Opposing the sex industry is a common and principled left stance. It is only in capitalist countries where their cops are funded to harrass people and Johns are rarely punished where there has been a need for a “sex work is work” movement.
In countries run or established by communists, they were often facing racial or otherwise imperialist systemic rape (“comfort women” for Japanese imperialists, for example), recognized how this worked in both slavery and “transactional” capacities, and correctly banned it. Things like erotica were swept up in this total purge of marketing sex, and enforcement is inconsistent as it is usually regional.
Please so your best to educate yourself, be accurate in your summaries, and to not be sinophobic.
Most things labelled “sex work” are actually human trafficking and most Western left groups that oppose expansion of the sex industry and even want it banned are made up of former “sex workers”. So no, not end of story, you do need to actually investigate the topic and understand it as more than a slogan.
I understand you Americans have fucked up views on sex workers and treat them like shit, but that is on you.
This is not exclusive to the United States.
Also Australia women were taken as comfort women by Japan, and yet we still legalise and protect our sex workers.
Was Australia occupied and had its people constantly forced into slavery roles, including rape, by the occupiers? Comparing a handful of captured during the war vs. decades of occupation and society-level abuse is disgusting.
Since you are presumably in Australia, can you tell me some stats on human trafficking there?
Lefties characterize much of labor under capitalism as wage slavery that builds profit off of injured bodies. And they seek to undo those conditions. Are you aware of anyone here that looks at those who must injure themselves to work and does not want that to go away?
Your responses here are a confused mileu. It seems like you know basically nothing about others’ stances but feel like you still deserve an (dismissive) opinion. Who taught you that this was okay?
I wonder who taught you to end every comment with an insult, trying to use shame to coerce silence instead of using rational thinking and supportive behavior to convince people on your ideas.
Or is your goal to just push people away and remind them of how they don’t want anything to do with the “left”
I wonder who taught you to end every comment with an insult,
I haven’t ended any comment with insults. I have called out poor behavior and racism/xenophobia, however.
My approach, generally speaking, is to engage fairly patiently and neutrally until it is clear that others are abusing this or if their behavior crosses serious lines like national chauvinism or ridiculous levels of condescension and bad faith, which is how you are approaching every disagreeing comment. Because at that point, ignoring the poor behavior tends to lead to it getting even worse.
trying to use shame to coerce silence
Look at how absurd this language is. You’d think I had arrested you and am now publicly berating you before throwing you in jail rather than correcting ignorant opinions and suggesting being less arrogant and national chauvinist when presented with disagreeing opinions.
There is no coercion in me telling you to be curious and humble or not national chauvinist. However, there is a ton of actual coercion in the sex industry. Try to have some perspective.
instead of using rational thinking and supportive behavior to convince people on your ideas.
I have presented rational thinking and look at how you and the Australian have responsed. And I would be happy to be supportive - so long as you recant the sinophobic statements and orientation you have presented. Because I’m not going to support that.
Or is your goal to just push people away and remind them of how they don’t want anything to do with the “left”
lmao you think growing the left is about tolerating arrogance and national chauvinism?
If she had to do that because she had no choice? That would be horrible. If she started an OnlyFans because she enjoyed the attention, I’d be embarrassed, but good for her.
Things like erotica were swept up in this total purge of marketing sex, and enforcement is inconsistent as it is usually regional.
A convenient excuse to stifle a person’s consenting sexuality and agency. Written erotica hurts no one, and those arguing otherwise are falling into their authoritarian tendencies.
If you don’t like sex work like pictured/video pornography and prostitution I can at least understand your reasoning. Both have massive issues of trafficking and sexual slavery. But swinging the hammer down like this on written erotica is purely authoritarian. And trying to justify arrests made as “inconsistent enforcement” is giving cover, purposeful or otherwise, to that authoritarianism.
A convenient excuse to stifle a person’s consenting sexuality and agency.
It is not a convenient excuse, it is an understanding of other cultures and their histories. I did not even present a judgment of whether it is good for this to have happened.
Written erotica hurts no one, and those arguing otherwise are falling into their authoritarian tendencies.
