Conservatism

[TexRex]

Morality is subjective. A big chunk of conservatism, especially in the United States, is using the state to enforce dubious moral standards.

 

[Danoff]

This made me question what the law should aim to do. The other day during some reading relevant to our discussion in the Human Rights thread I came across this

Does Law Exist to Provide Moral Order? - JSTOR Daily

Is social cohesion possible in plural societies? Philosopher H. L. A. Hart weighed in amid debates on abortion and same-sex relationships.

daily.jstor.org

and thought if there should ever be instances where the law "promotes" morals.

Are you saying it's immoral for pedophiles to be attracted to children? On what basis would that be immoral? Again, identify the injured party. Also identify the volition.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Are you saying it's immoral for pedophiles to be attracted to children? On what basis would that be immoral? Again, identify the injured party. Also identify the volition.

No, the simulation of having sex with children.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

[Danoff]

No, the simulation of having sex with children.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

So like a high school cheerleader costume?

I'm being somewhat intentionally difficult with that response, but it's to demonstrate a point - which is that what constitutes "simulation" is not particularly clear.

You brought this up in the context of computer generated environments. What is there to be immoral about CG sex with... well anyone or anything? If the problem is with simulated underage participants, and there is no injured party (since it's simulated), what is the immoral act? Being attracted to them? Catering to attraction to them? Identify the particular act. Make sure that it's voluntary. And then explain why it's immoral, on what basis.

 

[TexRex]

So like a high school cheerleader costume?

I'm being somewhat intentionally difficult with that response, but it's to demonstrate a point - which is that what constitutes "simulation" is not particularly clear.

You brought this up in the context of computer generated environments. What is there to be immoral about CG sex with... well anyone or anything? If the problem is with simulated underage participants, and there is no injured party (since it's simulated), what is the immoral act? Being attracted to them? Catering to attraction to them? Identify the particular act. Make sure that it's voluntary. And then explain why it's immoral, on what basis.

Had to hit this with the "Hot" reaction not only because it's a fantastic response but also because of Jennifer Aniston in a cheerleader uniform.

 

[Joey D]

I can almost guarantee those VR videos already exist since lolita/jailbait style porn is pretty common. Places like PornHub might steer away from it, but I some of the sketchier sites might not. I'm willing to bet you'd could find a plethora of it on reddit and 4chan as well.

 

[TexRex]

Imagine thinking the NYPD has been defunded.

 

[McLaren]

I can almost guarantee those VR videos already exist since lolita/jailbait style porn is pretty common. Places like PornHub might steer away from it, but I some of the sketchier sites might not. I'm willing to bet you'd could find a plethora of it on reddit and 4chan as well.

4chan, sure. Reddit, I guess if you dig deep enough & find a subreddit not really advertising that stuff.

Otherwise, they cracked down on child-related issues like that in the last couple years. I think 1 or 2 major staff members were caught up in a scandal & several subreddits got nuked for various reasons when Reddit tightened up.

 

[HenrySwanson]

So like a high school cheerleader costume?

I'm being somewhat intentionally difficult with that response, but it's to demonstrate a point - which is that what constitutes "simulation" is not particularly clear.

You brought this up in the context of computer generated environments. What is there to be immoral about CG sex with... well anyone or anything? If the problem is with simulated underage participants, and there is no injured party (since it's simulated), what is the immoral act? Being attracted to them? Catering to attraction to them? Identify the particular act. Make sure that it's voluntary. And then explain why it's immoral, on what basis.

Using the Millie Bobby Brown as 11 in season 1 of Stranger Things example, my logic went as such:

1. Having sex with 11 is immoral
2. A simulation is a representation of having sex with 11
3. The simulation is immoral

If we aren't talking hypotheticals (or are, maybe such simulations already exist), there was an infamous level in the 2009 game Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 called "No Russian". In it you could participate in a terrorist attack in an airport.

1. Killing civilians in a terrorist attack is immoral
2. A simulation is a representation of killing civilians in a terrorist attack
3. The simulation is immoral

Where I think there is a problem is with part 3 of the process in both examples, which makes me question if morality hinges on whether there is a "real" victim. Some games have an in-game morality meter that responds to your actions - but are they a reflection of your character's morality only or also a gauge of the player's in any way. I think the former. As higher fidelity simulations become available however, will taboo subjects remain so because of their likeness to reality?

 

[UKMikey]

Imagine thinking the NYPD has been defunded.

