3 ms·

For the sake of argument, I'd like to talk about legal-but-disturbing images to make one narrow point without getting bogged down with all the other contributin

For the sake of argument, I'd like to talk about legal-but-disturbing images to make one narrow point without getting bogged down with all the other contributing factors... re-examining societal values (the darker side of human behaviour has its roots in more socially accepted forms of human activity) No matter what societal values are, the minor person-to-person variance will always produce a distribution curve of personal standards clumped around society's "normal". Which means there will always be a small number of people willing to view and send around content that is two standard deviations more "graphic" than what is acceptable in society at large. It doesn't matter what the absolute value of 2σ is tomorrow. It will be just as offputting as 2σ content is today.

ZenoArrow 10y ago
As I replied elsewhere, the difference is in intent. Content created to shock may be made for reasonable reasons. It's not necessarily the images themselves that causes people to lose faith in humanity. For example, if I watched a film that had a depiction of a rape, I could see it as serving some function in the story. However, the same rape conducted with real intent would have a much different meaning. The intent to kill/maim/damage is something that has been condemned for centuries. Exceptions are made for war by those who seek power, but the solders who come out of the other end as psychologically scarred pay the price for such follies. As for people with fringe interests, it all comes back to the golden rule. Leaving aside the murky waters of 'taking offense', any actions that impact the physical wellbeing of another should be open to public scrutiny. If I rape someone you know, that's not an act that you have to tolerate under the umbrella of free expression.

3 ms·

For the sake of argument, I'd like to talk about legal-but-disturbing images to make one narrow point without getting bogged down with all the other contributin

by forgottenpass 10y ago

ZenoArrow 10y ago
As I replied elsewhere, the difference is in intent. Content created to shock may be made for reasonable reasons. It's not necessarily the images themselves that causes people to lose faith in humanity. For example, if I watched a film that had a depiction of a rape, I could see it as serving some function in the story. However, the same rape conducted with real intent would have a much different meaning. The intent to kill/maim/damage is something that has been condemned for centuries. Exceptions are made for war by those who seek power, but the solders who come out of the other end as psychologically scarred pay the price for such follies. As for people with fringe interests, it all comes back to the golden rule. Leaving aside the murky waters of 'taking offense', any actions that impact the physical wellbeing of another should be open to public scrutiny. If I rape someone you know, that's not an act that you have to tolerate under the umbrella of free expression.