Who here is arguing otherwise and what are their authoritarian tendencies?
If you don’t like sex work like pictured/video pornography and prostitution I can at least understand your reasoning.
I couldn’t because there are different ways someone can like or not like those things and they have different impacts on society when turned into political action.
Both have massive issues of trafficking and sexual slavery. But swinging the hammer down like this on written erotica is purely authoritarian.
What does it mean to be “purely authoritarian”? This is not a concept that I have ever seen coherently employed. Do you just mean that you believe it is unjust? That does not really address trying to understand more about where it is coming from, which is what the part of my comment that you quoted is describing. In fact, depending on what “authoritarian” even means, acknowledging the basic history of how China acquired anti-sex industry stances would require you to understand that it is not “purely” so, but draws from a reaction to systemic sexual violence and oppression.
In a sense, this kind of oversimplification is the core kernel of national chauvinism and orientalism.
And trying to justify arrests made as “inconsistent enforcement” is giving cover, purposeful or otherwise, to that authoritarianism.
Putting aside my criticism of the term authoritarian, what cover am I providing by providing relevant context about regional enforcement that sinophobic Westerners - who are all over this comment section - are usually unaware of?
It is. You’re handwaving away criticism of laws that are being applied improperly and unequally. Even if this was a local failure, which it isn’t since this type of content is illegal all over China, that doesn’t excuse failure to equally enforce in this circumstance.
Who here is arguing otherwise
Plenty of comments are defending China’s actions here saying it’s necessary to fight sex work. It isn’t. It’s an authoritarian action taken to stifle sexuality and exert control. You see this most often in fascist governments when setting up dictatorships. And before I get dumb comments, China isn’t fascist. But they are authoritarian in several of their tendencies.
I couldn’t
K.
What is “Purely Authoritarian”
It’s dictating human nature and what is allowed based on governmental morals. You say this is in reaction to the sexual and war crimes that have occurred in China. While that may be the root of the law, that does not make it just in this application of the law.
Consenting adults in the privacy of their own home writing/collecting their own written material are not engaging in or even condoning such tragedies. To harken back to such tragedies when talking about something unrelated is yet another excuse to give cover to authoritarian actions.
If we were talking about pictured/video pornography or prostitution that would be one thing. But this is written erotica. There is no physical person being engaged with. This is at best reactionary and at worst authoritarian.
Also reactionary actions can still be authoritarian. Was the term “purely authoritarian” hyperbole? Yes. Are you being a complete pedant in pointing this out? Also yes.
What cover?
By using “inconsistent enforcement” as an excuse to ignore criticism. There is no justification for these arrests, and yet excuses are being made for what occurred. On top of all of that: inconsistent enforcement is a tell tale sign of authoritarianism as the law is used as an excuse to arrest whoever offends. Even though said laws aren’t applied uniformly. Thus manufacturing pretty much any consent needed for an arrest.
You can claim things like western chauvnism and orientalism, but those words have actual meaning that you debase when you throw it out at any criticism of China. This arrest was, once again, reactionary at best and downright authoritarian at worst.
How so? I don’t think having a culturally appropriate and historical understanding is hand waving. Do you?
that are being applied improperly and unequally.
To my knowledge I am the only person making note of Inconsistent enforcement. Rather than criticizing it to “hand wave” I introduced the topic.
Even if this was a local failure, which it isn’t since this type of content is illegal all over China, that doesn’t excuse failure to equally enforce in this circumstance.
National laws are often fleshed out and enforced at more local levels, leading to inconsistency. Your logic does not make sense, as a local failure in applying national law occurs regularly and tends to be the impetus for more consistent national enforcement and is related to the anti-corruption campaigns of the last decade and more. I have added this context because Western chauvinists broad brush their designated enemies from smaller or isolated incidents that are blown up into xenophobic and often racist talking points.
Can you describe, for me, how you believe national, regional, municipal, and local governance generally operates in China?
Plenty of comments are defending China’s actions here saying it’s necessary to fight sex work.
Please show me these comments.
It isn’t. It’s an authoritarian action taken to stifle sexuality and exert control.
Is that so? Can you show me your methodology and source materials for how you have discovered these root causes?
