Why did the Mods of the site add in the "no politics, no religion" rule?

[pink_silk_glove]

S

I'd be curious to know what made the difference with yours. Maybe the futa angle pissed some people off?

If the OPs explanation is true, sounds like it didn't break the rule (stupid rule anyways), just some judgemental cunt bitched and got it pulled. Classic case of 'think the way that I do or shut the fuck up' censorship. Some coward out there probably needs to be slapped and the admin can stop being the personal censor for the butthurt.

 

[Futakween]

See I wouldn't even go there. I would just say the character has a dildo of a given color or size and not give it details that are not particularly necessary - especially not if the character's reason is religion based.

I may take this advice but the comment below from Bramblethorn is very similar in writing style to how my story was and they delved deep into the religion and culture of Islam.

Huh. One of mine (Copper Coin) is about a lesbian romance between an atheist and a Muslim. Part of that is them talking over their religious differences and how the Muslim character reconciles her orientation with her religion, as well mentioning prejudice she experienced from the campus LGBT+ group. I haven't had any complaints about that one.

I'd be curious to know what made the difference with yours. Maybe the futa angle pissed some people off?

This is actually similar to the story I wrote in which the two characters discuss their religions with one another. Your story was written and published in 2016; I've read in either this thread or the other that this religion rule is a new rule,

 

[gunhilltrain]

The difference now can be summed up by 'blessed be the internet' specifically social media which is anything but social. Back before the interwebz, you had news-that was real news reporting facts, not agenda-newspapers that did the same(other than tabloids) and if you needed a break you just didn't read or watch. Also back then a civil conversation between people of opposing views was possible.

Today, social media is 24/7, people are addicted to it, can't stay off it. Its full of internet warriors who spew endless hate and bully because they know they won't get the beaten they deserve. The news is 20% fact, 30% spin, 25%hate and 25% fear, and in eitehr red or blue narrative.

They now encourage lies, hate, fear, and division, they have done away with middle grounds and independent thought. If you disagree with anything you're one of them. Them being the other side. Everything now is its always all. All democrats, all GOP, all Christians, all women etc....

There has never been a time like this, with this much hate and the 24/7 non stop exposure to it. In 2020 there were people who sat in front of hate spewing lying news outlets 24/7 and lost their minds, and have no desire or intention to get them back because whatever side you're on, you've been told the other side is full of hate but....your hating of them is okay.

So I agree there's always been shit going on, but never anything remotely close to this

Also...the reason lit made the rule in 2016 is their side lost. It was all fun when it was their side spewing hate and bullshit, but when the other side took over their answer was to stomp their feet, push out their lip, and eliminate free speech. Typical of their side of things.

For me, my side is my side based on my thoughts and opinions. I vote person not party, however have reached a point where this year I am clicking every independent box on the ballot. I'd rather cast a vote for someone with no chance of winning than be told I have to choose between red shit and blue puke.

Too bad I'm the minority in having my own mind when the majority are cattle.

I kind of overdid it with that post two days ago; sorry lovecraft68. I was trying to make a distinction between what people say online in social media and what they do in reality. A lot of what is said on the Internet is blather (some of it here!) that would never have been visible in the days before anyone could have their own blog. So do they influence other people? Maybe sometimes. When it comes to hate, I'm less worried about those shooting off online than those who are shooting guns in the street. (I don't mean drug gangs on so forth. That's like business disputes being settled with firearms instead of lawyers.)

 

[tenyari]

a distinction between what people say online in social media and what they do in reality. A lot of what is said on the Internet is blather (some of it here!) that would never have been visible in the days before anyone could have their own blog. So do they influence other people? Maybe sometimes. When it comes to hate, I'm less worried about those shooting off online than those who are shooting guns in the street.

Before the Internet you could walk outside and yell something utterly stupid at a bunch of people, suffer some shame and embarrassment, maybe even lose your job and some friends - be cancelled in other words. Then get your act together, and move past it to become a better person.

With the Internet, if you've done anything like that after 1996 - it can still be brought up as if it was still you.

Human beings are designed to change and grow. We aren't static. But now the Internet is forcing a static existence onto our nature that is always the worst representation of ourselves. Nobody is going to bring up the time you said something cute about somebody's cat in 1996, but if you yelled at someone who spilled coffee that same year - they will bring that up.

