Comments

The submission is locked. You cannot post new comments.

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote (edited )

Anti-porn is not the same as anti-sex worker. I did not break any rules, to ban me would be a joke.

Edit: Also the ToS says nothing about sex-workers, this is a ridiculous ban request. There was no ToS breach. You can’t just ban people for having “unpopular” opinions.

−3

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote (edited )

I believe that sex-work is directly harmful to the sex-worker in a way that is different to other forms of work due to the nature of sexuality as being intimately and uniquely intertwined with the general psychology of a person. In that way, the banning of porn and sex-work is pro sex-worker, not anti sex-worker.

Of course, in a society where there is no alternative to sex-work and the banning of it would only serve to criminalize poor sex-workers, then I would oppose the ban until certain measures were put in place to ensure an alternative for working people.

That being said, I will reiterate that none of this breaches the ToS.

Also, I oppose coal work, that does not make me anti coal worker. Same concept applies.

−5

emma wrote

We could listen to what sex workers have to say (coincidentally most of them say the opposite of what you're saying), or we could listen to a male radfem with no stake in the matter. Tough choice here.

5

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

I hope you know that sex-workers are not just cam workers and porn people in the safety of their own homes and regulated studios, the majority of sex-workers in the world are undoubtedly oppressed and forced into their position by disgusting socio-economic pressure and crime.

−1

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

If I were to say that banning coal work is good for coal workers, would that also be oxymoronic? Would it not be correct to say that coal work is very harmful for the coal worker and the environment in which the coal worker lives? Like it or not, the statement is coherent.

−1

emma wrote

If it wasn't, you and your kin wouldn't have turned it into an issue for your twisted brand of feminism to address. You know as well as I that women and femmes are overrepresented in sex work by a long shot.

5

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

My kin? I was not even talking about the issue from a feminist perspective of any kind, and I made sure to only refer to sex-workers as gender neutral because it is, in fact, a gender neutral profession.

Interesting though that you lump ‘femmes’ into the woman category, implicitly denying their nonbinary identities.

−4

emma wrote

I'm not going to play games with you further. Suffice to say, you're calling yourself a radfem for a reason, and if anyone takes issue with my "lumping in" of two distinct categories of people, they can draw a venn diagram for themselves and find out why that isn't the case.

3

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

I only said I'm not against sex work to prove a point that distinguishing between being against x-work and being against the facilitators and distributors of x-work is meaningless. Is it so hard to read?

−1

GlangSnorrisson wrote (edited )

Yeah it’s a bit like being anti-sex because some people are raped.

Being anti-abuse/non-consensual porn doesn’t have to throw voluntary porn makers under the bus.

To me it sounds like some mental gymnastics to justify an overly broad attitude towards porn.

It also reeks of authoritarian and shitty methods such as criminalization of various things etc.

5

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote (edited )

ML

Neoreactionary ecology

radfem

fanged Noumena

Julius Evola

James Joyce

Practically everything on the list contradicts one or more other things on the list, except James Joyce who is just an author. I thought the joke would be obvious.

−1

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote (edited )

Restorative and rehabilitative justice are things which exist. For me, every crime should be treated first through those means, with a focus on reintegrating the criminal into society with support and new opportunities. Only the most heinous criminals, that is serial murderers, rapists, etc. would be forced to stay in a prison system.

I just think China is right to ban pornography, I don’t know anything about their justice system to be able to make a judgement in that regard.

−1

GlangSnorrisson wrote (edited )

More than that, the suspicion that people would ignore the illegal content to support the legal content is really poorly founded.

It sounds like someone projecting their absolutist views onto others.

2

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

You’re bad at pointing out contradictions. I can think China is right about banning porn without knowing how it would be best for them to implement such a ban. A ban on porn is something I support regardless of country, the implementation of such a ban is unique to each country. This is not contradictory.

1

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote (edited )

As a hobby? Better sex education and a wider societal shift which doesn’t view sex as a cheap commodity to be thrown around willy nilly, for lack of a better term. However, hobbyist and non-commodity porn is probably fine to exist despite my personal attitudes, but that’s not sex work, because it’s not work. This type of porn can only exist in some sort of post-capitalist society though.

−2

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote (edited )

but hobby pornographers are a thing right now, in capitalist countries.

Not true hobby pornography, as it exists in the context of a sick capitalist society. There is no real true hobby of any kind.

u are worthy of a ban if you keep saying stuff like that imo.

Why?

−1

Hibiscus_Syrup admin wrote

Alright. Between the overt swerfy stuff, the tank-adjacency , the straight up class reductionism, there is enough for a ban. I'm sure there's more to be found with some digging but unless any of you have anything more to say, which you can message me about, I'm ok with the following in this case:

One month ban with a warning for a permaban.

The ToS is an incomplete guideline and needn't say we have a problem with swerfs for it to be a site issue.

2