You see this most often in fascist governments when setting up dictatorships.
Oh? Most often? So then you have done a fair comparison across different political tendencies, cultures, histories, and governments and can show me some statistics?
And before I get dumb comment, China isn’t fascist. But they are authoritarian in several of their tendencies.
You rely heavily on that ambiguous and selectively applied term. Why not be more direct and descriptive?
I couldn’t
K.
Does this mean you are uninterested in good faith dialogue?
It’s dictating human nature and what is allowed based on governmental morals.
That is a lot to unpack. The concept of human nature is itself poisoned by reactionary ideas, it is used to actually reinforc a desired status quo by claiming it to be an immutable ot otherwise “natural” way of things rather than something that is mutable and socially constructex. For example, European Christian concepts of original sin have been used to rationalize a misanthropic view of people as inherently bad and in need of subservience to the ruling powers of different eras.
I have yet to see appeals to human nature used in a way that was not reactionary, but maybe you are thinking of something that is not. Can you state this more concretely?
Re: government morals, all state policies and enforcement is political and social, and has some kind of a moral component. So this would not distinguish this from any other state policy. Are all state policies authoritarian? If so, do you describe all of them as such, consistently? Or do you think you may be inclined to use the term for certain countries more than others, as is more common?
You say this is in reaction to the sexual and war crimes that have occurred in China. While that may be the root of the law, that does not make it just in this application of the law.
I did not present it as a sufficient justification for any particular thing. I added it as context for understanding a culture and history that most people here will be unfamiliar with and onto which they are eager to project their biases. You are assigning conclusions and motivations that aren’t there and are being uncharitable.
Consenting adults in the privacy of their own home writing/collecting their own written material are not engaging in or even condoning such tragedies.
Yes everyone knows this and nothing I’ve said contradicts it.
To harken back to such tragedies when talking about something unrelated is yet another excuse to give cover to authoritarian actions.
You think that the historical and cultural origins of the law are irrelevant to its existence and application? What?
It feels like you are just cobbling together negative sentiments to throw at the wall, facts be damned.
If we were talking about pictured/video pornography or prostitution that would be one thing. But this is written erotica. There is no physical person being engaged with. This is at best reactionary and at worst authoritarian.
Is it reactionary, a holdover from a progressive law that doesn’t always map neatly onto modern times (this law is actually about distribution, not “writing in their own homes”), a regional variation? Is it a composition of the three in different ways? Is there more to it? How do you distinguish the law from enforcement? How much do you know about these specific cases?
Also reactionary actions can still be authoritarian. Was the term “purely authoritarian” hyperbole? Yes. Are you being a complete pedant in pointing this out? Also yes.
I still cannot tell you what I think you mean by the term “authoritarian”. In my experience it is a term used selectively, like calling designated enemy states “regimes” and designated good or neutral states “governments”, and it means little aside from trying to communicate a negative connotation despite presenting itself as political theory. Its modern usage can be traced back to imperialist cold war PR campaigns to try and flatten the difference between Nazis and the communists that defeated them.
It is important to be humble and self-critical about one’s own unexamined biases.
By using “inconsistent enforcement” as an excuse to ignore criticism.
I didn’t do that. Please do your best to not invent things about me to get mad about.
There is no justification for these arrests, and yet excuses are being made for what occurred.
I haven’t seen the latter once. And I cannot address the first without knowing more about the situation.
On top of all of that: inconsistent enforcement is a tell tale sign of authoritarianism as the law is used as an excuse to arrest whoever offends.
Arresting whoever offends would be a consistent application of the law. And again I cannot imagine what you mean by “telltale sign of authoritarianism”. What are your examples? Have you done a fair comparison? What do non-authoritarian law enforcements look like?
Even though said laws aren’t applied uniformly. Thus manufacturing pretty much any consent needed for an arrest.
This does not make sense. Regional variation is not the same as selective application at the point of declaring warrants, which is the kind of inconsistency you are describing as bad.
Also, manufacturing consent is a term about how capitalist media creates its narratives through the amplification of thise biased towards ruling class interests, even if they themselves do not think of themselves as corrupt or as political operatives.
