Wow, this is a classic case of "don't trust someone who describes themselves as neutral".
To take the principal example under discussion, either you think lolicon is OK or you don't. "Neutrality" is actually the former position. The exact same thing holds true for the "Red vs Blue" thing. Either you believe Red harasses Blue or you don't. If you don't, fine, but don't pretend you didn't just pick a side.
> Either you believe Red harasses Blue or you don't. If you don't, fine, but don't pretend you didn't just pick a side.
I can imagine another possibility: you believe that Red harasses Blue, but also that Blue harasses Red. Then neutrality might be sensible, unless perhaps there's a big difference in magnitude.
Another possibility: you think that either you're not qualified to act as judge, you're not suited to act as executioner (what would the action be—retaliatory harassment?), or that, while you could serve as both, it would be better from a societal perspective if people in your position did not do so—it might be "vigilantism".
> Either you believe Red harasses Blue or you don't.
That's a bizarre dichotomy. Neither "Red harasses Blue" nor its converse is true in all cases. You've fallen into the trap of believing that when someone constructs a dichotomy, you must of necessity pick one of the two "sides". Do you support Hutu or Tutsi?
”not enough data for meaningful answer" is a valid answer.
It is, but in some circumstances it can then call intelligence, sincerity, or familiarity with the subject into question. If you say that data isn’t present for a meaningful answer to the question of the existence of an afterlife, I’m inclined to take your position seriously. If by contrast your position is that there is insufficient data to support a conclusion as to the existence of gravity I’d question your intelligence or sincerity.
I never thought of neutrality like that - thanks, +1 Insightful and such!
Although I wonder if that can be applied to other issues too. Like, if I were to have no opinion / consider myself neutral in the pro-choice / pro-life debate, which side would I actually be on? Or is there a neutral / indifferent ground there?
The quote at the bottom is from Desmond Tutu, who explicitly said that neutrality is a vote for the powerful/status quo. So if you were in Denmark, not caring that much could be treated as a pro-choice position, but in Texas it would be the other way around.
Just because you don’t understand that availability matters, people getting shot because they do legal things matters, and your entire entire Supreme Court being defined by and chosen on their attitude to a subject matters, doesn’t mean they don’t matter.
Attempting to obtain an abortion in Texas will have dramatically different outcomes to that of Denmark. Appreciating this is true should not be controversial.
The people in Texas are actively fighting against the status quo of Roe. If the people in TX simply took a neutral position, the status quo would reign. Thus, the example is a bad one.
If you do not understand the difference between neutrality and apathy, say that and I'll happily explain.
The difference is that neutrality, by itself, doesn't describe motivation (which could be apathy, but not necessarily).
As an example, if you apply that logic on countries which were neutral in WWII, that doesn't mean they were pro status quo or pro whatever the outcome was either in theory or practice. It means they have a different interest than the 2 power blocs. And if you look at who was part of Axis, you find Finland, who made a pragmatic and strategic decision due to their (recent) history with Russia.
Yep. I almost stopped reading (but read on) after this sentence:
The coverage, all from Blue-aligned media, largely presented Mastodon as a cool new alternative to Twitter that would be free of "harassment," which is a Blue code word for the mere existence of the Red side.
This is clearly not from a neutral person. He very clearly picked a side.
Yes, some people on the Blue side can be overly sensitive. No, I do not think that "a significantly noisy subset" of the Blue side finds a dissenting opinion to be harassment. Do you imagine these people responding to "I don't agree with that" with claims that they are being harassed? I burst out laughing reading that sentence in the article, it's such an obviously preposterous statement.
It's really quite comical that the author, in order:
1) Claimed that they were being objective and presenting the situation free of bias.
2) Claimed that any person on the Blue side who learns that anyone with a dissenting opinion is on the same site as them will feel that they are being harassed.
3) Claimed that the arrival of Blue users would ruin mastodon.
I skimmed over the rest of the article and it appears to include an "Actually It's Not Technically CP" argument, so I think I probably made the right choice here.
> Do you imagine these people responding to "I don't agree with that" with claims that they are being harassed?
Sadly yes. The logic works as follows:
If you don't agree with me (let's say on gay marriage), you're saying my belief is invalid. The things I believe constitute my identity; therefore you are attacking my identity and thus existentially threatening me.
On some forums this kind of disagreement is grounds for banning, no matter how politely expressed or well reasoned.
Okay, but you've now moved the goal posts from "mere dissent is harassment" to "people suggesting that I deserve fewer human rights than them is harassment" which, well, yeah.
Arguments containing a premise that the other side is a lesser human generally don't go well. I don't think that is unique to this situation.
To be clear: my company offers a maternity benefit that's more generous than their paternity benefit. I want to change that. If you offer any disagreement, then you are imputing I deserve fewer human rights, saying I am a "lesser human" than you, and thus you are harassing me. Correct? Nevermind which side is right: mere disagreement is harassment.
