagree with that. I said that even if they tried to gatekeep what is and isn't literary merit, they wouldn't actually be able to do so, and the reason why I said that is because something can have literary merit even if some official "watchdog" as you'd like to put it says it has none. So, I don't understand where you think we disagree here.

 

[jaF0]

You are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. There's no principled way to eliminate "violence" from fiction. Violence is a fact of life, and life is the stuff of fiction. If you were serious about eliminating violence from fiction you would delete half of Shakespeare's plays. Every Agatha Christie novel. It doesn't make any sense. You can choose not to read such things. Why would you want to deny others the right to read them?

I think this is an important point in the speech debate. Either you support it or you don't. If your attitude is "I support freedom of speech, except with regard to the stuff I don't like" then you don't support freedom of speech. Once you establish the right to ban stuff you don't like, then everybody else, in principle, has the same right to say, "I want to ban something too!"

I support Lit's right to place limits on the content it accepts.

There are ways to include violence that isn't violent. Christie's stories are usually about the aftermath and investigation. Same with Sherlock Holmes type stories. Steven King on the other hand ... well.

Lit isn't about that kind of thing ... 'erotica' doesn't have to include graphic depictions of violent acts. Lit doesn't have to be 'how to' in that area.


Lit absolutely should not accept stories like 'In Cold Blood'.


If Lit tightens up their own rules, they will not be subject of cleansing laws or campaigns.



.

 

[lovecraft68]

Apologies.
I probable went to far.

Cagivagurl.

Let me add this because I don't care if a thread gets moved, and I don't think we're going to far here anyway.

Obviously porn is something that is always in the crosshairs of the old school conservative base (I don't think the newer breed cares as much) but what people often forget is when it comes to the liberal politicians, they are also against porn, because they see it as sexist, demeaning towards women, problematic in many ways, and like conservatives, they don't seem to understand that in this day and age, these women-and men-do this by choice, its not the dark sketchy industry it was for the first decades of its existence.

End point, is Porn, video, written, etc...has no friends in politics, which is concerning. I only say this because being centrist in a lot of my beliefs, I get tired of seeing either side always being blamed for one ideal or lack thereof.

Reality is, both parties have some good and bad points in their favor and against them, but porn strikes out with both.

 

[jaF0]

^^^^ I do not oppose stories or content that do not include intentional harm to others. Crime and investigative stories do not need to include graphic violence to bring justice for the victims. You can tell a story of how something happened without including graphic details of how it was done.

Wambaugh's books often crossed that line.


This is why I could never sit on a jury of sexual or violent crimes. Tell me who did what to who. Don't go into detail of the autopsy reports and photographs.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I did not disagree with that. I said that even if they tried to gatekeep what is and isn't literary merit, they wouldn't actually be able to do so, and the reason why I said that is because something can have literary merit even if some official "watchdog" as you'd like to put it says it has none. So, I don't understand where you think we disagree here.

It is very simple. If the watchdog says it has no merit and has the power to ban and prosecute, then it is irrelevant whether the story actually has merit. History proves this time and time and time and time again. Every regime in history has had underground art to subvert censorship, and every regime in history has countless pieces of classic art that are regarded as high in merit yet had been suppressed for years/decades/centuries.

Sure, a meritous artwork unjustly deemed unmeritous and banned will still have merit, but who will get to see it? It's merit alone won't get it seen, therefore the merit is pointless against the censor. And no it won't necessarily find it's own way to eyeballs, and even if it does, how many? Not nearly so many as if it were permitted. This must be understood before your arguments can be straightened out and aligned with one another.

 

[lovecraft68]

You really are a true gem, PSG. I actually made the joke exactly becuse I dislike the 'mansplaining' line people sometimes use to discredit one's arguments. You can believe what you want to believe though. Same as everyone else here, I know better than to try to change your mind about anything, even about this absurd assertion that I have ever acted as a dick towards you.

As I said, carry on.

Problem is, mansplaining is a legit term, and although its not always the proper term to describe something, there is more than enough of it here in this forum, and usually from the same handful of 'what me, sexist, no!" closet knuckle draggers.

As for PSG, I don't mind her, she says whatever she wants whether or not its right is another issue, but she's true to her feelings and with zero fucks given as to the reaction.

I'm the same way and have been for my entire time here, so I'll take her occasional over the top accusations and opinions over the majority of the people here afraid to say what they really think.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I support Lit's right to place limits on the content it accepts.

I do too. It's Laurel's house and she gets to make the rules. It's a private club. The question is: do you support the right of other sites to post whatever graphic violence that they want and/or the rights of artists in general to publish works of graphic violence through their own means?

Separate argument:

^^^^ I do not oppose stories or content that do not include intentional harm to others. Crime and investigative stories do not need to include graphic violence to bring justice for the victims. You can tell a story of how something happened without including graphic details of how it was done.

But it won't have the same impact to the reader. Your point here is long moot amongst the voice of art. Would The Godfather or Taxi Driver or Apocalypse Now be as good of a movie without the violence? Would Dave Chappelle be as funny without the cussing? The general consensus of their peers would say 'no'.

 

[alohadave]

If Lit tightens up their own rules, they will not be subject of cleansing laws or campaigns.

"If they aren't doing anything wrong, they have nothing to worry about."

The opposition has a habit of changing the definition of wrong.

Expecting that someone who is opposed to something will leave you alone because you self-regulate is self-delusion.