You can claim things like western chauvnism and orientalism, but those words have actual meaning that you debase when you throw it out at any criticism of China
I don’t do that. You are, again, making things up about me. Please do your best to talk to me, the human on another screen, and not the person in your head that you are angry at.
The people I am replying to in this thread are often guilty of sweeping generalizations and sinophobic remarks.
This arrest was, once again, reactionary at best and downright authoritarian at worst.
Okay, so what about the rest of my comment that you didn’t reply to?
You can Gish Gallop over this comment section all you want, but you’re not worth my time. I’ll put it simply for you here since you’re so obtuse; outlawing how a person expresses their sexuality, when it isnt at the cost of another persons consent, is shitty and authoritarian.
Have fun defending reactionary and authoritarian actions. Whatever it takes to defend your side, right?
You can Gish Gallop over this comment section all you want, but you’re not worth my time.
I am not Gish Galloping. I am engaging in good faith and am responding directly to what you’re saying with explanations and context. Do you think that’s a bad thing?
In many of these attempts to criticize you are really just telling on yourself. You’re actually getting combative and complaining that I am taking the time to help you challenge unexamined biases (that you bring up via accusations) and provide additional relevant context. Given how many objective errors you have made in trying to justify your attacks, don’t you think a bit of humility is in order? Why launch into everything with speculative attacks?
I’ll put it simply for you here since you’re so obtuse
I’m not being obtuse.
outlawing how a person expresses their sexuality, when it isnt at the cost of another persons consent, is shitty
I don’t think we’ve had a conversation about whether that is shitty. This conversation has mostly been me replying to your false and bad faith accusations using more restraint and patience than you will likely receive any other time.
and authoritarian.
Again, this means nothing and you should be more skeptical towards your internalized biases.
Have fun defending reactionary and authoritarian actions.
I don’t believe I’ve defended anything other than myself. You should get over this habit of lying about others in support of beinh dismissive.
Whatever it takes to defend your side, right?
I’m not the one engaging in bad faith behavior here and you are the only one thinking in terms of sides. Again, telling on yourself.
Please do your best to improve how you disagree with people. If you behaved like this in any decent irl left organization you would get kicked out for aggressive toxicity and dishonesty.
Please do your best to reply to what I say rather than changing the subject. You can always choose to just not reply if you don’t have an actual response.
I’m just doing what you’re doing, not talking about the topic the other person wants to talk about. Show me I’m wrong by talking about the topic I want to talk about, the original post. Show me the changing the topic was not your intention.
I’m just doing what you’re doing, not talking about the topic the other person wants to talk about.
I am directly quoting and responding to basically everything said to me, lol. You might be projecting, as own comments are rife with deflections and topic changes. I ignored this 3-4 times before making a note of it just now.
Show me I’m wrong by talking about the topic I want to talk about, the original post.
I mean, you have said many things related to the original post and I have addressed many of them. You are, after the fact, trying to invent there being only one relevant and restricted original topic, which is, hilariously, not something you ever explicitly stated until just now. You haven’t even really stated it, you are couching it in a question.
Feel free to make a top level comment about “the original topic” and I will feel free to respond to it or not.
Porn is a serious issue that leads to detrimental addictive behavior, unrealistic dating and sex expectations, and is only needed for the weakest, dumbest masturbators.
No one is getting life in prison. China has less serve punishments than the US, and it’s practically impossible to get life in prison for non violent crimes unless you’re a billionaire.
What do you think is an appropriate punishment? My inclination is “nothing,” since writing about sex is the same as writing about any other normal everyday thing people do, but I’m always curious what would be appropriate to people who see things differently. Fewer years? A fine? Community service? I am genuinely curious.
What punishment should librarians in the US get for distributing written sex? They get a paycheck for this work. How much should Chuck Tingle have to pay, or how much time should he serve?
Is the treatment described in the article non-punative, or is the source flawed?
I thought you said that psychologists should direct people to be healthier, not that society should decide what is allowed and not allowed. Coming from a perspective where I am a woman attracted to other woman, I am not interested in what society doesn’t like. My personal interest is in harm and the reduction of it, and science backed means of doing so.
