Wage Slavery

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Holist, may I ask you a question?

Would you prefer that your daughter became a translator, or a prostitute? Can you explain your reasoning for your preference?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

And I know reading comprehension is a bit difficult, but I'm not Roger.

That Assholist guy did the same thing.... quoted Roger, and then to show where Roger was being inconsistent he quoted me as we were the same person. 

[LMNO]

WHO'S SUFFERING FROM MIND LAZORS NOW!

[Ayotollah of Ass]

From the context, I am thinking "Has this motherfucker ever had an online discussion in his fucking life?" and also "is this really the only point he was capable of making after quoting a mile of previous conversation, then quoting an unrelated yet entirely horrifying account of a completely inadequate "health inspection" from the porn industry?"

I've gone through the Porn Princess thread up until the point you make this comment:

You clearly either missed a lot of posts, or don't understand what social theory is. There was an extensive conversation about it earlier in the thread.

Re-reading it, my sense of it is that you all were having a pretty nice circle-jerk, with an occasional counter-point from Hoopla and a few others to keep it, you know, reasonable, and then some fucking n00b (me) came in with his "special snowflake" commentary, followed by holist taking one minor point and running with it to maximum stupid, and then, the merits of anything I might be saying become more or less irrelevant. My points must be as stupid as what holist's, and who does this n00b think he is anyway?

I tried to be reasonable. Even packed off quite a bit, because there are a lot of good ideas here. But unfortunately, there is also a lot of sloppy thinking that is being justified by Discordian tropes, like "A conclusion is just where you stopped thinking," which I take to mean you should always try to take a fresh look rather than hey, let's come up with whatever bullshit we like and go with that.

And I know reading comprehension is a bit difficult, but I'm not Roger.

That Assholist guy did the same thing.... quoted Roger, and then to show where Roger was being inconsistent he quoted me as we were the same person. 

And in the one place where I pushed back even a little bit, you have Roger coming to your aid, "oh, watch it now!" and even when I quote you back to Roger, it becomes I'm conflating the two of you. You might want to re-read your posts and see how much you are doing the same with me and holist, because it's a lot.

But, the first comment quoted above is where I'd like to stop. Rather than acknowledge that hey, I read that wrong, you went straight onto the attack again. There's a person describing their situation and using words like "fun" and because you find it to be an "entirely horrifying account" it is irrelevant, even though it is a interesting counter-example. So, your commentary is an example of:

"Obviously, the faster we process information, the more rich and complex our models or glosses — our reality-tunnels — will become. Resistance to new information, however, has a strong neurological foundation in all animals, as indicated by studies of imprinting and conditioning. Most animals, including most domesticated primates (humans) show a truly staggering ability to "ignore" certain kinds of information — that which does not "fit" their imprinted/conditioned reality-tunnel." -RAW

So, you'll pardon me while I go look at some of the other threads on PD.com. There's a lot of excellent stuff here, some of which you've written, which I'd like to read. And, there's very little value to be had in continuing discussion here.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

And in the one place where I pushed back even a little bit, you have Roger coming to your aid, "oh, watch it now!" and even when I quote you back to Roger, it becomes I'm conflating the two of you. You might want to re-read your posts and see how much you are doing the same with me and holist, because it's a lot.

There's no comparison between you and Holist.  You are proposing arguments, and you at least look at what other people read.  Holist is and has always been a prick.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Holist, may I ask you a question?

Would you prefer that your daughter became a translator, or a prostitute? Can you explain your reasoning for your preference?

From what I gather, he flounced again.

[Phox]

And in the one place where I pushed back even a little bit, you have Roger coming to your aid, "oh, watch it now!" and even when I quote you back to Roger, it becomes I'm conflating the two of you. You might want to re-read your posts and see how much you are doing the same with me and holist, because it's a lot.

There's no comparison between you and Holist.  You are proposing arguments, and you at least look at what other people read.  Holist is and has always been a prick.

Yes, Ayotolalh, I was enjoying your perspective, despite having some misgivings about how you were connecting ideas.

To elaborate a bit, there are a number of factors with the link you posted in which the person uses the word "fun" to describe various aspects of her porn experience, that I would like to discuss, but if I'm writing to dead air, I won't bother.

