4 ms·

See I somewhat agree with you, but you have a limited perspective in a way, that maybe as a gay man I can help expand on without being shouted at for being MRA

See I somewhat agree with you, but you have a limited perspective in a way, that maybe as a gay man I can help expand on without being shouted at for being MRA trash just because I notice things. You say "video games allow you to shoot and stab thousands of virtual people", this isn't true. In actuality, video games allow you to shoot & stab thousands of virtual _men_. Replace the baddies in a game with women and or children and people will go mental. Same thing with media; Television/movies - plenty of men are brutally gored on screen with no one batting an eye, but generally the camera will cut away if there's violence against women &| children. The only time you do see it is when they want to make a very strong impact ie "this guy killing this woman is a V E R Y bad guy, and you know that because it's not just some anonymous dude he's goring". There's plenty of hypocrisy in it; Game of Thrones people famously complained about the Cersei rape scene (also in the books, although more ambiguous) meanwhile the average episode spends a good portion of the time showing us the insides of three dozen guys' ribcages. Or Altered Carbon where in the book series where Takeshi is forced into a simulation as a woman, where he is tortured; media at the time said they were glad that it didn't make it into the show because it would be "mysogynistic torture porn" - apparently none of the gratuitous violence against male characters was considered to be bad. And _that's_ why it's different. Because certain types of porn could be generated that infringe in the protected classes that society creates.

8f2ab37a-ed6c 4y ago
That all sounds about right. The point I was making is that the poster was looking at it from the standpoint of "reducing harm", whereas in reality they were merely following their moral intuitions about what's sacred and taboo in society, and then backwards-rationalizing it through the "harm" moral axis. Very common in the liberal West where we think of ourselves as being above taboos and caring about divinity, except we still do very much. E.g. digging up the corpse of a dead relative and having sex with them doesn't harm anybody, but is highly taboo. Having sex with a dead family pet, doesn't harm anybody, but highly taboo. Siblings on contraception having sex, zero harm, but very taboo. Hentai of protagonists who could be underage, zero harm, very taboo. etc. etc. Women, children, LGBTQ members, the involuntarily unhoused, minorities, Muslims and many others are all currently sacred groups whose sanctity you cannot violate even in a work of art and fiction. So back to my point, it has nothing to do with harm, it's all about sanctity.

8f2ab37a-ed6c 4y ago

That all sounds about right. The point I was making is that the poster was looking at it from the standpoint of "reducing harm", whereas in reality they were merely following their moral intuitions about what's sacred and taboo in society, and then backwards-rationalizing it through the "harm" moral axis. Very common in the liberal West where we think of ourselves as being above taboos and caring about divinity, except we still do very much. E.g. digging up the corpse of a dead relative and having sex with them doesn't harm anybody, but is highly taboo. Having sex with a dead family pet, doesn't harm anybody, but highly taboo. Siblings on contraception having sex, zero harm, but very taboo. Hentai of protagonists who could be underage, zero harm, very taboo. etc. etc. Women, children, LGBTQ members, the involuntarily unhoused, minorities, Muslims and many others are all currently sacred groups whose sanctity you cannot violate even in a work of art and fiction. So back to my point, it has nothing to do with harm, it's all about sanctity.