Every government is untrustworthy and should be treated like a dangerous tool that can help or harm, depending on how the flawed humans who wield it choose to do so.
Could you share with me China’s science on the dangers of erotica? The science of it is deeply interesting to me, more so than any government position, or the erotica itself. I’m never going to think prison or fines or psychological torture are the correct responses to describing an act millions of people perform every day, but if there is evidence of harm, I’m interested in reading it. If I need to agonize over machine translations, I’m willing to give it a shot.
Can’t have anything nice in china. Sad.
Opposing the sex industry is a common and principled left stance. It is only in capitalist countries where their cops are funded to harrass people and Johns are rarely punished where there has been a need for a “sex work is work” movement.
In countries run or established by communists, they were often facing racial or otherwise imperialist systemic rape (“comfort women” for Japanese imperialists, for example), recognized how this worked in both slavery and “transactional” capacities, and correctly banned it. Things like erotica were swept up in this total purge of marketing sex, and enforcement is inconsistent as it is usually regional.
Please so your best to educate yourself, be accurate in your summaries, and to not be sinophobic.
Sex workers are workers, end of story.
I understand you Americans have fucked up views on sex workers and treat them like shit, but that is on you.
Also Australia women were taken as comfort women by Japan, and yet we still legalise and protect our sex workers.
Most things labelled “sex work” are actually human trafficking and most Western left groups that oppose expansion of the sex industry and even want it banned are made up of former “sex workers”. So no, not end of story, you do need to actually investigate the topic and understand it as more than a slogan.
This is not exclusive to the United States.
Was Australia occupied and had its people constantly forced into slavery roles, including rape, by the occupiers? Comparing a handful of captured during the war vs. decades of occupation and society-level abuse is disgusting.
Since you are presumably in Australia, can you tell me some stats on human trafficking there?
And all work is coercive.
So what’s it called when you coerce someone for sex?
Oh so you want to abolish all farmers and factory work? Sorry, didn’t know I was talking to a a ComPrim.
Lefties characterize much of labor under capitalism as wage slavery that builds profit off of injured bodies. And they seek to undo those conditions. Are you aware of anyone here that looks at those who must injure themselves to work and does not want that to go away?
Your responses here are a confused mileu. It seems like you know basically nothing about others’ stances but feel like you still deserve an (dismissive) opinion. Who taught you that this was okay?
I wonder who taught you to end every comment with an insult, trying to use shame to coerce silence instead of using rational thinking and supportive behavior to convince people on your ideas.
Or is your goal to just push people away and remind them of how they don’t want anything to do with the “left”
I haven’t ended any comment with insults. I have called out poor behavior and racism/xenophobia, however.
My approach, generally speaking, is to engage fairly patiently and neutrally until it is clear that others are abusing this or if their behavior crosses serious lines like national chauvinism or ridiculous levels of condescension and bad faith, which is how you are approaching every disagreeing comment. Because at that point, ignoring the poor behavior tends to lead to it getting even worse.
Look at how absurd this language is. You’d think I had arrested you and am now publicly berating you before throwing you in jail rather than correcting ignorant opinions and suggesting being less arrogant and national chauvinist when presented with disagreeing opinions.
There is no coercion in me telling you to be curious and humble or not national chauvinist. However, there is a ton of actual coercion in the sex industry. Try to have some perspective.
I have presented rational thinking and look at how you and the Australian have responsed. And I would be happy to be supportive - so long as you recant the sinophobic statements and orientation you have presented. Because I’m not going to support that.
lmao you think growing the left is about tolerating arrogance and national chauvinism?
Critique of work isn’t monopolized by primmies. 🙄
I want a post-work society. Don’t you?
Yes and for that we need literal sci-fi technology.
Until that day we will need to work to some degree to uphold living.
Yes, we are limited by our material conditions. I’m not a moralist.
But sex work is not one of the forms of work we need to uphold living.
You certainly are a moralist.
Sex workers play an important role in society, especially in helping ND or otherwisely abeled people.
If your mom had to start working as a prostitute from now on, would you think this is ok because all work is work?