And Social Media is essentially the reality of 'SkyNet / The Borg / The Singularity / etc'. AI didn't need to be smarter than us to win, it had to be dumber. It had to grab you by the dinosaur-brain instincts and go for a ride off the cliff. Social Media is basically 'Social Crack' - it's addictive and people will sink to the lowest low, then start digging, to get a fix. An the Algorithms driving it care only about getting you to engage more. The best way to do that is through shock and fear - our basic survival instinct. And to make people experience shock and fear, you make them outraged and angry at others.

Thus the AI has won, by being as stupid as possible. It's not even in control of itself, but it is in control of us.

Oh and those shooting off in the street - they got that way because that dinosaur brain in the back of their heads was made afraid of some 'other' through Social Media.

 

[gunhilltrain]

Before the Internet you could walk outside and yell something utterly stupid at a bunch of people, suffer some shame and embarrassment, maybe even lose your job and some friends - be cancelled in other words. Then get your act together, and move past it to become a better person.

With the Internet, if you've done anything like that after 1996 - it can still be brought up as if it was still you.

Human beings are designed to change and grow. We aren't static. But now the Internet is forcing a static existence onto our nature that is always the worst representation of ourselves. Nobody is going to bring up the time you said something cute about somebody's cat in 1996, but if you yelled at someone who spilled coffee that same year - they will bring that up.

And Social Media is essentially the reality of 'SkyNet / The Borg / The Singularity / etc'. AI didn't need to be smarter than us to win, it had to be dumber. It had to grab you by the dinosaur-brain instincts and go for a ride off the cliff. Social Media is basically 'Social Crack' - it's addictive and people will sink to the lowest low, then start digging, to get a fix. An the Algorithms driving it care only about getting you to engage more. The best way to do that is through shock and fear - our basic survival instinct. And to make people experience shock and fear, you make them outraged and angry at others.

Thus the AI has won, by being as stupid as possible. It's not even in control of itself, but it is in control of us.

Oh and those shooting off in the street - they got that way because that dinosaur brain in the back of their heads was made afraid of some 'other' through Social Media.

Well, the reason I brought up the historical events is that not everybody becomes a better person just because they are in public and care about their jobs or whatever. And that was long before social media. These people with the "dinosaur brains;" once in a while get into huge mobs and cause chaos. In Chicago, white people rampaged through Black neighborhoods and burned homes. In Detroit, they pulled Blacks out of autos and streetcars and killed them, right on Woodward Boulevard during the daytime. The Blacks, of course, fought back as best they could, but they only got limited assistance from the police and National Guard, as this illustration shows.

Sorry, I couldn't get the link to work.

 

[Futakween]

Well, the reason I brought up the historical events is that not everybody becomes a better person just because they are in public and care about their jobs or whatever. And that was long before social media. These people with the "dinosaur brains;" once in a while get into huge mobs and cause chaos. In Chicago, white people rampaged through Black neighborhoods and burned homes. In Detroit, they pulled Blacks out of autos and streetcars and killed them, right on Woodward Boulevard during the daytime. The Blacks, of course, fought back as best they could, but they only got limited assistance from the police and National Guard, as this illustration shows.

Sorry, I couldn't get the link to work.

Instead of blacks, can we be referred to as black people. It just sounds so dehumanizing to be reduced to color.

 

[tenyari]

Well, the reason I brought up the historical events is that not everybody becomes a better person just because they are in public and care about their jobs or whatever. And that was long before social media. These people with the "dinosaur brains;" once in a while get into huge mobs and cause chaos. In Chicago, white people rampaged through Black neighborhoods and burned homes. In Detroit, they pulled Blacks out of autos and streetcars and killed them, right on Woodward Boulevard during the daytime. The Blacks, of course, fought back as best they could, but they only got limited assistance from the police and National Guard, as this illustration shows.

Nod.

I was responding only to specific dangers of the modern social media era.

We're seeing a rapid re-escalation of old conflicts. Social Media both fuels the rise in conflicts, and lets people live in a fact-free zone of denial over what occurs around them.

I'm multi-racial, and that includes both Indigenous and African origins - I'm keenly aware of the conflicts of which you speak and have been a target of them for much of my life. But this is the writing forum so it might be best to move this tangent from the original topic to elsewhere.

 

[gunhilltrain]

Instead of blacks, can we be referred to as black people. It just sounds so dehumanizing to be reduced to color.

All right, I guess that's okay. I don't mind being called white, although I prefer European-American. I hope you realize that I'm kidding here. Besides, I'm not really white as in the the color of paper, say; it's kind of hard to describe exactly. Actually, human sounds about right. I have used that, or other, or something like that on various forms and surveys when I can get away with it.