 

[lovecraft68]

If Lit tightens up their own rules, they will not be subject of cleansing laws or campaigns.



.

I say this all the time and take shit for it. Torture porn, the underage that's on here, the full out NC stories, the violent-and non erotic in anyway-BTB stories, are all things that the site allegedly has rules against, but are all over the site due to either half assed enforcement, or the rules are only wink/wink for when they need an excuse to get rid of a particular story

These are also the things that can stir up a lot of shit as opposed to 'basic' erotica content, and people think I'm tin hat or an idiot when I've said this site is in for a rude awakening someday, and not just the stories we're talking about, but the site is a revenge porn prosecutors dream with the am pic threads and non pro porn threads posted of people's wives, exes, random pics they've stolen from other revenge sites.

Hate to see it happen, but when it does, it will be a self-inflicted wound based on apathy and arrogance.

 

[jaF0]

but the site is a revenge porn prosecutors dream with the am pic threads and non pro porn threads posted of people's wives, exes, random pics they've stolen from other revenge sites.

Hate to see it happen, but when it does, it will be a self-inflicted wound based on apathy and arrogance.

I take a lot of heat for the way I take those pictures and threads down.

I posted above in this thread about how this site needs to be more aggressive in that area.

 

[jaF0]

"If they aren't doing anything wrong, they have nothing to worry about."

The opposition has a habit of changing the definition of wrong.

Expecting that someone who is opposed to something will leave you alone because you self-regulate is self-delusion.

Would you rather that Lit tighten up content rules, or that the site as a whole gets taken down or blocked by regulators?

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Problem is, mansplaining is a legit term, and although its not always the proper term to describe something, there is more than enough of it here in this forum, and usually from the same handful of 'what me, sexist, no!" closet knuckle draggers.

As for PSG, I don't mind her, she says whatever she wants whether or not its right is another issue, but she's true to her feelings and with zero fucks given as to the reaction.

I'm the same way and have been for my entire time here, so I'll take her occasional over the top accusations and opinions over the majority of the people here afraid to say what they really think.

There is no doubt in my mind that mansplaining is a legit term. But same as with many other derogatory terms it is often used to discredit rational arguments just because they come from a man. In this case, its usage was even more absurd as it was used on a woman. There is no better proof for how rampant its usage is.

More than that, such use of the term lets those who truly deserve to be called mansplainers to discredit it. Whenever you misuse or overuse something, it loses its potency.

 

[lovecraft68]

I take a lot of heat for the way I take those pictures and threads down.

I posted above in this thread about how this site needs to be more aggressive in that area.

Good for you, at least someone gets it.

 

[jaF0]

Good for you, at least someone gets it.

I've almost begged for the GB just so I can kill off the picture threads.

AmPics Mod does some, but not near enough in my eyes.

 

[lovecraft68]

There is no doubt in my mind that mansplaining is a legit term. But same as with many other derogatory terms it is often used to discredit rational arguments just because they come from a man. In this case, its usage was even more absurd as it was used on a woman. There is no better proof for how rampant its usage is.

More than that, such use of the term lets those who truly deserve to be called mansplainers to discredit it. Whenever you misuse or overuse something, it loses its potency.

Like the word racism? Probably the biggest word to fit your point.

But it ends up going both ways, the people who earn the term use the argument its just a derogatory accusation, but at times it is just that. Comes down to reading the posts in question and deciding on your own definition and feeling.

One person here follows the same pattern in a discussion where that term can apply, Starts off reasonable enough, but if the discussion continues gets more and more of that pandering tone. I find it ironic the biggest offenders are the first to run all in to the Pink Orchard event...where they will be sure to tell the women what's empowering to them, and white knight to their finest level.

I think having daughters along with some of the causes I support in my personal life make me more aware of this than maybe I would be otherwise.

Men are not to be trusted in both thought and deed until they prove otherwise is my warning to any woman who will listen to me. Many can be trusted, some can't. We have some of both here.

I'll now endure the usual "you're a simp" anon feedbacks that always follow these comments.

 

[SimonDoom]

I've never understood the obsession of wanting the site to be more aggressive about enforcing its rules. My attitude is: I don't care. I read the stories I want to read, and I don't care in the slightest what other people read or whether the site features stories I don't want to read. If Laurel and Manu let things slip through the cracks . . . so? How does that hurt anybody?

This is what I mean by the culture of free speech. If you don't support the right of people to read stuff that you intensely dislike, then you don't believe in free speech.

I don't want Laurel and Manu to spend one iota more of their time "policing" the stories and ensuring compliance with the content rules. I'd much rather have them spend their time on other things to keep making this a better site.

 

[lovecraft68]

I've almost begged for the GB just so I can kill off the picture threads.

AmPics Mod does some, but not near enough in my eyes.

I think the GB is to remain unmoderated for whatever reason, and since the worst of the nastiness in posting has shifted to the PB, the posters themselves are a lot saner

As for the Pc threads there the majority of what I've seen are pics and links to pro porn so this content is everywhere and these women are as well, these are adult actresses, not some asshole's ex girlfriend he's posting or some guy who wants people to drool over his wife and she has no idea.

Those "dressed/undressed' threads, and one just started there again, are bad news as are the ones by a poster who says she's a hot wife and posts all kinds of pics. Its like the am thread, is that the person posting? Never know and when it doubt it should be throw it out, but....