You provided a specific example of a topic with existential importance. I responded to it.
I do not think you can make an argument against gay marriage which treats all sexualities equally, by very definition.
If you feel you have an argument about why the government should deny homosexuals the right to marriage, but that does not treat homosexuals as lesser than heterosexual people, I'm all ears!
> I do not think you can make an argument against gay marriage which treats all sexualities equally, by very definition.
How can I reasonably be expected share my argument, if by your own criteria I'll be guilty of harassment if you disagree?
That's the stifling effect of "disagreement is harassment".
Think about it. By your criteria, discussion can't even happen if anyone's rights are at stake. Yet any meaningful disagreement will involve someone's rights - what is the extent of a right, and under what conditions can it be circumscribed. All of this talk is now off limits.
Maybe you should try to make sure you can win these arguments instead of preemptively banning them.
PS: I'm really not interested in gay marriage. As I said it's just an example of suppressing debate. Compare to how Red evangelicals will invite atheists to publicly debate evolution, which I think is more constructive. I can give more examples of Blue debate-silencing through harassment claims but this seems sufficient illustrative.
I think a very narrow segment of speech is harassment, namely that people deserve less because of their religion, race, gender or sexuality. I'm surprised you view this as contentious.
I don't think that's well-defined enough to unilaterally shut down debate. What if my religion tells me I can't work 6 months out of the year, and I need the same job protection Christians get for not working on Christmas and Easter? What if I'm asexual and I'm denied the tax benefits married people get? You're saying not only are these claims automatically granted, but that just discussing them is a punishable offense.
Also why is "religion, race, gender or sexuality" the holy quartet? Why not ageism, ablism, lookism, or my rights as a short person? Why are those open to debate while the others aren't?
1. I don't believe that religious people should be treated differently than non-religious people.
2. Asexual people can marry. They don't force you to have sex before they give you the certificate of marriage.
I did not claim that discussing these things was a punishable offense. You can discuss anything that you please, you are protected from prosecution by the 1st Amendment.
My only contention was that it was valid for someone to feel harassed because someone said they deserve less because of their sexuality.
> My only contention was that it was valid for someone to feel harassed because someone said they deserve less because of their sexuality.
Ok. I agree people's feelings are valid. I believe if someone feels harassed because of my opinion, my opinions may be just as valid as their feeling of harassment, and society is better served by open discussion than sparing feelings at all costs.
I realize that some people may abuse this to hurt other's feelings without making a sincere and salient point, which is regrettable. I'd like to think all my points can be articulated without offending anyone, though that's probably unrealistic.
I appreciate that you respect the 1st Amendment. It's a common Blue trope that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to speech involving supposed racism or sexism (which they refer to as "hate speech").
I'm all for open discussion. I'll discuss anything with anyone.
I was just responding in particular to the point about gay marriage because I think, as I said, by definition it's difficult to make that argument without a premise that you deserve more than the other side. Similarly, if you made the argument that someone does not deserve to vote because they use a wheelchair, I would think the same thing.
Perhaps in some Voltaire-ideal we should have an in-depth argument on the merits, but I don't particularly blame them for just saying "fuck this". It's not exactly a good faith argument that's conductive to a useful or productive conversation.
To use your parental leave example, contrast two arguments. One begins from "I think that both the mother and father deserve equal treatment" versus "Women are sinful, therefore they deserve fewer days off". You may earnestly believe both arguments and be attempting to make a reasoned, good faith argument, but one of them is more likely to result in "fuck this" and one of them is more likely to result in a useful discussion.
With regards to your point about a "common trope", you should consider talking to adults on the Left.
E: We've now reached the post column width that indicates that we both should have better things to do.
You're free to say "Fuck this, I don't want to argue anymore" if you like. The mistake is believing that makes anyone still talking a "harrasser" in the legally actionable sense.
>I skimmed over the rest of the article and it appears to include an "Actually It's Not Technically CP" argument, so I think I probably made the right choice here.
You'd do well to actually read the article then before making a comment like this. He goes briefly into that to show that you (english speaker) see it as a _very clear_ case of CP, whereas in japan it's not, that there's a distinction, and that they often won't understand why you'd confuse the two. And that difference in looking at it (regardless of picking a position on if it is or isn't cp) is what caused a bunch of issues.
This was an interesting read because it shows a culture clash and language barrier. Not so much red vs blue (if you believe such an abstract thing exists, and I find the distinction being made in this article completely and utterly wrong [1], pointless, irrelevant, a _terrible_ analogy, a distraction, and ultimately a _terrible_ element of an otherwise seemingly [I'm no expert on the topic] informative written text). Rather, it describes the difference in Japanese language/values vs English language and American-European values, as well as the difference between virtual and real-life, or what children should or should not be allowed to see. This is why there isn't "one" internet as well. We have different jurisdictions, values, enforcement, censorship, etc. Normally, you got a company behind the website who has local subsidiaries who ultimately listen to HQ; so FB is American culture, and that's the agenda it ultimately pushes forth. Which is, incidentally, the standard, but you can see all kind of local websites who don't have these values.