If she had to do that because she had no choice? That would be horrible. If she started an OnlyFans because she enjoyed the attention, I’d be embarrassed, but good for her.
if you’re doing it for fun you’re not exchanging money
this is mental gymnastics
If I have a job I love, I still get paid ;) this is not mental gymnastics.
it’s not mental gymnastics because listen to this hypothetical
I have been listening to your hypotheticals the entire time
Some brains are smoothier than others
Yup. I know it’s hard for you to understand, but thanks for trying.
I don’t think they are from America ;)
HISSSSSSS 😾
A convenient excuse to stifle a person’s consenting sexuality and agency. Written erotica hurts no one, and those arguing otherwise are falling into their authoritarian tendencies.
If you don’t like sex work like pictured/video pornography and prostitution I can at least understand your reasoning. Both have massive issues of trafficking and sexual slavery. But swinging the hammer down like this on written erotica is purely authoritarian. And trying to justify arrests made as “inconsistent enforcement” is giving cover, purposeful or otherwise, to that authoritarianism.
It is not a convenient excuse, it is an understanding of other cultures and their histories. I did not even present a judgment of whether it is good for this to have happened.
Who here is arguing otherwise and what are their authoritarian tendencies?
I couldn’t because there are different ways someone can like or not like those things and they have different impacts on society when turned into political action.
What does it mean to be “purely authoritarian”? This is not a concept that I have ever seen coherently employed. Do you just mean that you believe it is unjust? That does not really address trying to understand more about where it is coming from, which is what the part of my comment that you quoted is describing. In fact, depending on what “authoritarian” even means, acknowledging the basic history of how China acquired anti-sex industry stances would require you to understand that it is not “purely” so, but draws from a reaction to systemic sexual violence and oppression.
In a sense, this kind of oversimplification is the core kernel of national chauvinism and orientalism.
Putting aside my criticism of the term authoritarian, what cover am I providing by providing relevant context about regional enforcement that sinophobic Westerners - who are all over this comment section - are usually unaware of?
It is. You’re handwaving away criticism of laws that are being applied improperly and unequally. Even if this was a local failure, which it isn’t since this type of content is illegal all over China, that doesn’t excuse failure to equally enforce in this circumstance.
Plenty of comments are defending China’s actions here saying it’s necessary to fight sex work. It isn’t. It’s an authoritarian action taken to stifle sexuality and exert control. You see this most often in fascist governments when setting up dictatorships. And before I get dumb comments, China isn’t fascist. But they are authoritarian in several of their tendencies.
K.
It’s dictating human nature and what is allowed based on governmental morals. You say this is in reaction to the sexual and war crimes that have occurred in China. While that may be the root of the law, that does not make it just in this application of the law.
Consenting adults in the privacy of their own home writing/collecting their own written material are not engaging in or even condoning such tragedies. To harken back to such tragedies when talking about something unrelated is yet another excuse to give cover to authoritarian actions.
If we were talking about pictured/video pornography or prostitution that would be one thing. But this is written erotica. There is no physical person being engaged with. This is at best reactionary and at worst authoritarian.
Also reactionary actions can still be authoritarian. Was the term “purely authoritarian” hyperbole? Yes. Are you being a complete pedant in pointing this out? Also yes.
By using “inconsistent enforcement” as an excuse to ignore criticism. There is no justification for these arrests, and yet excuses are being made for what occurred. On top of all of that: inconsistent enforcement is a tell tale sign of authoritarianism as the law is used as an excuse to arrest whoever offends. Even though said laws aren’t applied uniformly. Thus manufacturing pretty much any consent needed for an arrest.
You can claim things like western chauvnism and orientalism, but those words have actual meaning that you debase when you throw it out at any criticism of China. This arrest was, once again, reactionary at best and downright authoritarian at worst.
How so? I don’t think having a culturally appropriate and historical understanding is hand waving. Do you?
To my knowledge I am the only person making note of Inconsistent enforcement. Rather than criticizing it to “hand wave” I introduced the topic.
