Smashwords Succumbs to Censorship

[WT Sharpe]

This is somewhat peripheral to the subject at hand, but maybe there's something to be said for the hypothesis that plays, literature, and shows that depict human behavior at its worst can have a cathartic effect upon the audience. Consider Japan. That country is notorious for some of the subjects of its popular literature. Murders and sexual deviations abound. One such example would be the comic book hero Rapeman, who felt it his mission in life to "right wrongs through penetration." Yet on all counts, Japan has a very low crime rate, and women are far safer on the streets of Tokyo than on the streets of New York City.

The distinction between reality and fiction is not an unimportant one. I've laughed out loud watching the characters of Married with Children deceiving, cheating, and defrauding each other, but would be appalled if I saw such behavior being played out in real life.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Consider Japan. That country is notorious for some of the subjects of its popular literature. Murders and sexual deviations abound. One such example would be the comic book hero Rapeman, who felt it his mission in life to "right wrongs through penetration." Yet on all counts, Japan has a very low crime rate, and women are far safer on the streets of Tokyo than on the streets of New York City.

My mom has a theory that it might have something to do with the Buddhist willingness to satirize almost anything, and keep nothing excessively sacred. You'd never find that here in America, though. None of the monotheistic religions seem to have the ability to laugh at themselves.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

I can't imagine how one could see it [Animal Farm, 1984] as pro-communist.

Orwell was anti-Communist, anti-Stalinist and anti-Soviet, but was also a Socialist and supported the Labour Party in the UK.

FYI, shortly after he completed [u]1984[/i] and before he died, he submitted a list of suspected Communists and fellow travelers to a propaganda division of the government (the Information Research Department).

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by tompe

Eh, no. If I oppose every single instance of X then this implies that I oppose the existence of X. So there is really no difference in what follows from the two statements.

With all due respect, someone needs to buy you a book on usage.

The person in question didn't say, "I oppose X in every single instance." He said, "I oppose the existence of X" and suggested, as you've tried to do, that this meant "I oppose X." If you insisted on this sort of illogical and conveniently manufactured usage in a freshman English course in a strict college, you'd find yourself with a rather unsatisfactory grade.

Being opposed to something is polemical. Being opposed to the existence of a thing is advocating mandatory erasure.

If you say you're opposed to drinking, that could mean you yourself don't like to drink. If you say you're opposed to other people drinking, you might mean you either don't want them drinking around you or drinking at all. You'd be taking an intolerant position, but the degree of your intolerance would be vague until you got specific.

If, however, you say you're opposed to the existence of alcohol, there is no question as to your position. The person who opposes the existence of a thing is suggesting it should not exist in any form for anyone. Nonexistence doesn't simply affect one individual, nor are the words oppose and wish interchangeable.

If you were to say, "I wish alcohol did not exist," you might even be suggesting the idea in the abstract: "I dream of an ideal world in which people are so happy and relaxed there is never a need for alcohol." But if you oppose the existence of alcohol, you're making an extremely clear and committed statement.

If you walked up to a seven-foot-tall mesomorph and said, "I oppose your right to exist," how exactly do you think your words would be taken and how would you expect that person to respond? And since you doubtless have the good sense not to say such a thing to such a person, why are you martyring everyone's attention span by peddling that nonsense here?

None of this strikes me as particularly honest. If the person who originally posted that statement doesn't like the idea of others reading erotica about beasts and werewolves, then they should have the guts to stand by their convictions and not use insincere provocation to disrupt a dialogue. And if that isn't what they intended to do, then they should apologize for stubbornly using words incorrectly and annoying other people.

I'd call that Machiavellian, but I can't because the strategies in The Prince aren't dismal and obvious.

This argument doesn't work: "Because A, who advocates free speech, is questioning B's right to oppose something's existence in the legal sense, A is as intolerant as B and therefore hypocritical." It doesn't work because the positions of A and B aren't parallel no matter how hard or long anyone trolls or how many negative reactions they might collect.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

I can't imagine how one could see it as pro-communist*.

Would be interested in hearing that perspective.

* ETA: A very specific type of communist that Orwell was writing about. He was dealing with history, not ideology, imho.

The idea is that it was all working well as a communist utopia until they got corrupted by capitalist pigs who were only interested in furthering their own agenda. Whereas the anti-communist line is that it could never possibly work because people are inherently greedy and selfish.

I don't know, or care, which one Orwell intended, but there's a little bit of truth in both of those points. Communism, like anarchism, is a theoretical ideal, but any attempt to build a working society around it is always doomed to failure.

[anamardoll]

@mr. ploppy, ah, I can see it now. Thank you!

(I would argue that it's less "doomed to fail" and more "in dire need of safeguards", but I also believe that's true for capitalism. )

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

With all due respect, someone needs to buy you a book on usage.