To show sincerity, though, I will give you an example: I noted that the word fun was used as an adjective for the sex itself (i.e. that sex without a condom is more "fun" than sex with a condom), or in cases like when they looked at each other's genitals "for fun", which doesn't necessarily that it was actually a fun experience, but that they were doing it despite the fact they really didn't have the ability to identify signs of STDs unless it was something obvious, to stave off boredom while they waited for the shoot to begin.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

AA, I am still wondering what the point of quoting that account of "STD inspection" was. I am not saying that it was irrelevant, I am ASKING WHAT POINT YOU WERE TRYING TO MAKE, because as far as I can tell it is not a very good counterpoint, and in fact reinforces the impression of pornography as a terribly unsafe venture, health-wise. I am also hoping that you realize that what I mean by "horrifying" is that a visual inspection of the genitals, even by a medical expert, is completely inadequate as a screening for STDs. I mean, absolutely completely. It's somewhat analogous to looking at a person's tonsils to determine whether they have heart disease. The article itself comments on that.

So, what point, exactly, were you attempting to reinforce by quoting that excerpt? It seems to be a condemnation of the porn industry. Is that what you meant it to be?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

AA, I am still wondering what the point of quoting that account of "STD inspection" was. I am not saying that it was irrelevant, I am ASKING WHAT POINT YOU WERE TRYING TO MAKE, because as far as I can tell it is not a very good counterpoint, and in fact reinforces the impression of pornography as a terribly unsafe venture, health-wise. I am also hoping that you realize that what I mean by "horrifying" is that a visual inspection of the genitals, even by a medical expert, is completely inadequate as a screening for STDs. I mean, absolutely completely. It's somewhat analogous to looking at a person's tonsils to determine whether they have heart disease. The article itself comments on that.

So, what point, exactly, were you attempting to reinforce by quoting that excerpt? It seems to be a condemnation of the porn industry. Is that what you meant it to be?

"Here, Ms Porn star, take a gander at this guy's genitals!  See, no sores.  Everything's fine.  Lube up your ass now, please."

That's like saying I should buy a car without opening the hood, because the paint job is okay.

[Dildo Argentino]

Holist, may I ask you a question?

Would you prefer that your daughter became a translator, or a prostitute? Can you explain your reasoning for your preference?

From what I gather, he flounced again.

Like fuck I did! I do have a life, though. Might need another couple of hours before I get my mitts on a decent keyboard and collect my latest batch of reward.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Like fuck I did! I do have a life, though.

Yep.  Fapping to quackery/pseudoscience.

Whatever it takes, right?

[Ayotollah of Ass]

Ok, against my better judgment, here it goes.

To show sincerity, though, I will give you an example: I noted that the word fun was used as an adjective for the sex itself (i.e. that sex without a condom is more "fun" than sex with a condom), or in cases like when they looked at each other's genitals "for fun", which doesn't necessarily that it was actually a fun experience, but that they were doing it despite the fact they really didn't have the ability to identify signs of STDs unless it was something obvious, to stave off boredom while they waited for the shoot to begin.

It's an interesting point. I'm going to start a new thread called "Soft paternalism, linguistic parsing and exploitation" using not porn examples (since we don't need a Porn Princess thread #3), and see if there is an interest in what I see as a categorical problem. If you want to talk about this specific example, I suppose it makes sense to do that here.

AA, I am still wondering what the point of quoting that account of "STD inspection" was. I am not saying that it was irrelevant, I am ASKING WHAT POINT YOU WERE TRYING TO MAKE, because as far as I can tell it is not a very good counterpoint, and in fact reinforces the impression of pornography as a terribly unsafe venture, health-wise. I am also hoping that you realize that what I mean by "horrifying" is that a visual inspection of the genitals, even by a medical expert, is completely inadequate as a screening for STDs. I mean, absolutely completely. It's somewhat analogous to looking at a person's tonsils to determine whether they have heart disease. The article itself comments on that.

So, what point, exactly, were you attempting to reinforce by quoting that excerpt? It seems to be a condemnation of the porn industry. Is that what you meant it to be?

I think it is a counter-example to Roger's OP's ideas of exploitation. As I said:

I think what I found even more interesting given the context of this PD discussion is how often she uses the word "fun", four times. It doesn't negate was is being said here, but it is definitely a very different picture of working conditions and exploitation than what Roger's OP was painting.

It's not just visual inspection. It's also blood tests. And, the process at least gives the appearance that there is concern from the people producing/directing that the people involved in the scene are all okay with what they are doing. Is it adequate, or more to the point, would I be comfortable with risking my health in this way? No. But, then again, I'm not the one whose ass is on the line. If they choose it to do it, why shouldn't someone else watch it?

