3 ms·

You’re comparing Playboy to da Vinci and Michelangelo… if you refuse to see the difference between soft-core porn made with the intent to be sexual and titillat

by dahart 3y ago

You’re comparing Playboy to da Vinci and Michelangelo… if you refuse to see the difference between soft-core porn made with the intent to be sexual and titillating, and art made without any such sexualized intent, then we’re having an unproductive conversation. BTW I’m with you against silly bans, I’m a proponent of free speech. In this case nobody banned anything, the movement is nothing more than a request by a broad group of people who care about cultural bias and understand how hard it is to undo, to stop using a specific pinup image for research because of what it symbolizes (porn and antiquated/misogynistic social attitudes), and people are completely free to ignore that request and keep using Lena if they want. You can keep trying to relitigate this issue if you want, but the ship sailed a while ago, this is just history now, and I was just trying to explain what happened since your comment somewhat, and @johnnyanmac’s comment both made it clear you guys were unaware of the full story.

cubefox 3y ago
> You’re comparing Playboy to da Vinci and Michelangelo… if you refuse to see the difference between soft-core porn The Lena image was clearly artistic. If you want to call it, additionally, "soft-core porn", then you would have to do the same with this statue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphrodite_of_Knidos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphrodite_of_Knidos The article contains some sexual context. And then you have no basis of treating David differently, except if you arbitrarily discriminate against one sex but not the other. > BTW I’m with you against silly bans, I’m a proponent of free speech. That's nonsense, you did nothing except defending the arguments about alleged sexism. > In this case nobody banned anything Completely false. There are journals which ban it, see Wikipedia article. Additionally there is now an indirect ban due to the campaign succeeding in creating a strong negative association, which makes using the image so costly that it isn't a live possibility anymore: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/give-up-seventy-percent-of-the-way https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/give-up-seventy-percen...
redeeman 3y ago
> In this case nobody banned anything, the movement is nothing more than a request by a broad group of people a group so broad that they then refuse to publish perfectly valid scientific research papers, if you do not comply with what is for sure not a ban, but merely a request from organisations holding institutional power.

by dahart 3y ago

cubefox 3y ago

> You’re comparing Playboy to da Vinci and Michelangelo… if you refuse to see the difference between soft-core porn The Lena image was clearly artistic. If you want to call it, additionally, "soft-core porn", then you would have to do the same with this statue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphrodite_of_Knidos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphrodite_of_Knidos The article contains some sexual context. And then you have no basis of treating David differently, except if you arbitrarily discriminate against one sex but not the other. > BTW I’m with you against silly bans, I’m a proponent of free speech. That's nonsense, you did nothing except defending the arguments about alleged sexism. > In this case nobody banned anything Completely false. There are journals which ban it, see Wikipedia article. Additionally there is now an indirect ban due to the campaign succeeding in creating a strong negative association, which makes using the image so costly that it isn't a live possibility anymore: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/give-up-seventy-percent-of-the-way https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/give-up-seventy-percen...

redeeman 3y ago

> In this case nobody banned anything, the movement is nothing more than a request by a broad group of people a group so broad that they then refuse to publish perfectly valid scientific research papers, if you do not comply with what is for sure not a ban, but merely a request from organisations holding institutional power.