 

[gunhilltrain]

Nod.

I was responding only to specific dangers of the modern social media era.

We're seeing a rapid re-escalation of old conflicts. Social Media both fuels the rise in conflicts, and lets people live in a fact-free zone of denial over what occurs around them.

I'm multi-racial, and that includes both Indigenous and African origins - I'm keenly aware of the conflicts of which you speak and have been a target of them for much of my life. But this is the writing forum so it might be best to move this tangent from the original topic to elsewhere.

Just want to say one more thing about this. I'm 67 now, and I feel like I've already seen all of this before, modern social media or not. Specific dangers? Maybe, but I'm just not that impressed that it's really that different now, one way or the other. It may even be slightly better, but that's hard to say. Also, this is hardly the most extreme digression I've ever seen on this forum. The General Board; I stay away from that!

 

[BobbyBrandt]

I have another thread I posted in the General Discussion forum which is sort of a rant; nonetheless, one user suggested I post here. I'm curious to know why that rule was made, for what purpose because apparently another user said it was new. Is it religion or is it just Abrahamic religions? I feel like it really ruins the character development for characters who are created based off of cultures, race, ethnic group, language, etc. We can have our characters all of those things, but once we mention them being of a religion or the story evolves around their religion then it's not okay? Why would they make this rule? I can't speak for all people of my race, and I don't know how diverse this site is but its so difficult to speak about being my race without bringing in religion. And yes, some of the stories I write are on based on that; the one that got taken down was taken down because of the breaking the religion rule.

Do the site owners not realize just how much race and religion go hand in and hand and how its ludacris we can explore one, but not the other?

I don't see where it is clear that you are referencing religious.political content in stories or in forum postings.

I often include both in my stories, with no objections, except for some readers with a different view than the particular character. However, I could see moderators of the forum restricting posts that might inflame others needlessly, Which is it?

 

[BobbyBrandt]

earlier this year a Friend submitted an erotic satire He wrote in 2016-17 and it wasn't published because of the no politics rule it's set in a 'usa' around 2050ad and written quite well

Interesting.

Many of my stories include fictional political elements that are thinly veiled depictions of our world today, or what it might look like in a few years. In one of my stories, the ultra-liberal political environment in California is lambasted in several sections. This same story includes a major plot element involving the attempt of a political group to set off a new holocaust against the Jewish people of the world.

 

[gunhilltrain]

Interesting.

Many of my stories include fictional political elements that are thinly veiled depictions of our world today, or what it might look like in a few years. In one of my stories, the ultra-liberal political environment in California is lambasted in several sections. This same story includes a major plot element involving the attempt of a political group to set off a new holocaust against the Jewish people of the world.

I assume the group attempting the new Holocaust is on the far-right? You don't specify that, only that California is ultra-liberal. Sorry, I was a bit confused.

This reminds me of the Turner Diaries (1978?), also set mostly in California. I've never read it, but I've heard (or read) several descriptions of what's in it. This graffiti in Los Angeles refers directly to the book: The Day of The Rope Is Coming. The photo appeared in Mike Davis' book, Ecology of Fear: Los Angeles and the Imagination of Disaster. Most of his books are well-worth reading.

Damn, almost forgot the link.

The Day of the Rope

 

[Pureotica]

I'm planning a series set in a religious school, but I use the setting for its humor potential and don't dive into the religion, much. It's also not exactly erotic, per se. I wonder if it will make the cut. I have a scene where a nun is teaching sex ed to a room full of virgins, and a nun who was a hooker before she found her calling, but none of these are explicitly erotic or religious in content. The humor is framed around the characters' antics in evading the schools rules.

I also have a holiday story where the local pastor teams up with a strip club for a fundraiser. Once again, it's used for incongruent humor and doesn't touch on religion.

I suppose I can call it a "girls" school, but I don't have a great workaround if I have to remove the nuns. Nuns ae inherently funny when used in incongruent situations.

 

[Rustyoznail]

I'm planning a series set in a religious school, but I use the setting for its humor potential and don't dive into the religion, much. It's also not exactly erotic, per se. I wonder if it will make the cut. I have a scene where a nun is teaching sex ed to a room full of virgins, and a nun who was a hooker before she found her calling, but none of these are explicitly erotic or religious in content. The humor is framed around the characters' antics in evading the schools rules.