National laws are often fleshed out and enforced at more local levels, leading to inconsistency. Your logic does not make sense, as a local failure in applying national law occurs regularly and tends to be the impetus for more consistent national enforcement and is related to the anti-corruption campaigns of the last decade and more. I have added this context because Western chauvinists broad brush their designated enemies from smaller or isolated incidents that are blown up into xenophobic and often racist talking points.
Can you describe, for me, how you believe national, regional, municipal, and local governance generally operates in China?
Please show me these comments.
Is that so? Can you show me your methodology and source materials for how you have discovered these root causes?
Oh? Most often? So then you have done a fair comparison across different political tendencies, cultures, histories, and governments and can show me some statistics?
You rely heavily on that ambiguous and selectively applied term. Why not be more direct and descriptive?
Does this mean you are uninterested in good faith dialogue?
That is a lot to unpack. The concept of human nature is itself poisoned by reactionary ideas, it is used to actually reinforc a desired status quo by claiming it to be an immutable ot otherwise “natural” way of things rather than something that is mutable and socially constructex. For example, European Christian concepts of original sin have been used to rationalize a misanthropic view of people as inherently bad and in need of subservience to the ruling powers of different eras.
I have yet to see appeals to human nature used in a way that was not reactionary, but maybe you are thinking of something that is not. Can you state this more concretely?
Re: government morals, all state policies and enforcement is political and social, and has some kind of a moral component. So this would not distinguish this from any other state policy. Are all state policies authoritarian? If so, do you describe all of them as such, consistently? Or do you think you may be inclined to use the term for certain countries more than others, as is more common?
I did not present it as a sufficient justification for any particular thing. I added it as context for understanding a culture and history that most people here will be unfamiliar with and onto which they are eager to project their biases. You are assigning conclusions and motivations that aren’t there and are being uncharitable.
Yes everyone knows this and nothing I’ve said contradicts it.
You think that the historical and cultural origins of the law are irrelevant to its existence and application? What?
It feels like you are just cobbling together negative sentiments to throw at the wall, facts be damned.
Is it reactionary, a holdover from a progressive law that doesn’t always map neatly onto modern times (this law is actually about distribution, not “writing in their own homes”), a regional variation? Is it a composition of the three in different ways? Is there more to it? How do you distinguish the law from enforcement? How much do you know about these specific cases?
I still cannot tell you what I think you mean by the term “authoritarian”. In my experience it is a term used selectively, like calling designated enemy states “regimes” and designated good or neutral states “governments”, and it means little aside from trying to communicate a negative connotation despite presenting itself as political theory. Its modern usage can be traced back to imperialist cold war PR campaigns to try and flatten the difference between Nazis and the communists that defeated them.
It is important to be humble and self-critical about one’s own unexamined biases.
I didn’t do that. Please do your best to not invent things about me to get mad about.
I haven’t seen the latter once. And I cannot address the first without knowing more about the situation.
Arresting whoever offends would be a consistent application of the law. And again I cannot imagine what you mean by “telltale sign of authoritarianism”. What are your examples? Have you done a fair comparison? What do non-authoritarian law enforcements look like?
This does not make sense. Regional variation is not the same as selective application at the point of declaring warrants, which is the kind of inconsistency you are describing as bad.
Also, manufacturing consent is a term about how capitalist media creates its narratives through the amplification of thise biased towards ruling class interests, even if they themselves do not think of themselves as corrupt or as political operatives.
I don’t do that. You are, again, making things up about me. Please do your best to talk to me, the human on another screen, and not the person in your head that you are angry at.
The people I am replying to in this thread are often guilty of sweeping generalizations and sinophobic remarks.
Okay, so what about the rest of my comment that you didn’t reply to?
You can Gish Gallop over this comment section all you want, but you’re not worth my time. I’ll put it simply for you here since you’re so obtuse; outlawing how a person expresses their sexuality, when it isnt at the cost of another persons consent, is shitty and authoritarian.
Have fun defending reactionary and authoritarian actions. Whatever it takes to defend your side, right?
I am not Gish Galloping. I am engaging in good faith and am responding directly to what you’re saying with explanations and context. Do you think that’s a bad thing?
