Comments

The submission is locked. You cannot post new comments.

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.

5

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.

−2

lastfutures wrote

As I said, I don't want you banned, but you support a state criminalizing porn. That's as anti-sex worker as it gets.

6

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.

−3

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.

6

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

emma wrote

I'm extremely familiar with the subject matter. I hope you know that your position isn't far removed from the misogynistic idea that women who have sex too much become irreparably damaged.

6

bloodrose wrote

I'm extremely familiar with the subject matter.

Off the topic of Browse, can I ask you a question about it since you are familiar with it?

One of the arguments I have seen in the anti-porn movement is that when we discuss sex-workers, we are prioritizing the voice of the volunteer over the voice of the conscript. So, we are prioritizing the rights of the person who uploads their own video over the rights of the person who has their abuse or their private videos uploaded without their consent. I think the assumption is that there are fewer volunteers than there are conscripts and thus the "prioritization" of said voice is unfair. Do you know of any data/info that would counter that argument?

2

thelegendarybirdmonster wrote

The argument is kinda flawed because porn of people without their consent is already illegal and nobody supports it.

Data would be interesting thought

5

bloodrose wrote

The argument is kinda flawed because porn of people without their consent is already illegal and nobody supports it.

Agreed. It would've been nice if someone had a "hey, analytics have been done on uploaders of content and found that x% are self-uploaders" to counter the suspicion that the illegal content is being ignored to support the legal content.

6

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.

3

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

emma wrote

I haven't seen any data on this, and honestly I doubt it exists.

4

bloodrose wrote

I would've guessed that as well. Thanks for taking the question seriously. :)

4

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

Interesting, I didn’t know this discussion was about women.

−4

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.

7

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.

−5

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.

4

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

My bio is very obviously a joke. It has plenty of contradictions and even lists a fiction author for no reason.

−1

emma wrote

There's nothing obviously contradictory about your bio.

4

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.

−2

NOISEBOB wrote

the banning of (...) sex-work is pro sex-work(...)

what?

4

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

There’s an “er” at the end of the second work. Even if you disagree, it is a coherent statement.

−3

NOISEBOB wrote

i'd say its more like an oxymoronic statement, but whatever...

3

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.

0

NOISEBOB wrote

i'm not against coal-work. i'm against coal-mines.

3

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote (edited )

Yeah sure, and I’m not against sex-work, I’m against brothels and porn distributors and any other sex-work facilitator. Potato potato.

0

NOISEBOB wrote

what about sex-worker run brothels and diy porn distribution?

3

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

What about coal-worker coop mines and diy coal distribution? I oppose it just the same as I oppose sex-work, on the grounds that it is inherently harmful for the worker and the society.

−1

NOISEBOB wrote

I’m not against sex-work

I oppose sex-work

make up your mind already...

also,

inherently harmful for the worker

its only harmful because we have this concept called PATRIARCHY (that you seemingly adhere to)

2

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?

0