Another Stephen Miller with abhorrent right-wing views.
(Before anyone makes a joke about the musician... his name is spelt "Steven".)

As higher fidelity simulations become available, will taboo subjects remain so because of their likeness to reality?

If they sublimate the urge to perform similar acts in reality, where's the harm and to whom? I know moral panic merchants like to use the slippery slope argument to suggest that people will use this as practice for real life but in reality what's the likely percentage of people who will actually do this? Only a handful of Gran Turismo players became race drivers, and that's not even an immoral act. Even the reviews on Super Columbine Massacre RPG were mixed.

Ultimately, shouldn't people should have faith in players' ability to tell right from wrong and fantasy from reality? Admittedly, I still haven't watched USS Callister yet and wonder whether it'd change my mind but my opinion is that the moment actual harm is committed towards sentient beings is when it crosses the line, not before.

 

[HenrySwanson]

If they sublimate the urge to perform similar acts in reality, where's the harm and to whom?

I don't think there is directly, but am interested in where it goes in the future.

In Skyrim there was a mod that allowed people to kill the (by default) invincible children. At the time I saw it as a harmless (and funny) change to the game, and still do.

Now, what if there was a simulation experience that had the graphics of a Sony exclusive and the AI of ChatGPT that allowed you to torture, rape, and murder children. There's still no harm as far as I can see, but there would be an almighty outcry, and I'm asking would this be entirely misplaced. Was the backlash to Rape Day justified?

EDIT: Just as I posted this a helicopter has come overhead. FBI works fast these days.

 

[UKMikey]

I don't think there is directly, but am interested in where it goes in the future.

In Skyrim there was a mod that allowed people to kill the (by default) invincible children. At the time I saw it as a harmless (and funny) change to the game, and still do.

Now, what if there was a simulation experience that had the graphics of a Sony exclusive and the AI of ChatGPT that allowed you to torture, rape, and murder children. There's still no harm as far as I can see, but there would be an almighty outcry, and I'm asking would this be entirely misplaced. Was the backlash to Rape Day justified?

EDIT: Just as I posted this a helicopter has come overhead. FBI works fast these days.

I think I covered all of that in my edit. Slippery slope.

 

[UKMikey]

double post

 

[Liquid]

I understand the point made over the last page or so (it's been raised before too) but you're going to have a really hard time convincing a vast supermajority of the population of anything other than paedophile = child rapist.

 

[TheCracker]

What stands as immoral in the court of public opinion may well not stand up in the court of law.

 

[Danoff]

Using the Millie Bobby Brown as 11 in season 1 of Stranger Things example, my logic went as such:

1. Having sex with 11 is immoral
2. A simulation is a representation of having sex with 11
3. The simulation is immoral

If we aren't talking hypotheticals (or are, maybe such simulations already exist), there was an infamous level in the 2009 game Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 called "No Russian". In it you could participate in a terrorist attack in an airport.

1. Killing civilians in a terrorist attack is immoral
2. A simulation is a representation of killing civilians in a terrorist attack
3. The simulation is immoral

Where I think there is a problem is with part 3 of the process in both examples, which makes me question if morality hinges on whether there is a "real" victim. Some games have an in-game morality meter that responds to your actions - but are they a reflection of your character's morality only or also a gauge of the player's in any way. I think the former. As higher fidelity simulations become available however, will taboo subjects remain so because of their likeness to reality?

Yes, the problem is in step 3. That's because the reason behind part 1 being labeled "immoral" is that someone is presumed to be harmed.

That being said, certain individuals I could see being prohibited from participating in certain kinds of entertainment. For example, a convicted child rapist who had accessed those materials before their crime.

 

[TexRex]

TX Rep. Slaton Wants To End Taxes for People With Ten or More Children

State Rep. Bryan Slaton (R-Greenville) has filed House Bill 2889, which would roll back all property taxes for Texans with ten children. With more than $30 billion in surplus tax revenue being bartered about in this session of the Texas Legislature, top Republicans have made it clear that some...

www.houstonpress.com

Alluded to in the article ["Slaton has spent much of his time in the state legislature tacking on various anti-LGBT amendments to bills as part of his ideological crusade."] but not stated explicitly, H.B. 2889 ("Homestead Tax Credit for Certain Married Couples") grants this legal right only to couples consisting of a man and a woman (these terms are curiously undefined in the text of the bill, but are likely subject to conservative culture war definitions), and couples in which one or both individuals were previously divorced are ineligible. Only counted are children who were born or adopted after the couple were married, or those born to one of the two who is a widow and was subsequently adopted by the other after marriage. Also ineligible are otherwise qualifying married couples who are not homeowners. It's a cornucopia of state discrimination.

