Just an open question since we keep getting situations like this where the industry effectively admits it is incapable and unwilling to act to stop the worst elements of the industry (child exploitation, human trafficking, forced involvement, rape etc) that it's probably best to just ban the industry together.
Notice though I said using real people, with AI slowly getting better and CGI improving, why do we need real people to make porn? Just have something animated to be realistic enough as I don't give a fuck about pixels or a drawing. Have whatever kink you want, have entire porn snuff films whatever as no REAL people are getting harmed in the making if it. The worst that can happen is stressed artists trying to meet deadlines.
This might also affect adult streamers which is just a bonus as it'll be like a re-run of Projekt Melody when she became more popular since she did more than just strip and stare blankly at the camera till donations came in. A lot of porn or porn in all but name streaming (which I include Twitch on that) get money off just simply being pretty and that's it, denying that as an easy route will probably cause a shift in a lot of media.
I wouldn't advocate a FULL ban as no matter your feeling on it generally, it is a release so going full puritan invites a backlash and probably just forces more men to deal with insufferable feminist women. But just making that release fully fictional based than support an industry that sweeps horrific practices under the rug for money is probably for the best.
I really don't get some of these comments. Many of y'all express that porn is bad, but that it should be allowed because "free speech" or some other excuse.
I've made long form comments here detailing why porn isn't speech, isn't art, and why there are legitimate exceptions to total free speech.
I'd like a legitimate, rational explanation for why porn is speech, and why it should be allowed. I've never heard a compelling argument for either. It's only ever logical fallacies and gaslighting, same as done by media, run by the same people in the porn industry.
Everyone should know by now that porn is a control mechanism for men, institited by evil people. If I see people that should know better, but still defend the instruments of their own enslavement, I can only conclude it's because they're addicted. Cut that poison out of your life. You all deserve better.
You can debate u/ApexVeritas, but only if you do so within the confines of the terms here set forth:
But he's not going to link to any of them, or summarize them here: it's your responsibility to go and find them.
Wherein the commenter reveals he is a dirty pinko commie.
You may not argue one of these positions without arguing the other.
Obviously if you oppose banning porn, it can only mean you are a consumer of it. There can be no other reason.
Yes, having constructed all of the above strawmen as conditions for engaging with him, the philosopher is now going to accuse the rest of you of gaslighting.
The only man made rule that has no exceptions is the rule that states: there are exceptions to the rules. This is because we're finite, imperfect, mortal creatures, with a limited understanding of truth. A rule of logic we don't yet know can alter our conclusions of what we do know, even if everything we know is correct and the logic is sound. Reality itself is where all of these different rules of logic meet, sometimes resulting in exceptions to widely held rules. A wise person understands this, and can see that reality isn't black and white. Logic is, but reality isn't. Manmade rules have exceptions. Free speech is one of them. Not even far left "dirty pinko commie" people believe in absolute free speech. Ad hominems don't disprove anything I've said.
Fine, go ahead. Argue whatever you wish. Stop trying to deflect, and answer the question. Why do you believe porn is speech and should be allowed under free speech?
I admittedly struggle with it just like every other guy on the planet. Our sex drive is strong for a reason. This is one of the reasons why pornography is so dangerous and destructive. It short circuits men's brains into meaningless, hollow pursuits. Porn addiction is real, and many men struggle with it. Do you say the same thing about people espousing for the banning of drugs being drug addicts, or people advocating for bans on abortion being addicted to abortion, or people advocating for the banning of pedophilia being addicted to sex with children? Your argument doesn't make logical sense.
The irony of your comment isn't lost on me. You literally did what I said people do in your position. You used logically fallacious arguments and gaslit me. Typical.
You are still desperately clinging to all of your original strawmen, because you are clearly incapable of arguing your position without them.
I see only a few people in this thread arguing against banning porn on free speech grounds, and I am not one of them, so asking me to defend that position is either ignorant or dishonest. Most people in this thread seem to oppose the idea of banning porn for purely practical reasons (blanket bans of ubiquitously available artefacts don't work and have never worked) or out of a general distrust of government and power structures, or a belief that individuals are ultimately responsible for their own moral upkeep.
As for your assertion that only porn consumers oppose banning porn, I don't consume porn and still oppose banning it. For the reasons stated above, and because I think people should be free to earn a living from pornography if they want to, as well as free to consume it if they want to, in the same way alcohol and cigarettes are destructive to our health, but should still be legal.
And even though I am not making and have never made the argument that porn is speech and falls under free speech protection, you certainly appear to believe both, because you have just made the argument, in the context of supporting a prohibition on porn, that there are or should be exceptions to total free speech. And the only people who believe that are Communist scum.
You can be held liable for defamatory speech because that is, in fact, a legitimate limit on total free speech. This is not communism. I don't know where the argument goes from here, but it is what it is.
What straw men? Point them out. Be specific.
I've seen no logical justification for why porn is speech or why porn should be allowed under free speech. I've explicitly asked why people view this way, and gotten no answer. I've also described how porn is dangerous and destructive upon people in my longer reply, which you said I wouldn't give.
Yes they have. You can't completely eliminate a thing, but you can prevent a lot of it. Just because you can't completely eliminate a thing doesn't mean you shouldn't. Murder is illegal but murders still happen. Are you seriously suggesting we should make murder legal, using your own argument? You're making a fallacious argument. You're also conflating modern government enforcement, government which is both inept and evil, often secretly participating in things they "ban" (like drugs), with what could be legitimately banned by a genuine government. Granted, I wouldn't trust modern Western governments to ban porn, or much less anything else. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, or it could never be done.
With current governments, I agree. That doesn't mean, however, that people don't have a right, individually and collectively, to enforce their views upon whatever group they're a part of.
Every individual is responsible for their own actions, but that doesn't disprove anything I've said. If you take your argument to its conclusion, it means you're ultimately arguing for the removal of all laws, because each individual is "ultimately responsible" for their own decisions.
Then you're in the extreme minority. Every single person that I've argued with and seen arguing for porn have been porn consumers. Many initially deny it, but then quietly admit to it when pressed.
So, you're fine with people earning money through other immoral actions as well? How far do you take it? Selling drugs, murder, pedophilia, forming monopolies, colluding with government? If you truly believe people should be free to make their own choices and morality, should you not be fine with those, so people can "earn a living". I imagine your defense will be "but porn isn't hurting anyone", and you'd be wrong. Porn hurts people. It's a control mechanism. It hurts men, women, and society itself. Just because it's less immediate doesn't make it less true.
You either didn't understand my comment or are intentionally taking what I said out of context. I'm not sure. In either case, I'll restate that porn isn't speech, isn't art, and shouldn't be allowed under free speech laws. Nowhere in that statement do I imply that porn is speech. I'm arguing against the position that "porn is speech". It's not. I only said that there are exceptions to absolute free speech, because even if one assumes porn is speech, to give room for multiple interpretations, it still shouldn't be allowed under free speech laws.