the_prodigal (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
the_prodigal) wrote2009-04-05 04:46 am
the_prodigal) wrote2009-04-05 04:46 am
Entry tags:
Fandom squawk, or The Definition of Free Speech, Look It Up!
Ergh. I know that in the grand scheme of things, this is probably not as bad as it looks. I sure hope not, because I gotta tell you, Fandom, it looks pretty bad. This rant was instigated by this post in ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
ffrantsrants.
It speaks to the limitlessness of the human brain's flexibility that some people can actually be offended that another group of people were offended to find child abuse (of a four-year-old) categorised and treated as a hot kink in a work of fan fiction. Apparently, we can get so used to playing by a particular set of rules (in this case the sanctity of the Kink) that we will wholeheartedly object to any questioning of those rules, no matter how solidly commonsensical.
But look here: I don't care about your self-contradictory tolerance rule, I reserve the right to be appalled at those who actually get turned on by fantasies of child abuse. I don't think there should be a law against writing the junk; you are free to write anything as long as it stays strictly on paper. This does not mean, however, that I have to like it. It does not mean I have to respect it. It doesn't even mean I have to keep quiet about it, see!
And hell yes, this from an avid reader of rape fantasies! You bet! I love me nothing better than a bit of rough and tumble. In fiction, mitigating circumstances are so easy to put in. 'No' really does mean 'yes'; only his pride was hurt; it was in fact not rape, but rather sex he didn't know he wanted - that kind of deal. In fiction, as opposed to real life, that is all perfectly feasible.
There is no way in hell you could mitigate child abuse like that. And why would you even want to? What is it anyone finds desirable about a four-year-old's engagement in sexual activities? Is it just me, or are the hordes of sick twisted perverts out there becoming greater every day? Please, people! Who writes these things? School girls? They should be made to wear badges so I can avoid sitting next to them on the bus.
Oh! I'm being all intolerant! Dear me, I wouldn't want to come across as someone who can't take a joke! And there surely must be a joke here somewhere, because I could swear I just saw the same people who defended the ficcer's right to write anything, including kiddie porn, dispute other people's right to write a critique of said ficcer's tastes.
No, you are not entitled to have your kink accepted by others. In fact, it can hardly even be defined as a kink; it's more like a disease.
When will people realise that free speech also means the freedom to criticise what others have said using their free speech? They're entitled to say what they want, yes, but they are not entitled to not be contradicted; where the hell did people get that idea? What kind of a twisted concept of tolerance is behind such reasoning? Illogical SOBs, I hate your faulty brains. You get to voice your fantasies; I get to voice my disgust with them, cat-fish?
Here, let me spell it out: if you think child abuse is hot, you're my enemy and that's all there is to it. Simple, nay?
ffrantsrants.It speaks to the limitlessness of the human brain's flexibility that some people can actually be offended that another group of people were offended to find child abuse (of a four-year-old) categorised and treated as a hot kink in a work of fan fiction. Apparently, we can get so used to playing by a particular set of rules (in this case the sanctity of the Kink) that we will wholeheartedly object to any questioning of those rules, no matter how solidly commonsensical.
But look here: I don't care about your self-contradictory tolerance rule, I reserve the right to be appalled at those who actually get turned on by fantasies of child abuse. I don't think there should be a law against writing the junk; you are free to write anything as long as it stays strictly on paper. This does not mean, however, that I have to like it. It does not mean I have to respect it. It doesn't even mean I have to keep quiet about it, see!
And hell yes, this from an avid reader of rape fantasies! You bet! I love me nothing better than a bit of rough and tumble. In fiction, mitigating circumstances are so easy to put in. 'No' really does mean 'yes'; only his pride was hurt; it was in fact not rape, but rather sex he didn't know he wanted - that kind of deal. In fiction, as opposed to real life, that is all perfectly feasible.
There is no way in hell you could mitigate child abuse like that. And why would you even want to? What is it anyone finds desirable about a four-year-old's engagement in sexual activities? Is it just me, or are the hordes of sick twisted perverts out there becoming greater every day? Please, people! Who writes these things? School girls? They should be made to wear badges so I can avoid sitting next to them on the bus.
Oh! I'm being all intolerant! Dear me, I wouldn't want to come across as someone who can't take a joke! And there surely must be a joke here somewhere, because I could swear I just saw the same people who defended the ficcer's right to write anything, including kiddie porn, dispute other people's right to write a critique of said ficcer's tastes.
No, you are not entitled to have your kink accepted by others. In fact, it can hardly even be defined as a kink; it's more like a disease.
When will people realise that free speech also means the freedom to criticise what others have said using their free speech? They're entitled to say what they want, yes, but they are not entitled to not be contradicted; where the hell did people get that idea? What kind of a twisted concept of tolerance is behind such reasoning? Illogical SOBs, I hate your faulty brains. You get to voice your fantasies; I get to voice my disgust with them, cat-fish?
Here, let me spell it out: if you think child abuse is hot, you're my enemy and that's all there is to it. Simple, nay?