Eligibility for the credit is subject to an annual family audit and homestead appraisal. If either dies after approval for the tax credit, the surviving individual remains eligible for the credit as long as they remain unmarried. If one or more children of a qualifying family dies, the deceased are no longer counted and credit decreases accordingly.

Modern American conservatism is mental illness.

 

[UKMikey]

AndyDwyerOhSnap.gif

I suspect forced birthers amongst RWNJ Christians are terrified of being outbred by other religions led mainly by people who are darker than them and are trying to shore up their populational majority before losing the majority status they enjoy altogether.

Either that or he wants to widen his pool of potential victims.

A MAGA reply to the tweet claims that since she was 19 and therefore an adult so it was okay to get her drunk and rape her.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I think I covered all of that in my edit. Slippery slope.

Kinda gonna hold you to an answer here.

Should all of the outcry be filed under a "moral panic" in that specific case (Rape Day)?

That being said, certain individuals I could see being prohibited from participating in certain kinds of entertainment. For example, a convicted child rapist who had accessed those materials before their crime.

They may be....do you think they should be?

 

[UKMikey]

Kinda gonna hold you to an answer here.

Should all of the outcry be filed under a "moral panic" in that specific case (Rape Day)?

Not sure what kind of answer you're looking for and I don'tthink you get to decide how other people reply to your posts.

Does Rape Day cause actual harm to people or does it mitigate harm by sublimating players' urges to commit acts of depravity in real life? Should porn between consenting adults be banned? Opponents seem to be of the opinion that the game is promoting rape. Does this apply to all fiction containing acts of depravity?

I don't believe in raping people but I haven't read the arguments for prohibiting material of this kind under law no matter how unpleasant or objectionable they may be and you've yet to summarise them on this forum. I think it's unfair to expect others to do their own research in such a case.

 

[Danoff]

They may be....do you think they should be?

I don't think I'm the right person to answer that question. It's not necessarily a question of morality.

Morally speaking, at least from the most objective sense that can be brought, sentencing needs only be limited by proportionality to the offense. Sentencing someone to death for stealing a dollar is not moral. But sentencing someone to death for killing is. So you're asking me if someone who has committed a rights violation of someone else, for example the sexual assault of a minor in this case, should have their rights to certain pornographic material suspended. The answer is, I don't know. Would it be moral? Yes. Is it a good idea? I'm not really the best person to answer that question, and it's not really a moral or rights question. It's a question of what's practically effective for this person.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Not sure what kind of answer you're looking for and I don'tthink you get to decide how other people reply to your posts.

Sorry if that came across as confrontational - wasn't my intention. It's more to illustrate my point.

Does Rape Day cause actual harm to people or does it mitigate harm by sublimating players' urges to commit acts of depravity in real life? Should porn between consenting adults be banned? Opponents seem to be of the opinion that the game is promoting rape. Does this apply to all fiction containing acts of depravity?

I don't believe in raping people but I haven't read the arguments for prohibiting material of this kind under law no matter how unpleasant or objectionable they may be and you've yet to summarise them on this forum. I think it's unfair to expect others to do their own research in such a case.

I'm trying to see if the reaction was justified and if opponents have a legitimate basis to oppose it (in your opinion), not if Valve should have the legal right to distribute it.

People generally have a chuckle when there are protests to games like GTA but with something like Rape Day....I don't know if the reaction is the same.

 

[UKMikey]

I'm trying to see if the reaction was justified and if opponents have a legitimate basis to oppose it (in your opinion), not if Valve should have the legal right to distribute it.

Opponents have a legitimate basis to challenge the content holder to drop it because it disgusts them and makes them feel uncomfortable. Which seems to be what they did.

Not sure what that has to do with my original post though. I'm not a psychologist but it seems to me that no actual or actionable harm was being committed by hosting the game. There should be all kinds of warnings and disclaimers on it though, which is where I think the law comes in. I don't think the argument is any different to when rape videogame Custer's Revenge was released in 1982.

It seems disingenuous to me to avoid answering other people's queries yourself or even making general arguments defining your own position while constantly pressing others to justify and rejustify their general opinions against specific examples, though. It smacks of purity testing.