In many of these attempts to criticize you are really just telling on yourself. You’re actually getting combative and complaining that I am taking the time to help you challenge unexamined biases (that you bring up via accusations) and provide additional relevant context. Given how many objective errors you have made in trying to justify your attacks, don’t you think a bit of humility is in order? Why launch into everything with speculative attacks?
I’m not being obtuse.
I don’t think we’ve had a conversation about whether that is shitty. This conversation has mostly been me replying to your false and bad faith accusations using more restraint and patience than you will likely receive any other time.
Again, this means nothing and you should be more skeptical towards your internalized biases.
I don’t believe I’ve defended anything other than myself. You should get over this habit of lying about others in support of beinh dismissive.
I’m not the one engaging in bad faith behavior here and you are the only one thinking in terms of sides. Again, telling on yourself.
Please do your best to improve how you disagree with people. If you behaved like this in any decent irl left organization you would get kicked out for aggressive toxicity and dishonesty.
K
Sex work IS work. Erotica IS sex work. Please try to educate yourself.
Most things labeled as “sex work” is human trafficking. I am educated and I regularly organize with former participants in the sex industry.
We are talking about fiction stories, so let’s bring that back. I asked you a question in another thread, I’m ending this one.
Please do your best to reply to what I say rather than changing the subject. You can always choose to just not reply if you don’t have an actual response.
I’m just doing what you’re doing, not talking about the topic the other person wants to talk about. Show me I’m wrong by talking about the topic I want to talk about, the original post. Show me the changing the topic was not your intention.
I am directly quoting and responding to basically everything said to me, lol. You might be projecting, as own comments are rife with deflections and topic changes. I ignored this 3-4 times before making a note of it just now.
I mean, you have said many things related to the original post and I have addressed many of them. You are, after the fact, trying to invent there being only one relevant and restricted original topic, which is, hilariously, not something you ever explicitly stated until just now. You haven’t even really stated it, you are couching it in a question.
Feel free to make a top level comment about “the original topic” and I will feel free to respond to it or not.
Porn is a serious issue that leads to detrimental addictive behavior, unrealistic dating and sex expectations, and is only needed for the weakest, dumbest masturbators.
and it’s worth life in prison?
No one is getting life in prison. China has less serve punishments than the US, and it’s practically impossible to get life in prison for non violent crimes unless you’re a billionaire.
What do you think is an appropriate punishment? My inclination is “nothing,” since writing about sex is the same as writing about any other normal everyday thing people do, but I’m always curious what would be appropriate to people who see things differently. Fewer years? A fine? Community service? I am genuinely curious.
What punishment should librarians in the US get for distributing written sex? They get a paycheck for this work. How much should Chuck Tingle have to pay, or how much time should he serve?
Whatever psychologists recommend is enough to correct the obsessive behavior, obviously.
Only America-brained victims think police action is primarily punitive.
So you disagree with prison sentences for erotica writers, unless recommended by a psychologist?
I agree with following a science first approach as China is doing to solve the problems the people have decided shouldn’t be allowed in society, yes.
Is the treatment described in the article non-punative, or is the source flawed?
I thought you said that psychologists should direct people to be healthier, not that society should decide what is allowed and not allowed. Coming from a perspective where I am a woman attracted to other woman, I am not interested in what society doesn’t like. My personal interest is in harm and the reduction of it, and science backed means of doing so.
Every government is untrustworthy and should be treated like a dangerous tool that can help or harm, depending on how the flawed humans who wield it choose to do so.
Could you share with me China’s science on the dangers of erotica? The science of it is deeply interesting to me, more so than any government position, or the erotica itself. I’m never going to think prison or fines or psychological torture are the correct responses to describing an act millions of people perform every day, but if there is evidence of harm, I’m interested in reading it. If I need to agonize over machine translations, I’m willing to give it a shot.
If you need a pill to stay hard it’s okay, don’t be angry at yourself.
…yes porn addiction does cause erectile dysfunction, which is why Viagra is popular in the US but not more moderated countries.
You need to reread my comment, I’m not advocating for porn.
Lmfao
At least you’re able to tell everyone your story. Personally I think that’s brave of you. Thank you