I also have a holiday story where the local pastor teams up with a strip club for a fundraiser. Once again, it's used for incongruent humor and doesn't touch on religion.

I suppose I can call it a "girls" school, but I don't have a great workaround if I have to remove the nuns. Nuns ae inherently funny when used in incongruent situations.

Based on the comments above, I don't think you'd have any problems with your stories.

Yes, nuns are funny - the Penguin in the Blues Brothers comes to mind.

 

[gunhilltrain]

I'm planning a series set in a religious school, but I use the setting for its humor potential and don't dive into the religion, much. It's also not exactly erotic, per se. I wonder if it will make the cut. I have a scene where a nun is teaching sex ed to a room full of virgins, and a nun who was a hooker before she found her calling, but none of these are explicitly erotic or religious in content. The humor is framed around the characters' antics in evading the schools rules.

I also have a holiday story where the local pastor teams up with a strip club for a fundraiser. Once again, it's used for incongruent humor and doesn't touch on religion.

I suppose I can call it a "girls" school, but I don't have a great workaround if I have to remove the nuns. Nuns ae inherently funny when used in incongruent situations.

The mere idea of a nun who used to be a hooker is inherently funny. I remember the "old school" nuns of the 1960s, and they dressed like it was still The Middle Ages or whenever that was the way women may have looked like that. I wasn't in a Catholic school, only the once-per-week "released time/religious instructions" we public school students were allotted. They did all the teaching at the parish school, as I remember. I knew that they were really women under those clothes, but there was something weirdly ethereal - if that is the right word - about them.

 

[Futakween]

I'm planning a series set in a religious school, but I use the setting for its humor potential and don't dive into the religion, much. It's also not exactly erotic, per se. I wonder if it will make the cut. I have a scene where a nun is teaching sex ed to a room full of virgins, and a nun who was a hooker before she found her calling, but none of these are explicitly erotic or religious in content. The humor is framed around the characters' antics in evading the schools rules.

I also have a holiday story where the local pastor teams up with a strip club for a fundraiser. Once again, it's used for incongruent humor and doesn't touch on religion.

I suppose I can call it a "girls" school, but I don't have a great workaround if I have to remove the nuns. Nuns ae inherently funny when used in incongruent situations.

I already have a story up about students who go to a Catholic school; these two stories are still up. Religion is not the main focus though. However, my other story, religion was the main focus but as others have pointed out, they have stories in which religion is the main focus yet their story is still up. I personally believe the person who reported my story has a distaste for those who are Jewish and didn't like I was writing positively about Jewish people. Of course, this is just a theory but from what I've read in this thread and the other thread concerning this religion rule, it seems my story stuck a nerve with a neo nazi.

 

[gunhilltrain]

I already have a story up about students who go to a Catholic school; these two stories are still up. Religion is not the main focus though. However, my other story, religion was the main focus but as others have pointed out, they have stories in which religion is the main focus yet their story is still up. I personally believe the person who reported my story has a distaste for those who are Jewish and didn't like I was writing positively about Jewish people. Of course, this is just a theory but from what I've read in this thread and the other thread concerning this religion rule, it seems my story stuck a nerve with a neo nazi.

I mentioned that I had a story on another site that made me cut some lines. The lines were about a Jewish girl who complains, in a tongue-in-cheek way, about Norman Mailer's (himself Jewish) depiction of the sexuality of Jewish women. He was still alive at the time of the story and her idea, also a joke, was that she'd confront him about the issue at a book reading perhaps. It's true that Mailer often crossed the line between being provocative to being a jerk, which was the main point she was trying to make.

Anyway, it was not the main theme of the story by any means, but it made the site uncomfortable for some unspecified reason. They wouldn't publish the story until I removed the lines, which were probably no more than a couple of paragraphs.

P.S.: Mailer's quote was from The Naked and The Dead, and I can point out where to find it online if anyone is interested.

 

[tenyari]

In one of my stories, the ultra-liberal political environment in California is lambasted in several sections. This same story includes a major plot element involving the attempt of a political group to set off a new holocaust against the Jewish people of the world.

#45 was sorta named (though not by name) and some of his family members (indirectly) and he himself was killed/executed and his family mostly sold into slavery if i remember correctly

These both look like examples that go way beyond what the rules seem intended to allow. So I'm surprised they made it through. I would say they should not have.