 

[TexRex]

I am so confused. Is..."Rape Day"?...bad because people are offended by it or is it bad because it legitimately harms individuals? That it could be considered bad because people are offended by it sounds an awful lot like the supposed "political correctness" over which connies have thrown one continuous bitchfit for the last thirty years and that it could be considered bad because of legitimate harm would require extraordinary evidence that it causes such.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Opponents have a legitimate basis to challenge the content holder to drop it because it disgusts them and makes them feel uncomfortable. Which seems to be what they did.

Not sure what that has to do with my original post though. I'm not a psychologist but it seems to me that no actual or actionable harm was being committed by hosting the game. There should be all kinds of warnings and disclaimers on it though, which is where I think the law comes in. I don't think the argument is any different to when rape videogame Custer's Revenge was released in 1982.

It seems disingenuous to me to avoid answering other people's queries yourself or even making general arguments defining your own position while constantly pressing others to justify and rejustify their general opinions against specific examples, though. It smacks of purity testing.

I am so confused. Is..."Rape Day"?...bad because people are offended by it or is it bad because it legitimately harms individuals? That it could be considered bad because people are offended by it sounds an awful lot like the supposed "political correctness" over which connies have thrown one continuous bitchfit for the last thirty years and that it could be considered bad because of legitimate harm would require extraordinary evidence that it causes such.

I'm trying to see if, in society's (well this forum's, I guess) view, this is a "conservative bitchfit" or if it is a more accepted reaction than, say, outrage over games where you can "just" kill adults.

My personal view is that I can understand (and sympathise with) the outcry for this more than GTA....but I don't know why. Maybe it's a primal thing, or maybe it's a reflection of where the culture is at this point in time. There are tonnes of murderous anti-heroes - but anti-heroes who have committed rape?

To show the difference:

I don't think I'm the right person to answer that question. It's not necessarily a question of morality.

Morally speaking, at least from the most objective sense that can be brought, sentencing needs only be limited by proportionality to the offense. Sentencing someone to death for stealing a dollar is not moral. But sentencing someone to death for killing is. So you're asking me if someone who has committed a rights violation of someone else, for example the sexual assault of a minor in this case, should have their rights to certain pornographic material suspended. The answer is, I don't know. Would it be moral? Yes. Is it a good idea? I'm not really the best person to answer that question, and it's not really a moral or rights question. It's a question of what's practically effective for this person.

Which makes sense.

But should a violent offender be prevented from engaging with violent videogames?

 

[Danoff]

Which makes sense.

But should a violent offender be prevented from engaging with violent videogames?

Same answer.

 

[TexRex]

Offense isn't conservative in nature. Offense is human nature. Just as we may be offended, we may seek to remedy that which offends by social means. What is conservative in nature is state enforcement of "moral" standards, where morality is subjective and not based on the recognition of and respect for natural rights. The playing of a game, whether that game is Grand Theft Auto or "Rape Day," does not, however offensive the subject matter, represent legitimate harm to another--a violation of one's natural rights--and so advocacy for state action to prohibit or restrict it, to deprive one of the freedom to play it, may reasonably be said to be a conservative bitchfit. This applies equally to music and movies and all other mediums of artistic expression. If specific media offends, you have the right to not engage with it. You don't have a natural right to deprive others of it on the basis that it may offend.

 

[UKMikey]

I'm trying to see if, in society's (well this forum's, I guess) view, this is a "conservative bitchfit" or if it is a more accepted reaction than, say, outrage over games where you can "just" kill adults.

I don't have anything more to add at this point. I think I've said my piece and have no desire to keep going around in conversational circles until one of us drops from exhaustion. I'm not sure which bit of "legitimate" in my previous post was unclear as regards to whether I consider this a typical conservative bitchfit or not.

 

[HenrySwanson]

That's what I wanted clarification on, so thanks.

I didn't know if, say, the Budweiser backlash would be classed as a "conservative bitchfit", and from your posts it seems it wouldn't since it wasn't (to my knowledge) imploring the state to take action.

 

[UKMikey]

That's what I wanted clarification on, so thanks.

I didn't know if, say, the Budweiser backlash would be classed as a "conservative bitchfit", and from your posts it seems it wouldn't since it wasn't (to my knowledge) imploring the state to take action.

Judging by the number of state actors who took part in the Bud boycott for performative ***** and giggles, I'd say it was bitchier and less legitimate than the backlash to Rape Day.

Some of these pols are also involved in efforts to remove rights from people who happen to be trans which is tied up with the reason they're bitching, so the two situations aren't equivalent to my eyes.