Wikipedia: Al Goldstein, a pornographer best known for helping normalize hardcore pornography in the United States. "The only reason that Jews are in pornography is..."

posted 1 year ago by You_Are_Based 1 year ago by You_Are_Based +91 / -0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Goldstein#Views_on_religion

The only claim I'm making in this post is that this wikipedia article exists and that it contains text, Dom.

In his 2004 book XXX-Communicated: A Rebel Without a Shul, Luke Ford wrote about a conversation with Goldstein, in which Ford asked Goldstein why Jews were dramatically overrepresented in the porn industry. He answered, "The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don't believe in authoritarianism. Pornography thus becomes a way of defiling Christian culture and, as it penetrates to the very heart of the American mainstream (and is no doubt consumed by those very same WASPs), its subversive character becomes more charged." Ford then asked, "What does it mean to you to be a Jew?" To which Goldstein responded, "It doesn't mean anything. It means that I'm called a kike."

64 comments

64 comments share save hide report block hide replies

You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.

Comments (64)

sorted by:

▲ 2 ▼

– AntonioOfVenice 2 points 311 days ago +2 / -0

Man I'm feeling sorry for being such a dick to you in the past.

Appreciate it, but don't be, I have a thick skin.

I read that argumentation as "i refuse to use google, because I know I would find the source, and that it would support my opponent's argument, and I lack the motive to do that".

I've had the experience far too often that someone will just throw out something, put all the burden on the other party - and when you do put in the effort to address and refute it, he just effortlessly move to the next thing.

So that is how I deal with image memes, Wikipedia and other very dubious sources. And the standard defense is, of course, that Wikipedia 'cites sources'. The problem is that when you use and/or link Wikipedia, you have not actually made an independent intellectual judgment of what the source in question says. You're then reading Wikipedia and accepting it because it provides a footnote. Not objecting to using Wikipedia for the footnotes (because I've also sometimes found the source material to be of value).

Take for instance academia, where a source notation is simply a line of text which DIRECTS the reader to a source.

And to a specific page number and edition of the book. It is understood that you have read the material in question in its original location. Otherwise, you say "quoted in..." and then where you actually read it. And Wikipedia is not allowed, of course.

I'd have absolutely no problem if you had found your source on Wikipedia, gotten your hand on the original, reviewed the part in question with some context - and then presented it.

Never was there any expectation that a paper would be delivered to the reader with the actual physical sources.

I prefer quoting when using evidence, but you are correct here - it is not normally done in academia. Example: https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/19BZuGSY5K/reminder-cia-directory-richard-h/

For the record, I think I know that you know I'm right. That I don't really believe your heartfelt investment in your argument is a compliment, though. Only weak people fold entirely, it is in the nature of a good or decent or unbroken man to resist.

I've often admitted that I was wrong, when I was. Persisting in error is worse than making an error. I just don't think that's the case here. One thing I may have been wrong about is that I thought you were arguing in bad faith, and I had my defenses up as a result. Maybe you were just annoyed that "it's quoted in Wikipedia, the source is also right there so you can go and verify it if you doubt it, why does this guy think that this is not valid sourcing?"