The person in question didn't say, "I oppose X in every single instance." He said, "I oppose the existence of X" and suggested, as you've tried to do, that this meant "I oppose X." If you insisted on this sort of illogical and conveniently manufactured usage in a freshman English course in a strict college, you'd find yourself with a rather unsatisfactory grade.

Being opposed to something is polemical. Being opposed to the existence of a thing is advocating mandatory erasure.

With all due respect, being opposed to the existence of a thing DOES NOT EQUAL advocating mandatory erasure. If I say I oppose the existence of racism, it does not mean I want to mandate every aspect of human behavior so that racism cannot be practiced anywhere by anyone. The cure would be worse than the disease.

And in any case, you know darn well that the original statement was not intended to be a full-fledged statement of a philosophical and ethical principle.

This argument doesn't work: "Because A, who advocates free speech, is questioning B's right to oppose something's existence in the legal sense, A is as intolerant as B and therefore hypocritical." It doesn't work because the positions of A and B aren't parallel no matter how hard or long anyone trolls or how many negative reactions they might collect.

A seems to have a lot of trouble distinguishing between government vs. private entity, taste vs. discrimination, censorship vs. value judgments.

And of course the Supreme Court long ago held that obscenity is a category not protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

[stormcloude]

Originally Posted by Catlady

And of course the Supreme Court long ago held that obscenity is a category not protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Ugh. Erotica =/= Obscenity! You are bringing irrelevancies into your argument.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

With all due respect, someone needs to buy you a book on usage.

The person in question didn't say, "I oppose X in every single instance." He said, "I oppose the existence of X" and suggested, as you've tried to do, that this meant "I oppose X." If you insisted on this sort of illogical and conveniently manufactured usage in a freshman English course in a strict college, you'd find yourself with a rather unsatisfactory grade.

I have done nothing of the kind. I said that "I oppose X" implies "I oppose the existence of X".

If "I oppose X" have a polemical component it also have the factual component. Which is covered by my implication.

[Belfaborac]

Could a mod move this thread to the Advanced Linguistics and Existentialism corner please?

[WT Sharpe]

[crich70]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

The idea is that it was all working well as a communist utopia until they got corrupted by capitalist pigs who were only interested in furthering their own agenda. Whereas the anti-communist line is that it could never possibly work because people are inherently greedy and selfish.

I don't know, or care, which one Orwell intended, but there's a little bit of truth in both of those points. Communism, like anarchism, is a theoretical ideal, but any attempt to build a working society around it is always doomed to failure.

True enough that it does tend to fail. The pilgrims tried the model when they first landed and it didn't work for them either. After all if all are going to share in the crops, etc. no matter what then why should person x have to do any work in order to get his/her share? the book is based on the Revolution in Russia as I understand it. One of the pigs leaves the farm and is later found to have been slaughtered. He represents Trotsky who left Russia and was later found murdered with an axe (if I remember my history right). At least one publisher said that though he didn't like communism that he couldn't possibly publish such a general attack on it as the book was (I think I remember the quote correctly) so at least one publisher saw it as being anti-communist.

[djulian]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

None of this strikes me as particularly honest. If the person who originally posted that statement doesn't like the idea of others reading erotica about beasts and werewolves, then they should have the guts to stand by their convictions and not use insincere provocation to disrupt a dialogue. And if that isn't what they intended to do, then they should apologize for stubbornly using words incorrectly and annoying other people.

I imagine I'm the person to whom you are referring. You can see what I've said. There was nothing dishonest or insincere about it. I won't apologize for it. I don't like the idea of others reading books of this type; I am opposed to the existence of these types of books. I'm more opposed to banning free speech. Another poster called this a non sequitur, but I think they meant a veridical paradox. It seems like a contradiction, but both statements can be true at the same time. This is not an incorrect use of language.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

After all, nobody goes out and murders people or rapes children because of what they read in the Bible.

I'm pretty sure that a quick study of European history will show you that a large number of pretty gruesome brutalities were conducted by people who claim the Bible was their main reason and inspiration for their actions.

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

This is somewhat peripheral to the subject at hand, but maybe there's something to be said for the hypothesis that plays, literature, and shows that depict human behavior at its worst can have a cathartic effect upon the audience.

A friend of mine jokingly calls it "venting by proxy".

Originally Posted by stormcloude

Ugh. Erotica =/= Obscenity!

An important distinction, that several posters in this thread doesn't seem to make. Which means either that they don't understand the difference, or they have widened their own personal definition of obscenity to include "anything I think is disgusting", in which case they should at least be honest and say so.

I think certain sexual acts and practices are a bit revolting, and would never dream of engaging in them. Ever. Veto. Does that make them obscene? No. Just revolting to me personally.

[djulian]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

I think certain sexual acts and practices are a bit revolting, and would never dream of engaging in them. Ever. Veto. Does that make them obscene? No. Just revolting to me personally.

What does constitute obscenity? (Please don't say, "I'll know it when I see it.")