The second one can actually cause someone to get a visit by the Secret Service, and should, regardless of what party is in power at the time and what party the President in question had come from. In the past that sort of thing has always triggered an investigation. If it hasn't this time, that's probably only due to the story not yet being noticed.

 

[gunhilltrain]

These both look like examples that go way beyond what the rules seem intended to allow. So I'm surprised they made it through. I would say they should not have.

The second one can actually cause someone to get a visit by the Secret Service, and should, regardless of what party is in power at the time and what party the President in question had come from. In the past that sort of thing has always triggered an investigation. If it hasn't this time, that's probably only due to the story not yet being noticed.

Well, first of all, there seem to be few rules that are actually codified or described on this site. A lot of it is whatever the mods notice or care about on a particular day.

I have no idea of how the Secret Service actually operates. It's tempting to think that they are an all-powerful, all-seeing entity with their digital fingers into everything - sort of like the technology in that Will Smith movie Enemy of the State, which was supposedly based on real-world methods. Can they actually find a story on Lit by anything except accident? I don't know. Probably it's not worth experimenting with it; there are ways to fictionalize political stories as have been used many times in the past. (Just not on Lit!)

Like I heard that the bomber technology in Dr. Stangelove was made up, but it turned out to be closer to the truth than Kubrick had realized.

 

[tenyari]

Well, first of all, there seem to be few rules that are actually codified or described on this site. A lot of it is whatever the mods notice or care about on a particular day.

I have no idea of how the Secret Service actually operates.

Well yeah sane people know they aren't omnicient. I did know about a half dozen different guys, and one girl, in high school who were convinced the FBI, CIA, KGB, and probably also SETI were all bugging their houses. One of them... his family suddenly moved in our last year because his parents were 'true believers' that "The Government" was watching them because they'd protested Vietnam when they were kids... Two of them might have been right - they were political refugees from Chile and El Salvador. But that just meant the government "watching" them would have been social services helping them get jobs and educations... But at least they had come from somewhere were paranoia was justified.

If the government had that level of resources we'd be colonizing distant galaxies by now.

BUT... making threats against a President can get you a visit, even when it's couched in fiction. They take that seriously because a number of attempted actions began with loons writing up fantasies of such first.

Hollywood and such work to make it clear they're filming parody when they do a movie that's about a fictional future attack. Obviously a bit different when you do an historical drama - though I do imagine some of the more crazy JFK movies have gotten their directors on lists... when they start blaming random people and making up wild conspiracies that look like an LSD-trip version of mixing ultra-right and ultra-left conspiracies together.

 

[KeithD]

I have no idea of how the Secret Service actually operates.

The Secret Service has two designated functions, which keep it more than busy: Protecting U.S. currency from counterfeiting and protection of the physical well-being of the U.S. president and other designated U.S. officials and their families. Any SS agent nosing around in Literotica is doing so for personal arousal. I'm sure that does happen.

 

[SimonDoom]

The second one can actually cause someone to get a visit by the Secret Service, and should, regardless of what party is in power at the time and what party the President in question had come from. In the past that sort of thing has always triggered an investigation. If it hasn't this time, that's probably only due to the story not yet being noticed.

I don't know this for sure, but I doubt it. A fictional Literotica story is not a "threat" in any meaningful sense under American law.

I think sometimes Literotica authors worry too much about the legal ramifications of their writing efforts. I'm not aware that after the publication of over half a million stories over 20 years any Literotica author has EVER faced legal ramifications from government authorities. They probably don't pay attention, first of all, except to the extent individual agents enjoy the stories, as KeithD suggests, which is not something they're likely to pass up the chain of command.

The only authority to worry about much is Laurel. She's not a threat to go after you, but she can deny publication of your stories.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Like I heard that the bomber technology in Dr. Stangelove was made up, but it turned out to be closer to the truth than Kubrick had realized.

The reverse, actually. The air force was horrified just how accurately Kubrick got the B52 cockpit instrumentation right, all from pics that were published in magazine articles.

 

[gunhilltrain]

The reverse, actually. The air force was horrified just how accurately Kubrick got the B52 cockpit instrumentation right, all from pics that were published in magazine articles.

All right, I got it partially right. I had forgotten about the magazine articles. You have to wonder why the Air Force gave out the info to those magazines in the first place.

 

[ElectricBlue]

All right, I got it partially right. I had forgotten about the magazine articles. You have to wonder why the Air Force gave out the info to those magazines in the first place.

Recruitment, I'd say.