And I think what bothers me most about this discussion is that many of you seem to be making moral claims about what people should or should not be doing, but at the same time, want to absolve yourself from the consequences that taking those positions might have outside your personal situation.

Let me be slightly unfair here. It's like saying: Hey, I don't think you should be hiring 6 year olds to work 16 hour days in a sweat shop to make clothing for The Gap. I don't buy clothes from Gap, and because practically every other apparel retailer out there might have sweat shop produced clothes from 6 year olds (let's assume its the industry standard or just acknowledge that there is no way to exclude the possibility), I don't feel comfortable buying clothes and personally have been making all of my clothes by hand using a spinning wheel. It's more "natural" for people to make their own clothes anyway.

I could get more ridiculous, but you see where I'm going with this line. Despite claims of reality, you seem to be dismissive of the real, legitimate needs for sex/sexual aids of real people. And some of it is also implausible, relative to a Playboy (which got a free pass) how much more exploitative are industry produced masturbation shots relative to the amateur created exhibitionist ones (which also got a free pass)? Are masturbation videos a gateway drug? All of which gets to what I have been trying to bring up from post one about levels of exploitation, defining what constitutes porn (where somewhere along this thread someone even tried to exclude exhibitionist stuff as "not porn"), etc. It all starts getting into some real nebulous stuff, real quick, and the temptation is to go with the easy answer, to just say no to all of it, just like we can all use the spinning wheel. But, it doesn't change the fact its either a cop-out or displays a surprising lack of sensitivity for the whole range of situations people can find themselves in during the course of their lives.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Despite claims of reality, you seem to be dismissive of the real, legitimate needs for sex/sexual aids of real people.

So, if someone has a "real, legitimate need" to slap people around, that's okay?  I mean, I'm just trying to understand where ONE PERSON'S needs suddenly justificate exploitation of OTHER peoples' bodies.

Also, I have made a real effort to be civil with you, but you are being deliberately insulting and dismissive...talking about the constant reitteration of "You People claim to seek reality, but".  I think I'm done being civil, now.  Enough is enough.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Despite claims of reality, you seem to be dismissive of the real, legitimate needs for sex/sexual aids of real people.

So, if someone has a "real, legitimate need" to slap people around, that's okay?  I mean, I'm just trying to understand where ONE PERSON'S needs suddenly justificate exploitation of OTHER peoples' bodies.

Also, I have made a real effort to be civil with you, but you are being deliberately insulting and dismissive...talking about the constant reitteration of "You People claim to seek reality, but".  I think I'm done being civil, now.  Enough is enough.

Seriously, WTF is that?

I'm kind of feeling the same way. For one thing, he's conveniently ignoring everywhere that people have stated that it's not a moral judgement against pornography, as well as my posting of the definition of pornography and clarification (by means of asking if I understood correctly) that most people here are referring to the porn industry when they talk about porn and exploitation. In addition, he's completely falling into the "You People" trap by lumping everyone's arguments together instead of addressing individual perspectives, and ignoring responses that don't fit into his argument.

Lastly, either he's not reading carefully, or he's deliberately misinterpreting, or his reading comprehension is terrible.

It's impossible to have a rational discussion with a person who isn't actually listening/responding to what you're saying, so I'm not going to keep trying.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Despite claims of reality, you seem to be dismissive of the real, legitimate needs for sex/sexual aids of real people.

So, if someone has a "real, legitimate need" to slap people around, that's okay?  I mean, I'm just trying to understand where ONE PERSON'S needs suddenly justificate exploitation of OTHER peoples' bodies.

Also, I have made a real effort to be civil with you, but you are being deliberately insulting and dismissive...talking about the constant reitteration of "You People claim to seek reality, but".  I think I'm done being civil, now.  Enough is enough.

I'm kind of feeling the same way. For one thing, he's conveniently ignoring everywhere that people have stated that it's not a moral judgement against pornography, as well as my posting of the definition of pornography and clarification (by means if asking if I understood correctly) that most people here are referring to the porn industry when they talk about porn and exploitation. In addition, he's completely falling into the "You People" trap by lumping everyone's arguments together instead of addressing individual perspectives, and ignoring responses that don't fit into his argument.

Lastly, either he's not reading carefully, or he's deliberately misinterpreting, or his reading comprehension is terrible.

It's impossible to have a rational discussion with a person who isn't actually listening/responding to what you're saying, so I'm not going to keep trying.

That's why I'm not bothering with his new thread.  I've seen all I need to see.