As for the first Japanese term (the "legal" one) I found it described here here: [2]
"Lolicon: Centered on prepubescent, pubescent, or post-pubescent underage girls, whether homosexual or heterosexual."
I didn't search for the other term because the description seemed telling enough.
[1] Sexual freedom was fought for by human rights activists in the 2nd part of the 20th century. Feminism movement (e.g. pro-abortion, voting rights), anti war movement (specifically war in Vietnam though also the Cold War), anti child labor / pro education movement, LGBT and general sexual freedom movement (the latter being an ideal of the hippie movement), anti-racism movement (not sure if that's the right word), even recreational drug usage movement. All of these were inherently pro-equality and pro-freedom (in that order), going against the status quo of that time. If you call that "US-blue" (yeah, cause in the rest of the world blue doesn't necessarily have the same meaning and indeed it does not since generally red is seen as left-wing and blue as right-wing although I find those terms rather lacking content), what's the freedom of liking hentai which harms no adult directly just like playing a shoot-em up? "US-red"? Really??? Well then, how utterly conflicting with the human rights movement from the 20th century. Its easier to just see it as a culture clash. The article does mention this eventually:
"Monday the 17th: the terminology of "free speech" versus "safe speech" becomes popular in English-language discussions for describing the growing ideological divide on how instances ought to be run. I first encounter it in this item from Spacedragon but am not sure if that's the first (or only) place it came into use. Free speech instances are generally aligned with the Red Culture War faction (hence also with GNU Social and the older parts of the network) and safe speech instances with Blue (hence Mastodon proper). However, I think it's significant that when we had the same fight on Livejournal ten years earlier, it was the opposite way: fictional "child pornography" in the form of explicit Harry Potter fan art and therefore "free speech" was a Blue/Left/aGG/SJW thing, with the Red/Right/Gamergate/MRA side taking what we'd now call the "safe speech" position. For that reason I'm inclined to think that the link between Culture War sides and free/safe speech is more a matter of historical accident than anything naturally flowing from whatever defines these sides."
However it was for the better if that whole part (and the gamergate nonsense) wouldn't be included. I don't see how it is related.
Yeah, the "neutrality" being touted here is so clearly a farce. This is ridiculous. I can't believe there's so many people discussing this pile of offal with such seriousness.
"The coverage, all from Blue-aligned media, largely presented Mastodon as a cool new alternative to Twitter that would be free of "harassment," which is a Blue code word for the mere existence of the Red side."
Give me a fucking break.
There's this baffling and unnecessary plug of US politics--done seemingly for the exclusive purpose of sneakily putting down one side while maintaining an absurd claim of neutrality. It's not really relevant to the other subject he's discussing, which, by the way, is also total bullshit.
Just look at how the subject is discussed. It isn't discussed, it's danced around vaguely. He not only refuses to explain the difference between the two genres of porn--he won't even spell them out. Uses "ロリコン" instead of lolicon, a term which is very commonly understood in the English-speaking world. Because it's a loanword from western culture and western concepts. It's not some mysterious eastern thing that we can't possibly comprehend, as he asserts.
Katakana, the very alphabet that "ロリコン" is written in, exists in a large way to spell out loanwords from other languages. So why doesn't he just spell it out in the language the rest of the article is written in? Same reason he never explains these mysterious, forbidden concepts from the mystical eastern lands™ in a clear way: because he's trying to hide it.
The idea that lolicon is not controversial at all--and to go so far to say that it is universally accepted in Japanese culture--is also an absurd falsehood and obvious bad faith in an argument that's trying to appear neutral but has a bald-faced agenda. Only otaku who knows of Japanese culture exclusively through cartoons and video games would ever think that was true.
This is so obviously an article by somebody who a. wants to bemoan the oppression of right-wing opinions online and b. enjoys lolicon in a sexual way and wants to discreetly defend that habit. It's not even ambiguous. At all.
I feel like the way the "culture wars" are presented in quasi-neutrality is meant to imply that any moral or political disagreement within a culture is irrational, that all sides are always the same, and he and other "neutrals" are above it all, yet they are simultaneously oppressed. That whole argument ignores historical fact that there are cultures which were objectively harmful and unethical, and it is not some irrational folly for current cultures to try to foresee that such a thing might happen again.
Of course both sides™ think they're on the right side of history and ethics, but that doesn't mean it's meaningless and it doesn't mean that right and wrong won't become clear one day in hindsight. We can't pretend we are the sole exceptions in history.
To take the principal example under discussion, either you think lolicon is OK or you don't. "Neutrality" is actually the former position. The exact same thing holds true for the "Red vs Blue" thing. Either you believe Red harasses Blue or you don't. If you don't, fine, but don't pretend you didn't just pick a side.
"the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality"