braintree [31028. Posted 15-Jan-2017 Sun 14:47]
It was my understanding that the famous shot from Lust for A Vampire was a PR shot and is not from the movie itself where the sequence runs a bit differently.
I`m not aware of any censored or "blurred" version of the movie ever being released. Is the shot you refer to the one that is the poster for this issue of Monster Mag?
sergio [31027. Posted 15-Jan-2017 Sun 04:58]
I don`t seem to have much more
stanlee [31026. Posted 14-Jan-2017 Sat 18:56]
Forever I have seen this picture of Yutte Stengaard all bloody with her breasts exposed and it is from the scene in "Lust for a Vampire" where they have resurrected her and she sits up in her coffin. But in the actual movie that scene is blurred out and you can not see her bare chest. Is there a copy of the movie to buy that this scene is not blurred out? Many thanks.
Melon Farmers (Dave) [31025. Posted 13-Jan-2017 Fri 06:08]
Sergio, I can`t see anything yet on Google
sergio [31024. Posted 12-Jan-2017 Thu 08:08]
I haven`t got much more detail but seems like Torbe - so called `Spanish king of porn` - was released from jail.
Seems like an actress had fake documents? Sort of Tracy Lords?
braintree [31023. Posted 30-Dec-2016 Fri 13:47]
Ok thanks. I can scroll down to a post from Oct 3rd which mentions pre New Year delivery but not seen one since then.
Melon Farmers (Dave) [31022. Posted 30-Dec-2016 Fri 04:50]
Hi Braintree, there was a posting a couple of weeks ago about impending mailings. I will ask Gav over the weekend.
Update: The latest post is at
braintree [31021. Posted 29-Dec-2016 Thu 15:15]
Looks like the Cutting Edge discs won`t be making it out in time for the new year. Any news?
Melon Farmers (Dave) [31020. Posted 11-Dec-2016 Sun 00:10]
Sergio, yes welcome to the New World.
Tor is free and good for occasional use, and Opera has a free VPN for use in a restricted envirnment of privacy mode.
Will probably need a paid for option for more general use.
sergio [31019. Posted 8-Dec-2016 Thu 04:03]
Brave new world? Or a waste of money?
phantom [31018. Posted 3-Dec-2016 Sat 15:36]
It did not take them long, did it?
`The Britisher censored`
Melon Farmers (Dave) [31017. Posted 27-Nov-2016 Sun 05:59]
Thanks phantom, I enjoyed other in the Britisher series too.
phantom [31016. Posted 23-Nov-2016 Wed 17:49]
Some ARE trying...
Melon Farmers (Dave) [31015. Posted 28-Oct-2016 Fri 18:44]
Sergio, thanks an interesting addition. presumably there is soething similar in place forour own ISPs too
sergio [31014. Posted 26-Oct-2016 Wed 01:37]
Who`d have thunk it
phantom [31013. Posted 22-Oct-2016 Sat 15:53]
in truth these proposed pardons have nothing to do with the people of the past and everything to do with the people of the present.
The term we`re looking for is called `virtue signalling`. ;)
keep in mind that homosexuality has been the fig leaf of liberalism for ever more authoritarian UK governments over the past twenty years.
One may have introduced one Orwellian statute after another, but one always had one`s liberal credentials regarding homosexuality to point to.
By now of course one has utterly exhausted this mine.
`Gay marriage` was already rather farcical given that one had already provided the rights involved with `civil partnerships`.
Thus one simply has nowhere left to go.
So now we`re going to de-discriminate the dead.
Ah well... :)
braintree [31012. Posted 22-Oct-2016 Sat 13:55]
I must admit that I can`t agree with the current pandering to PC with this stupid idea to pardon dead people for committing crimes that were illegal at the time they committed them. How long before retrospective law changing means pardons for women burnt at the stake as witches. Appropriately for this website more relevant might be pardons for people who sold hardcore porn in the 70`s and 80`s when it was illegal. And on a personal note , I wonder if I can expect a pardon and compensation for jail time spent when the law decides that fisting is not included in the Obscene Publications Act. Give Turing a posthumous award by all means for his service but pardons for completely legit convictions for a selective group of offences is stupid. This move just shows that there are now so many gay people in positions of authority they can now use their own agenda to put forward moves like this while the rest of the authorities sit back and shutup for fear of being branded homophobic. A bit like Russell T Davies and his influence on the family show that is/ was Dr Who
braintree [31011. Posted 4-Oct-2016 Tue 13:30]
Thanks for the update- it would be a great xmas prezzie.
With reference to todays story on the new release of Private Lessons. As far as I can tell it was only uncut in the US on VHS. One dvd release was an edited version and the longest version pixellated out pubic hair on Kristel.The UK dvd removes or shortens all the scenes involving the male lead with a naked Kristel. The new Bluray is not as easy to obtain as most titles. The usual retailers don`t seem to be stocking it so I`ve had to order from Amazon which works out over £30 delivered
Melon Farmers (Dave) [31010. Posted 3-Oct-2016 Mon 21:42]
Hi Braintree, Re the Cutting Edge DVD.
The DVD menu is currently being authored and then its off for printing and production. The current schedule is for the DVDs to be sent out before the new year. Cutting Edge will be in touch prior to that to confirm shipping addresses.
braintree [31009. Posted 3-Oct-2016 Mon 14:58]
I don`t use Facebook so not sure where to ask this. Is there any update on the Cutting Edge crowd funder? I pledged a while ago but can`t seem to find any details of a timetable that may indicate when the dvd would be available. A rough estimate would be great. Thanks
braintree [31008. Posted 24-Sep-2016 Sat 13:33]
Depends on where you are. The Naked Rambler spends most of his time in jail for outraging public decency because he likes to be naked everywhere even where kids can see him. These days with all the PC whining and agenda for complaints its unlikely anyone would get away with being naked for long periods anywhere except naturist places although I don`t believe there is a specific law in place to prevent nudity per se. It`s about the context, the place , the time , the intent.
sergio [31007. Posted 24-Sep-2016 Sat 02:29]
Mock the week seem to discuss whether going naked/nude is legal (they seem to be incorrect).
Farage was first naked then with boxer shorts on when he `skinny dipped`.
A naturist on Radio 4 in relation to the Farage story seemed to imply that `intention` to offend was the legal advice.
So, which is it? Legal or not?
sergio [31006. Posted 10-Sep-2016 Sat 06:15]
and in some countries might even qualify as child pornography
What countries are those? In the UK it is child pornography. There is no `iconic, historic` defense. The news has published child porn. Child porn doesn`t even have to include nudity.
Melon Farmers (Dave) [31005. Posted 7-Sep-2016 Wed 07:16]
Phantom, here is a pretty damning piece that rather opposes many commentators love-in of Vaz
Melon Farmers (Dave) [31004. Posted 6-Sep-2016 Tue 00:11]
phantom, indeed. It`s a strange world when even our elected representatives have to be totaly 100% behind implementing morality laws that diminish people`s emjoyment of life (including their own), just so that the moral highgrounders can savour their power to control.
How has `democracy` become so worthless in representing the people?
phantom [31003. Posted 5-Sep-2016 Mon 14:08]
Wasn`t goodie-two-shoes Keith Vaz already chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee when the Dangerous Pictures Act went through Parliament?
I don`t recall him putting up a valiant fight for the rights of those with a slightly different sexual twist back then.
Who`d have thought he was standing in a massive glass house at the time...
braintree [31002. Posted 20-Aug-2016 Sat 15:26]
Is there no European release? I think MPI releases in the US are locked. I shouldn`t say this but you could buy the US disc and then make a copy on your computer which should remove coding. If you`re really desperate to see it I think you can use Anydvd HD on a 30 day trial so you`d be able to watch it on your computer or on your tv if your PC has an HDMI output and then sell the disc to me. I`ve just checked Amazon France and there appears to be an uncensored French release on there. Just over £17 delivered - states Uncensored but make sure you buy from Amazon themselves , the other sellers are slightly cheaper but don`t ship to the UK. Reviews on there state 100% uncut. If you already have a UK Amazon account it`s no bother to order from the French site. All your details are stored inlcluding payment cards , password etc and you won`t have to enter anything new
Glenn Quagmire [31001. Posted 20-Aug-2016 Sat 14:30]
That`s a shame.
I really want to see the colour version of "Human Centipede II" but, obviously, uncut. I`ve seen it uncut in black and white but want to experience the full gory gloriousness.
braintree [31000. Posted 20-Aug-2016 Sat 13:40]
If you want your Panasonic Bluray player to be multi region for dvd`s you can buy little service remotes for £10 off ebay. But that`s dvd only. There`s no way to make it fully multi region for Bluray but here and in the US it has come to the attention of fans there are a couple of tricks Panasonic users can do to play some, and only some region locked US discs. Once a disc fails to load it will stop spinning or in most cases you`ll get some kind of wrong region caption. Once that happens press STOP , then wait a few seconds then press MENU ( you might have to do that twice but not in quick succession) and the player will then go straight to the main menu.US collectors can play region locked titles from Network , Studio Canal, Arrow and one or two others. Off the top of my head I can`t recall which labels work on the UK versions. I`m pretty sure the William Castle double bills from Mill Creek work which means the 2 Hammer double bills coming soon should work too. It`s not really a substitute for true multi region but it would be useful to check out the UK section of Bluray.com where there is a thread dedicated to naming the discs that work this way. I can`t recall if Kino discs will work but I do recall that titles from Shout /Scream Factory won`t.
Glenn Quagmire [30999. Posted 20-Aug-2016 Sat 10:15]
I do have a Panasonic Blu Ray player at the minute but can`t find any hacks for it. If you know of any it`d be great to hear them.
I`ll have a peek at those sights you mentioned.
braintree [30998. Posted 19-Aug-2016 Fri 16:38]
There are 2 companies that offer multi region Bluray players and Recorders. Multi Region Magic and TPS ( search for TPS Multiregion) both offer players hardware modified for all zones and regions. I`ve not checked either out for a while but when I did TPS seemed to be offering more recent models than MRM. Until recently TPS were also selling upgrade discs for Panasonic gear that would add MR to existing players. I paid £100 for such a disc a couple of years ago for my Bluray Recorder and at the time discs for players were £60. Apparently they don`t supply these firmware upgrades anymore which is a shame as they also added the very useful feature of disabling UOP/PUO which allows you to skip or FF through any sections of the disc so you can skip warnings and trailers and other bits much faster. The current hardware mods do not include that feature. Another benefit was being able to switch off the "forced" subtitles you sometimes get if you select an English soundtrack on a French or German disc. Players usually start around £150 for Panasonic or Sony players. If you currently have a Panasonic player you`ll be surprised at the number of Region A discs you can play using the MENU trick. I`ll explain it if you have one. A company called WOW HD also seem to be the cheapest place currently to buy US imports.
Alternatively if you`re happy playing discs on the computer then Anydvd HD will enable your Bluray drive to play any region discs.
Some years back there were a couple of supermarket cheapies for around £60 which could be made MR using the players own remote but there were reports that these had playback issues unconnected to region locking with certain discs so best not bothering with those.
Glenn Quagmire [30997. Posted 19-Aug-2016 Fri 14:07]
Does anybody know where I can get hold of a multi-zone Blu-ray player? I`ve looked on Amazon and that but they`re all multi region DVD. I really want some region A Blu rays but am really struggling to find something to play them.
Melon Farmers (Dave) [30996. Posted 18-Aug-2016 Thu 00:00]
Hi Glenn, I spotted the BBFC update for this version but haven`t seen yet what Eureka plan for the release. Perhaps the film is one of the BBFC lines in the sand and not to easy to let go of. Also if cuts can`t be waived then it may be best to keep as quiet as possible abut it. I have read several times lately that UK cut versions haven`t been selling well for movies of this genre. Presumably fans look out for the uncut US or Euro versions.
Glenn Quagmire [30995. Posted 17-Aug-2016 Wed 11:38]
I haven`t seen it mentioned on here but the BBFC have just passed "The Human Centipede 2" in colour but, unfortunately, it`s the same cut as before. This was a perfect opportunity to try and get a more complete version, through. I know that they would never have passed it uncut but, given the backlash and ridicule the BBFC got for banning it, maybe they would have allowed some more of the cut stuff through, like the teeth smashing scene. I never understood why they cut that or a lot of the other violence. It wasn`t any stronger than "Hostel" or any of the "Saw" films. My guess would be that they had the distributor by the balls and could demand anything they wanted because it was important to get released. They were just bullying. They`re not strangers to that, though. They were justholding them to ransom.
Melon Farmers (Dave) [30994. Posted 14-Aug-2016 Sun 07:03]
I am afraid that Melon Farmers updates are delay for a day or two due to a computer crash
braintree [30993. Posted 7-Aug-2016 Sun 13:51]
What would be nice and refreshing would be to see some celeb who gets picked up on saying something perhaps offensive to have the guts to standby their comments and tell people that opinions are not legislation. Even Jeremy Clarkson has backed down on occasion. We need some high profile celeb to put the morons who use Twitter to whine in their place
Melon Farmers (Dave) [30992. Posted 7-Aug-2016 Sun 08:02]
`A new rule added where they are allowed to to use common sense and tell the complainers to get a life and STFU`.
Such a rule would be a godsend for most of our politically correct authorities who insist on siding with whingers.
braintree [30991. Posted 6-Aug-2016 Sat 13:07]
Speaking of nutty tv shows, the latest Celeb Big Brother is the usual farce. Gone are the great days of C4 when housemates being outrageous and offensive was the whole premise. Now C5 seem to be terrified of any viewers being offended ( is that actually against Ofcom rules?). They plaster full screen warnings on after every ad break warning of potential offence and scenes that might shock viewers yet the other day with the spitting in the tea fiasco over 70 morons still felt the need to contact Ofcom who will just say the content was well signposted so C5 did their duty so won`t investigate. Ofcom should have a new rule added where they are allowed to to use common sense and tell the complainers to get a life and STFU. The days of celebs being themselves is also long gone and now they have to pander to viewers and other housemates for fear of expulsion. Biggins already kicked out. The show is not live so why are C5 too stupid to edit content out.God forbid it becomes interesting. Opinions not allowed unless they meet C5 standards
Melon Farmers (Dave) [30990. Posted 5-Aug-2016 Fri 01:15]
Yes despite best efforts from the likes of the Daily Mail, the show registered less than a hundred complaints to Ofcom. I think there has to be something that is politically incorrect to generate a little outrage these days. Now if the contestants got rated out of 10 for attractive genitals then that may get a more `outraged` response.
simcha [30989. Posted 4-Aug-2016 Thu 04:14]
Have not been on here for a while. Thought I would pop on and see if you have all been chatting about the new Channel 4 program Dating naked. Seems you have all missed it. Full frontal close up nudity of hairless bodys male and female. On at about 10pm.
I find it quite interesting that there has been no talk about this in any of the media, could we have at last got to the point where nudity is not a problem to public or the censors?
Melon Farmers (Dave) [30988. Posted 26-Jul-2016 Tue 02:15]
I don`t always buy the public consultation line. It is far too simple to say there is some sort of measure of `public opinion`. Those in charge of the consultation decide to draw the line exactly where they want to and claim it as some sort of mean value of a vast array of individual opinions. Still, at least the BBFC line drawing is pretty reasonable, with `sexual violence` retained as just about the only area up for censorship.
I don`t think there is much chance of changing this line drawing, but just 20 letters would give a top 5 place in the complaints league, that would get national press coverage when the annual report is published.
Glenn Quagmire [30987. Posted 25-Jul-2016 Mon 09:16]
Why don`t we all start an email campaign and email the BBFC with our views? We`re the public. It`s our views that are supposed to count. We are part of that public. Come on! Let`s show `em!
If not that, then something. Anything. Let`s be treated like adults.
Glenn Quagmire [30986. Posted 25-Jul-2016 Mon 09:13]
Well, they did exactly what I thought they would. The BBFC have responded to me, reiterating platitudes they churn out to everybody, completely ignoring what was written in the email and not answering any of my questions.
Here`s what they said:
Thank you for your email.
BBFC classification decisions are made in line with available research and our Classification Guidelines which are a product of an extensive public consultation process. This process is repeated every 4-5 years and over 10,000 people contributed to the creation of the Classification Guidelines 2014, which are available here. Sexual violence is an issue that is consistently highlighted as an an area of public concern and page 27 of the Classification Guidelines sets out when the BBFC may intervene at the adult level. Different classification systems are operated in different countries and they accordingly have different classification standards. The BBFC aims to reflect UK public opinion.
This version of I Spit on Your Grave is a re-edited, reduced version compared to the submission classified in 2010. These changes were made by the films distributor prior to the film being submitted to the BBFC. The BBFC required that footage that was previously cut from the 2010 submission, but that had not already been removed by the films distributor, to also be removed.
braintree [30985. Posted 21-Jul-2016 Thu 13:38]
I despair that the BBFC still edit movies for adults and actually believe their opinion counts.The majority who watch a cut version won`t care either way and thankfully for the last 25 years those of us who do care have been able to ignore the BBFC and import uncut versions of any movies the BBFC decide to cut. They should stick to offering content advice and nothing else. Censoring movies in the 21st century in a so called free country is ridiculous and thankfully dedicated film fans can give the BBFC all the due consideration they deserve and buy uncut movies from anywhere in the world.
They are useful for one thing though - and that`s bringing our attention to movies we might otherwise miss. If it wasn`t for the BBFC there are several cut or banned movies I wouldn`t have on disc
DoodleBug [30984. Posted 21-Jul-2016 Thu 07:57]
I fully agree with you that there is no reason for the movie to be censored, but notice as well that the version submitted was also pre-cut by AMC Networks
Melon Farmers (Dave) [30983. Posted 21-Jul-2016 Thu 07:13]
I will get this written up tomorrow. I presume this is more about Ofcom`s investigation of Horror Channel`s broadcast rather than any new release.
Glenn Quagmire [30982. Posted 20-Jul-2016 Wed 11:39]
This was my email to the BBFC:
Dear Sir / madam
I see that, once again, you have felt the need to cut the remake of "I Spit On Your Grave".
Being in possession of a full, uncensored version, I have been fortunate to bear witness to the director`s intended vision. The board should not be cutting this film. It is incredibly insulting and hypocritical that the board are more than happy to pass "Baise Moi" uncut (and rightly so!) but insist on censoring a film that will have appeal to the masses, rather than just the middle class art brigade. Of further insult is the blatant ignoring of public opinion that you, ever so proudly, claim to shape your guidelines. On this very site, the previous public consultation undertook by the BBFC is there for all to read. However, some of the viewers felt that the film could easily pass uncut given the second half of the film and her retribution to the culprits. This clearly counterbalances the graphic scenes of rape. You seemed to have ignored the advice of the general public and proceeded to do as you wish.
Your claims of "eroticised sexual violence" is worrying to say the least. I`ve yet to meet, or speak to, anybody who found any of the films erotic or eroticised. This is something that obviously only the board is seeing. No one else is. Sorry? Who are you protecting, again?
It is also worth noting that the OFLC, the Australian censorship body, has passed all the films uncut and their guidelines are stricter than yours! Plus, there is NO recorded evidence that any harm has come to anybody as a result of these films being available uncut anywhere in the world. And the majority of people in Britian have seen the uncut versions of them. Still no reports of harm.
Glenn Quagmire [30981. Posted 20-Jul-2016 Wed 10:25]
The BBFC have, once again, cut 2010 version of "I Spit On Your Grave". This is AFTER the BBFC "consultation" that defines the boards policies said that the board was heavy handed and shouldn`t have been cut. So, in a nutshell, the BBFC completely ignore the public and do whatever they want, all the while spouting platitudes and crap about "public consultation"! Waste of space and money. Thank god I imported the uncut versions. I`m going to write an email to the board pointing this out. No doubt, they`ll do what they did last time and ignore it with only a simple response of "look at our guidelines on sexual violence". Dick heads!
Melon Farmers (Dave) [30980. Posted 9-Jul-2016 Sat 00:13]
Re porn selling. I guess most of these businesses rely on mailing lists or repeat customers. I can`t imagine anyone can list films for sale on eBay, but maybe they can use eBay more to scout out interest in softer titles, and send them flyers for their mail order business.
braintree [30979. Posted 7-Jul-2016 Thu 14:30]
The news pages report a seller of unclassified porn on ebay getting a fine. I wonder how he listed them as I can never find porn on ebay uk. At the very least he should have taken the precaution of having both ebay and paypal accounts under fake ID`s which would make him a bit less easy to trace.
sergio [30978. Posted 7-Jul-2016 Thu 08:20]
Can anyone explain this phrase?
`In a country where women are told to stay indoors and many cannot freely choose who they marry, she promotes her upfront version of sexualised femininity online.`
braintree [30977. Posted 6-Jul-2016 Wed 13:24]
That`s strange then because it`s usually easy to find the US release on ebay ( from uk sellers) but the UK release is removed all the time.
Ebay are a law unto themselves and I`ve asked them about the reasons but it`s easier to get into the Queens bedroom than it is to talk to someone at ebay who actually has any position of authority. You`ll never find anyone familiar with the titles ebay removes and the usual brush off is that BBFC classification doesn`t mean Ebay won`t remove items that break it`s own set of rules.
I am amazed that after over 20 years of having a monopoly that someone with the money and scope of Branson or Murdoch have not tried to offer a viable alternative to ebay. It seems like an easy market to crack - all it needs is someone with the financial muscle to operate on a worldwide scale. All previous attempts to break ebays stranglehold have been lacklustre
DoodleBug [30976. Posted 5-Jul-2016 Tue 14:04]
I think I posted about this previously when it happened to me last year. Although in my case I was selling the US disc of Nekromantik. The funny thing was Ebay removed my listing after I had sold it so not sure what they gained from it !
I did send an email back to them saying that there rules were out of date and questioned how they could remove a movie which was now legally certified in the UK but got no response. I noticed at the time there were a handful of other listings all happily selling the same edition.
braintree [30975. Posted 5-Jul-2016 Tue 13:19]
I believe the restriction on ebay.com is to prevent illegal imports into the UK. I don`t think ebay UK even has an Adult section. At any rate their list of banned titles is way out of date. Try to sell the UK disc of Nekromantic and see how long it lasts. Strangely UK sellers can sell the US disc but not the UK one. There are other titles too.
sergio [30974. Posted 4-Jul-2016 Mon 13:45]
I can buy an air rifle but not any adult only items on ebay.com.
`Sorry, you are not allowed to view, sell, bid on or purchase items in the Adult Only category.
Due to restrictions regarding the sale of pornography over the Internet, access to listings in the Adult Only category has been restricted. Continue shopping or return to your most recent search.`
Melon Farmers (Dave) [30973. Posted 1-Jul-2016 Fri 08:01]
The BBFC has today released its Annual Report covering 2015.
Melon Farmers (Dave) [30972. Posted 30-Jun-2016 Thu 01:38]
I have just spotted that a Director`s Commentary is 12 rated. The main feature is presumably still cut then, as there is no 12 rated version on the BBFC database.
braintree [30971. Posted 29-Jun-2016 Wed 13:32]
Re : the story on Cocoon being uncut for the first time on Blu as a 12. I purchased the Cocoon steelbook 2 years ago and this was also rated 12 but I`ve yet to watch it so can`t confirm if its uncut. I would assume the new release will be the same version even if it is a new transfer
phantom [30970. Posted 29-Jun-2016 Wed 07:37]
I find that a strange question, Sergio.
How do we stop crime? How do we stop cursing? Spitting in the street?
How do we stop wars? Or how do we stop biased reporting by media?
Or best of all, how do we stop politicians from being corrupt and lying to us?
There are plenty of things which are unsavoury about modern societies.
To ask these questions seems to serve little purpose.
The world is what it is. We should always aspire to improve, but not kid ourselves into thinking we can magic problems away.
Most of all we need to remember that British society is most likely the least racist and chauvinist society on the planet.
A slight uptick in anecdotal events after a referendum do not make for a sudden outbreak of national racism.
Least we should try to do is to somehow censor our way out of a problem.
sergio [30969. Posted 29-Jun-2016 Wed 06:51]
How do we stop racism?
Melon Farmers (Dave) [30968. Posted 24-Jun-2016 Fri 01:25]
Thanks goatboy, I added the note about episode 16.
goatboy [30967. Posted 22-Jun-2016 Wed 18:51]
The alternative version of Walking Dead just has added swearing I believe. (AMC shows are weird in that 18 cert violence is fine, but there`s only limited PG level swearing allowed) The producers said they filmed bluray scenes so a character could retain his dialogue from the comic book.
sergio [30966. Posted 11-Jun-2016 Sat 13:03]
Melon Farmers (Dave) [30965. Posted 5-Jun-2016 Sun 09:00]
Sorry for the lack of updates. I have spent the weekend traveling. Back to normal on Monday.
sergio [30964. Posted 28-May-2016 Sat 03:46]
I found this while looking at https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/owners/37534/Metropolitan/
phantom [30963. Posted 27-May-2016 Fri 13:32]
I`m not sure that voices of the left are necessary for what I am alluding to.
In essence I believe it`s about getting serious opposition to political correctness into politics.
Effectively the world needs a force in politics to take on political correctness. Some force. Any force. So far there has never really been such a force.
If the self-proclaimed `cultural libertarians` can hoist their ideas and principles into the bowels of the Republican party then at least there would be some serious political organisation prepared to fight politically correct culture.
Having at least one major party wedded to the idea of killing off political correctness would give the US at least a fifty percent chance of eventually getting a government which would do something about it.
It would also mean that Democratic congressmen and senators whose seats are contested would need to take opposition to political correctness on board in order to regain their seats.
In short: political correctness needs to be fought in the public arena.
As you say, nobody feels free to actually stand up to it. Folks could get themselves fired or otherwise ostracised.
But if at last a major political party takes it on, things could happen.
That is where I see this phenomenon leading.
As for Trump, I don`t think `the Donald` holds out any significant hope against political correctness.
When folks like Milo Yiannopulos are backing him, I hear the agent provocateur speaking.
I don`t think Trump is the answer to anything.
When I speak of `cultural libertarianism` having a great chance of taking a hold of the Republicans, it is completely unconnected to Donald Trump.
That said, I am getting the sense that he is more than likely going to win.
However, if America advances a mainstream political voice opposed to political correctness (the Republican party, not Trump) then I wonder how long it will be that someone in mainstream UK politics highlights the fact that Britain is being treated as one great `safe space` in which no-one is permitted to say the wrong thing or look at the wrong picture for fear of someone being `triggered`...
sym [30962. Posted 27-May-2016 Fri 09:09]
You make a very convincing argument Phantom, and I certainly believe that the grassroots you describe to the right of US politics will ultimately contribute to a groundswell movement at some indeterminate time. However, I can’t see it being fully realised until some more rational, popular voices on the left come forward, allowing for a more bipartisan discussion beyond the usual mudslinging. Whilst I personally don’t subscribe to the left / right dichotomy it would be foolish to deny the power of its mobilisation. For this reason, I fear that without a “bridge” the same old dividing lines will simply be perpetuated and become even more entrenched.
I don’t think it is too far off the mark to say that -outside of the political and social media bubble - the force of public opinion, if pressed privately on matters of pc culture, would come out against its current extensions and intrusions into everyday life. Yet so powerful and recriminatory are its harbingers that a climate of fear effectively silences dissent. Unlike the no-platforming agenda that allows ‘left thinkers’ - like Greer, Burchill, and I assume the aforementioned Summers - to revel in their banned status with a sense of incredulous pride, the left-leaning public - largely oblivious to such matters - have no such avenue to vent even if they wanted too. Which begs the question, would it be counter productive to hope - against ones better judgement - that Trump takes the presidency just to sock it to the social justice contingency?
phantom [30961. Posted 26-May-2016 Thu 12:49]
Yes, I perfectly understand what you mean. Within the social media bubble it is easy to get delusional about things.
But the reason I mentioned this is because I`ve been observing it for a while and it does seem more than just a storm in a tea cup. It seems to be gathering momentum – on the American right.
The very fact that some of the heroes of this movement are turning up on websites and TV shows means that they are making an impact on right of centre audiences in the US. It means they are building bridgeheads within the Republican party and could therefore become a force on the political right.
I really don`t think it`s merely wishful thinking on my part. For one, I don`t share many of their Republican views. However, the sheer force of these folks seems to set them apart from regular voices of the American right.
Again, I agree, Sargon can be obsessive. But what makes him stand out (and what will be at the root of his having over 300,000 subscribers) is that he is well-spoken, reasoned and rational.
We also need to consider that his obsessing may also be due to economic factors. He needs to satisfy audience expectation.
Let`s be clear. Usually clips on youtube which command viewing figures of a quarter to half a million feature a kitten trapped in a basket of wool or Miley Cyrus` crotch.
So to see clips of folks talking about politics hit figures which at times come close to newspaper circulation figures suggests that something is going on.
When you listened to American right wingers over the past twenty years, rationality was not your immediate impression. The religious right and the Tea Party movement were (and still are) hysterical types.
But I challenge anyone to listen to a character like Ben Shapiro and not feel the sheer weight of intellect behind the man. Again, it`s not about agreeing with all of his views (and in his case he could not be called an anti-censorship advocate – but he`s nonetheless part of the movement against political correctness).
I simply get the impression that such a movement – with such a force of argument, eloquence and intelligence behind it – cannot be ignored for long.
They are – ironically – the real `young turks`. A new generation of educated, energised young men champing at the bit to make an impact.
Which is why I suspect it only a matter of time until they have an effect.
It will not be on the mainstream media that they appear first. That is not where they could affect things. But on the political right.
The social justice movement has dramatically overreached itself in the last few years and the Democrats are wholly subscribed to it. So the possible impact of turning the Republicans into the effective counter force to political correctness could be considerable.
The effect could well be global rather than merely domestic.
I know the US is a different case than the UK – not least as they have freedom of expression guaranteed by the constitution. But where the US lead, we invariably tend to follow.
If the US is about to begin a political counter revolution against political correctness, then a country with such close cultural relations as the UK will not remain unaffected.
So, I`m not saying that a mainstream revolt against political correctness is imminent. But I think what has been happening over the past two or three years – aside from the sheer soundness of the new movement`s foundations - seems to suggest it will have an impact. A new generation of young Republicans is being enthused by these online voices preaching free expression.
I get a strong sense of where this is headed. Especially, as the Republican party is currently out of any other ideas – thus, in need of one which can be translated in opposition to the Democrats.
Much of the underpinning of the mini revolution has been supplied by Christina Hoff Sommers in a book she wrote over twenty years ago (Who stole Feminism?). At the time of her publishing the book, she got nowhere with it. The time was just not right. But anyone who has followed things can see that she has been gaining traction recently. She too is on youtube and is part of the whole movement I describe.
Her book is often quoted online as the chief debunking tool of fake, exaggerated claims by militant feminism. (the ludicrous 5 in 1 rape claims, wage gap, etc)
What makes her all the more credible is that Hoff Sommers, who once held a professorship in philosophy, is in fact a signed up Democrat and a feminist. So hers is not some right-wing agenda.
I have read her book some time ago. It is an eye opener. At times full of dry statistics, it literally destroys most feminist claims of victimhood.
Now I`m hardly saying that what I predict is guaranteed to happen. I`m no soothsayer. But I`ve seen a good many things come and go. This movement possesses real energy. Young audiences are clearly reacting to it. Most of all, it has a worthwhile goal.
It seems to me that this is going to go somewhere. Fast.
Incidentally, Milo Yiannopoulos just had his latest event at DePaul University halted by protesters who took over the stage, snatched the mike and threatened violence. They could not have made his argument for free speech any better for him...
sym [30960. Posted 25-May-2016 Wed 09:19]
Phantom, I too have noticed the phenomenon you speak of, and yes, it is heartening although I wonder how far outside of the echo chamber of social media it extends, with pretty much the orthodox media channels channels fully signed up and subscribed to the ’social justice’ agenda in perhaps a less fanatical but nevertheless unquestioning form. When the ‘1 in 5’ campus rape claim or pay gap statistics are allowed to be disseminated almost unchallenged with the exception of Fox News - which in itself comes with its own baggage - you have to wonder.
Whatever your political beliefs however, it’s good to see such a diverse range of opinion coming together to counter much of the hogwash spouted by so-called ‘liberal’ commentators and activists which is not just confined solely to the Right. There’s the Young Turks defector The Rubin Report, MRA’s, a slew of V.J’s, stand-up comedians, and most promising of all, an increasing number of academics working to highlight issues from within. Professor Janice Fiamengo, under the Studio Brule youtube channel, is particularly compelling, a former 2nd wave radical feminist once involved in the ‘take back the night’ campaign, now openly supporting male representation issues from a biological and cultural standpoint. Gad Sadd is also interesting.
I think Sargon obsesses a little too much on some of the finer points of interpretation, but he seems to be a genuine enquirer as evidenced by his recent interview with Tommy Robinson formerly of the EDF. As you said, Milo is certainly a provocateur and his recent tour of US universities has been both a depressing eyeopener and comedy gold. Of course, much of the conversation in the US centres around private censorship via social media ‘trust councils’ , media bias, and campus regulations, and less on the kind of legal obstacles that curtail free speech in the UK and Canada.
Melon Farmers (Dave) [30959. Posted 21-May-2016 Sat 01:11]
I will look further into this and get something posted on the main site.
phantom [30958. Posted 20-May-2016 Fri 17:18]
I would like to ask whether anyone here has noticed a new phenomenon: `cultural libertarianism`.
It seems to be enjoying a groundswell right now – on the American political right. It is young, literate and pretty dynamic. I`m beginning to suspect it might be an important factor in the future of American politics of the centre right. Not in its present form. - But ideas travel very quickly nowadays.
Much of it seems to have crystallised around an incident called `Gamergate` in which online gamers clashed virulently with feminists who were deriding all games and gamers as sexist and misogynist.
It was a bitter online war which almost went unnoticed by the rest of the world.
But it seems from there to have broadened and become a distinct movement very quickly.
It seems directed mainly at feminism and other forms of political correctness. Its intellectual weight is drawn from opposition to authoritarianism and prescriptive thinking. We`re talking pure enlightenment thinking here. It seems to be gathering pace very quickly.
Now intuitively you would think you`d find liberals to the left of the political spectrum, due to how politics have functioned so far.
The reason `cultural libertarianism` finds itself on the political right is because the political left is largely the champion of all things politically correct. So not all `cultural libertarians` appear to be gun-toting Texans who love Donald Trump. Far from it in fact.
The term `cultural libertarianism` seems to have been created in opposition to `cultural Marxism` which is the term many on the political right use in the US for political correctness.
What is remarkable is the force of reason among those people. They are calm, deliberate, logical types with more than a mere whiff of university about them. So this is not right wing talk radio.
They are becoming quite a force on Twitter and Youtube.
Contributors like `Sargon of Akkad` (a Brit, btw) regularly has videos with a quarter of a million views on youtube. That does not seem to me a random occurrence. This whole thing truly seems to possess momentum.
Another Brit, Milo Yiannopoulos, seems to be their poster boy right now. (Imagine the gay love child of George Osborne and Boris Johnson.) He often plays agent provocateur, but at times can turn serious and become quite heavyweight. He is no fool and at times makes highly eloquent arguments for freedom of expression.
Aside from this internet persona of his, he is a columnist for the right wing online publication `Breitbart`.
The Republican party in the US is undergoing a catharsis right now. The religious right, which had launched Bush Jr to the presidency, has lost its hold over the party. The radical right-wing Tea Party movement has gone nowhere. It achieved little else than political sabotage. With Trump rampaging as Republican candidate, the party is desperately looking for a new idea, a new identity to pin the GOP badge on.
`Cultural libertarianism` may well be that new thing. Its moment may have come.
The Democrats are in not much greater health than the Republicans. The left in the US – much like in the UK – have long since abandoned the politics of representing the working classes and have instead started championing political correctness.
Thus one can see from where `cultural libertarianism` is coming. It`s diametrically opposed to the core values of the political left: Third wave feminism, social justice dogma, `safe spaces` at universities, equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity, quotas for women and minorities, token media representation, etc...
It goes without saying that `cultural libertarianism` is very strongly anti-censorship.
If `cultural libertarianism` gets a firm foothold in Republican politics, it may well prove a godsend to a world drowning in thought crimes and hate speech prohibitions.
Interestingly, in the UK it would provide a dilemma for the political right. The Tories are no longer wedded to the Republicans as they were in the 1980s. They have whole-heartedly embraced many of the concepts of political correctness. So if `cultural libertarianism` does eventually prove to be a new political force of the right in the US, it would be tricky for the British political right to emulate them (unless some party like UKIP fills that vacuum).
Anyway, sorry for going all heavy here.
But I thought this was an observation I`d share with you folks, because I really think something interesting is afoot. There may be a little spec of light for those who dislike censorship and it`s coming from a very unexpected direction.
Melon Farmers (Dave) [30957. Posted 16-May-2016 Mon 05:19]
Re I Spit On Your Grave on Horror Channel.
schnittberichte.com is pointing out that a January showing of I Spit on Your Grave wasn`t actually a BBFC approved version. The website concludes that the Horror Channel did its own edit which although cut, was stronger than the BBFC version.
braintree [30956. Posted 14-May-2016 Sat 13:53]
Certainly on Freeview Ofcom expect 18 material to be after 10pm and then they even whinge if some very strong stuff appears too soon after 10.
I don`t know their schedule but if they played the original I Spit On Your Grave even the BBFC version at 9pm that is asking for trouble. Stagefright is uncut at 18 so again , 9pm too early. But The Horror Channel schedule is weird. I`ve seen tv shows airing during the day that really shouldn`t be unless they are cut. I got the impression THC thought themselves exempt from censor wrangles simply because they are a niche channel. But they do actually show some good stuff although most dedicated fans will have most of it on dvd already. Hats off to them for airing what they do and uncut when they can so best they don`t upset Ofcom
Melon Farmers (Dave) [30955. Posted 13-May-2016 Fri 21:50]
Re Ofcom and horror novies>
I would guess that Ofcom`s problems with these horror films is to do with a 9pm showing. I interpret Ofcon;s post watershed rule to maean that 18 rated material or even strong language shouldn`t be shown until 10pm
Therumbler [30954. Posted 12-May-2016 Thu 11:25]
I`m unsure what Stage Fright`s under investigation for. Some gore in it, but no more than a Game of Thrones episode.
DoodleBug [30953. Posted 10-May-2016 Tue 14:01]
As Glenn Quagmire noted the first Hunger Games is available uncut on UK Blu-ray in its individual release but cut on DVD. But for some bizarre reason which has been confirmed by a few Amazon customer reviews the Blu-ray boxset versions only contain the censored 12 cert version. All I can think of is that the distributor didn`t want to limit the possible audience of the boxsets by having to increase the overall rating to a 15 when the rest of the movies are a 12 also.
braintree [30952. Posted 10-May-2016 Tue 13:32]
Blurays are more expensive to produce than dvd`s which is why many studios use the exact same disc worldwide with just differences in packaging and labelling. Even on region free discs the region coding of the player can also instruct the disc to play the copyright warnings for the relevant country only making a single disc for the world easy. So that begs the question as to whether The Hunger Games is uncut in other countries.
Of course this is all moot if the movie is one licenced or owned by different studios in each country.
Melon Farmers (Dave) [30951. Posted 10-May-2016 Tue 00:46]
Perhaps the era of Blu-rays being expensive to encode is over and the distributors can now cheaply use cut versions. Generally the distributors seems happy with uncut 15s over cut 12s, but perhaps the teen target audience makes a difference to this generality.
It is not offering much for a exclsuivity window of 1 year. The vast majority of films are `exclusive` to the company issuing the first DVD/Blu-ray release. Not many get another release within a year.
braintree [30950. Posted 9-May-2016 Mon 16:07]
Stupidity probably. The uncut version of Die Hard 4 was released on dvd yet the Bluray boxset still only includes the PG-13 version so the UK remains one of the few still without it on Bluray. The Woman In Black was certified 12 cut and 15 uncut but the 15 version remains unavailable in the UK.
The cynic in me would suggest these longer versions will eventually make an appearance in an attempt to get buyers to shell out all over again.
Glenn Quagmire [30949. Posted 9-May-2016 Mon 12:53]
Does anybody find it strange that the blu ray boxset of "The Hunger Games" is only a 12 meaning that the cut cinema/DVD version is being used despite being originally released uncut on blu ray? This doesn`t make sense to me. Why would they do this?
braintree [30948. Posted 8-May-2016 Sun 13:17]
Not really a censorship issue but this seemed as good a place as any to mention that Arrow have made a serious error with their latest releases which include the Early Works of David Cronenberg, listed very clearly on the Videodrome LE as a Limited Edition Exclusive. Critics of the move have been presented with something from Arrow that will cost them dearly. Arrow now say that something listed as a LE Exclusive only keeps that status for one year.The only good thing is that there is now no need at all to pay top prices for the ever increasing number of Arrow Limited Edition titles when we know that a year later we can buy it all cheap.I`m surprised Arrow are stupid enough to think such a crap reason is enough to justify such a catastrophically bad PR move. How many Arrow LE titles have been cancelled in the last 24 hours I wonder. All mine for starters.
Usually Arrow have been upfront about which elements of any LE release will receive a regular release months later but it appears they`ve invented this convenient 1 year window nonsense as an excuse to release the Early Works. I doubt I`m the only one who`s last bit of goodwill toward Arrow has gone down the pan
phantom [30947. Posted 6-May-2016 Fri 14:56]
Well, it`s a common tactic on many a forum to become very tired of a subject, or for it to have been merely a joke, or one having only played devil`s advocate (the tropes are many), if one encounters determined opposition.
The phenomenon is quite well known.
Generally it`s a sleight of hand played to close down a debate which one has grown uncomfortable with, rather than one which has exhausted itself.
Usually it involves the implication that the other party which is trying to engage in debate is taking this much too seriously. They ought to get a life, etc...
That`s why I made reference to the card trick.
So, there`s no need to suggest I`m confused.
braintree [30946. Posted 6-May-2016 Fri 13:52]
Actually is IS because I`m tired of talking about it. It`s not a card trick at all. It`s a logical thing to do when there`s nothing else to add.
I`m sorry if it`s confusing
phantom [30945. Posted 6-May-2016 Fri 06:06]
We best stop talking about it.
Not because you`re `tired` of debating it. (That`s one of those debating card tricks.)
But because by talking about it, we`re advertising the issue yet further - according to your logic.
I worry how many paedophiles we`ve sparked off with this exchange alone.
Unless of course words do not hold magic powers...
But as you say, we`ll agree to differ.
braintree [30944. Posted 3-May-2016 Tue 13:04]
This will be my last comment on this as I can`t be arsed to go round in circles.
I didn`t say that people were turned into paedophiles. I suggested that people with the inclination who may not have gone in search of the material may have actively started searching because of the media overload on the subject. There is a difference between someone who simply downloads images and someone who goes out and abuses children in reality. The latter are a lost cause because they cannot control their sexual preferences.
The person who downloads images / videos has the interest but like many other "normal" people has the will and intelligence not to act out their fantasies even though they are already committing an offence with the downloads.
I suggest there are an unknown number of people who search out the material who may not have done had the subject not been constantly in the news for who knows how long.
While all the news stories will paint the subject in a negative way it becomes an advert letting people know the content is out there.
We shall agree to differ
phantom [30943. Posted 3-May-2016 Tue 04:46]
I`m currently reading a very insightful book on censorship.
The Anatomy of Censorship by Prof Harry White
I assure you it`s a very interesting read.
In the book the author repeatedly points to the self-proclaimed use
of so called `common sense` by censors.
Time and again evidence is not needed to support
the idea of censorship. Not even in court.
Instead it is claimed that people intuitively `know`.
We simply `know` material causes harm, even though we can`t prove it.
We simply `know` of effects though we can`t say how or why.
This is where I see the parallel to your position.
You claim it`s something everyone knows. That it`s obvious.
It`s not evidential. It`s just common sense...
Can you see where I`m coming from?
phantom [30942. Posted 2-May-2016 Mon 13:43]
So if it is not an assumption, what is it?
Whence comes this certainty of yours?
There is no data to support it. So it cannot be factual.
Surely it must be an assumption. Else, name it.
Movies affect us. Certainly.
They can make us weep or cheer. That is an effect.
But that does not mean they have any significant lasting effect on our personality – or our sexuality.
As for advertisements. Again, it may help shift hamburgers. That said, again the science isn`t clear.
But what advertisement lays absolutely no claim to is changing the consumer himself.
Advertisers neither seek, nor claim to be able to change the basic personality and drives of their audience.
So, your claim that hearing news about paedophilia having the power to turn people into paedophiles remains a great leap.
The idea that some subset of inferior people can somehow be infected by an idea through some bizarre, unspecified means of osmosis is the great myth of censorship.
Taking a complete unknown like paedophilia and just attaching media exposure as the complete explanation for the subject is one of the classic methodologies of the censorship industry.
It`s very tempting to reach for such explanations.
But replacing unknowns with assumptions is not a true explanation.
Academics on the subject like to state that censors are not actually wary of the content, but the audience. The history of censorship is full of colourful examples of how some group must be prevented from seeing this or not, lest it be corrupted.
Painting a picture of mindless drones sitting at home, minding their own business, who can be `switched on` and become something dangerous has all the classic hallmarks of a censorial fantasy.
braintree [30941. Posted 2-May-2016 Mon 12:46]
Re The Mary Millington Story.
Seemed odd to show it on London Live before the dvd release when the dvd was £19.99 but just a bit before the release the price dropped to £9.99. Far more reasonable and a price I`m happy to pay to avoid ads and get better quality than Freeview.
braintree [30940. Posted 2-May-2016 Mon 12:40]
"The fact that there are some vulnerable people with inclinations who can be switched on by hearing or seeing something is – again – an assumption."
I think even the most anti censorship amongst us will agree that it is far from being an assumption. While the exact triggers remain unknown I think it has been a fact for many decades although the BBFC and the authorities will exaggerate any stats to back themselves up.
If what we watch didn`t affect us in some way then porn movies wouldn`t be a billion dollar business and nobody would advertise.
phantom [30939. Posted 1-May-2016 Sun 14:26]
I`ve heard words like words like `inclined` and `vulnerable` a great many times.
The entire art of censoriousness is based on a lack of precision.
Nobody ever provides detail on how corruption is supposed to occur, to whom it is supposed to occur, or what exact harm it is supposed to do.
We`re simply told that by some mystical process some `vulnerable people` can be done `harm` by material which falls within vague parameters.
The fact that there are some vulnerable people with inclinations who can be switched on by hearing or seeing something is – again – an assumption.
Truth is, we don`t know how anyone ends up a paedophile.
But it is by no means `obvious` that they reside in our societies as harmless sleepers until some random event switches them on.
And if we were to buy into this assumption, would it really suffice simply to expose such people to the news on paedophilia alone? That again is an assumption. And a rather thin one.
In fact we do not know at all how people are swung toward any particular leaning.
How does one become a more left or right leaning individual on political matters? An environmentalist? A feminist?
Is it really just a matter of having been exposed to sufficient media coverage or literature? Or is something else going on?
With something as fundamental as sexuality, the questions become labyrinthine. Way back in very early childhood things may or may have not been of influence. Relations with parents or siblings may play a part. Or not. We are grasping in the dark.
But how likely is it that what was on the six o`clock news plays a part in someone becoming a paedophile?
The influence of media is continually overstated.
Everlastingly we are told that all – or possibly just some few – are helpless dupes when exposed to media. It apparently it tells us to overeat as well as to starve ourselves. It makes us apathetic as well as hyper-aggressive...
Meanwhile, every political party claims that the media is pumping out poison which favours their opposition. `The people` would see sense, if only it wasn`t for the media`s lying...
But in the end we always comes back to the same point.
Nobody has ever demonstrated how this mystical influence upon our personal views, psyche and sexuality is supposed to really occur.
It is always assumed.
But the assumption is made in order to explain something which is not understood.
We do not know how anyone becomes a paedophile.
But we know the media can make paedophiles out of those who have prior inclinations.
We do not know how the media does it. We do not know how the prior inclinations come about.
In fact we do not know anything about this subject except that it is the media which can switch some people on.
Does that really sound credible?
braintree [30938. Posted 1-May-2016 Sun 13:34]
The person would need to be that way inclined to start with obviously. The media has become a huge advert for kiddie porn and those leaning that way will make the effort required to find it.
We even get a breakdown of the different categories of content.
And I agree with the BBFC`s view about people with vulnerable minds. Where me and the BBFC disagree is I don`t think the 99.9% of the population who are "normal" need censorship because of a tiny minority.
I`m not saying we should curtail coverage of kiddie porn I was simply commenting that there are bound to be people out there , however small the number who`s interest is piqued by the media overload. Seems obvious that there are.
phantom [30937. Posted 30-Apr-2016 Sat 15:23]
Have you ever felt the urge to indulge in viewing child porn because of the extensive coverage of the problem in the media?
I know I have not. I very much doubt you ever have.
Thus, if your theory does not apply to us, then to whom does it apply?
Referring to some hypothetical 0.0001% is little more than a stab in the dark, isn`t it?
Who would these people be who are corrupted by hearing news; so much so they ought to be protected from news coverage on certain subjects?
It has a ring to it of that famous old adage by the BBFC of protecting those adults with `vulnerable minds`.
But if exposure to media coverage on child porn can produce paedophiles, then where does this theory end?
Does following the current anti-semitism brouhaha surrounding Ken Livingstone and the Labour Party make anyone become more prone to anti-semitism?
How does reading about a subject or viewing an audio visual piece on a subject make one more inclined to corrupt as an individual on any matter?
In what way does exposure to ideas, concepts and fictions increase any tendencies within us?
To hark back to your example; car accidents. We know car accidents happen. We know how they come about. We know how car accidents damage traffic users and pedestrians. We understand the function and interconnection of the processes of an accident.
But does the fact that young women see many slender fashion models really make them more likely to be anorexic?
If so, how? Why? By what process?
It is not comparable to a car accident. Because the link is entirely an assumption.
(See Okham`s Razor)
The connection between various people hearing certain stories and developing an interest in the subjects covered within those stories may appear intuitive to some – but as you can see with me, it does not to others.
There is no immediate logic which points to hearing about something and then wishing to partake in it.
I will grant you that, if you do not know something exists, you cannot possibly wish for it.
Therefore basic knowledge precedes desire. That much is agreed.
But just because people know there is a brick wall, does it mean someone will seek to run into it, assault it or rub their genitals up against it?
There is just no inevitability in that at all.
You will forgive the further reductio ad absurdum:
St Paul`s Cathedral exists. We know it exists. Over time it has been glorified in articles. Paintings have been completed. Books have been written about it. It even played a stirring part in the Blitz. Documentaries have been made about it. But so far, to my knowledge, no one has tried to mate with it – despite the media coverage.
Thus it would be hard to argue that extended media coverage about St Paul`s Cathedral would increase the likeliness of someone developing a sexual interest in it.
Not even among 0.0001% of the population.
Now, I know I`m being facetious. But you will grant me there is more than a grain of truth in it.
For us to suppose that hearing about or seeing something can corrupt us there must be more than a mere assumption that this corruption might be possible.
`Might` is just not good enough.
There is nothing to suggest that it can happen.
You are connecting two dots. `Hearing of` and `desiring`.
But you do so not because there is any inherently logical reason to so. Instead your intuition alone leads you to conclude this.
This intuition however derives from your private assumptions.
You are perfectly free to make these assumptions. I cannot prove them wrong. - One cannot prove a negative.
But you`ll equally need to grant me that there is nothing – other than private intuition – which inherently connects hearing of paedophilia in the media with having an interest in paedophilia.
Sorry for this being a long one.
But I think folk will appreciate why I go on so about these points.
Thus far I`ve seen plenty of gay kisses on tv. Though I`m still not interested....
braintree [30936. Posted 30-Apr-2016 Sat 12:40]
Tens of thousands maybe an exaggeration but I am certain there are followers of the subject who would otherwise never have taken an interest if not for the subjects constant presence in the media.
The censors are right to a certain extent. It is obvious that what we watch and see influences us but the majority of people are intelligent enough to know that grabbing a gun to solve your problems is not ideal.Nor is any kind of violence , but those examples always have consequences. I think for a lot of followers of kiddie porn they take the risk that there will be no consequences - that is they won`t get caught. If they take a gun and go and kill someone there are immediate consequences. If they view porn there are none. If they download it to keep they take the risk there will be none. And if there are any they may be years down the road. The censors are basically correct but where they go wrong is asking for things to be suppressed from everybody for the sake of the 0.0001% who might genuinely be affected enough to take action. It would be like banning cars from the road because of the daily accidents where people die. People do die in cars every day but the percentage is tiny.
phantom [30935. Posted 30-Apr-2016 Sat 05:27]
I`m actually not all too sure that media attention has helped `normalise` paedophilia for people who would otherwise never have heard of it.
Neither do I think that media`s focus on paedophilia piqued people`s curiosity.
In fact if ever-presence in media could influence people in that way, then the censors would be correct. We would need to keep bad things – even ideas and concepts - out of the media to prevent them influencing people.
Because if, as you suggest, the mere mention of paedophilia has created `perhaps tens of thousands` of paedophiles, then being exposed to bad ideas does indeed do harm.
I fundamentally believe that this is not the case.
I do however agree that over-representation of the problem of paedophilia in the British media (and political discourse) has helped foster an atmosphere of paranoia within society because it has granted the problem much greater prominence than it deserves.
braintree [30934. Posted 29-Apr-2016 Fri 13:34]
The stories about child abuse images continue. And I do wonder if the authorities had refrained from making the UK a country where men stay away from parks for fear of being labelled as paedophiles whether the problem would be reduced. Foreigners sometimes comment on the UK obsession with paedophiles and you have to think if they`d just shut the hell up about it 20 years ago whether it would have remained a niche interest for some rather than giving it publicity nobody could ever pay for on such a regular basis that there are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of people who now have an interest in the subject who would never have given it a second thought were it not in the public eye on a permanent basis. The IWF report proves it`s a losing battle so why keep advertising the subject? Being able to take down the content in only the UK is surely a waste of time when presumably other countries can provide it.
Melon Farmers (Dave) [30933. Posted 29-Apr-2016 Fri 05:00]
The concept of political correctness seems to be some form of extreme politeness enforced by a lynch mob. However the lynch mob doesn`t seem very good at graduating its demands. Any perceived sleight, no matter how small is considered up for mob punishment. The lack of a minimal tolerance limit seems to mean that absolutely anything can be conceived as un-PC... and rather leaves the ultimate outcome that the only acceptable behaviour is absolute silence.
phantom [30932. Posted 28-Apr-2016 Thu 17:56]
Since I`m at it... :)
Here`s another one I just stumbled across.
Sure, I`m a year late with this one but it`s a beautiful article by Brendan O`Neill for the Spectator.
I wonder why I myself never spotted the similarity between the two yellow bikini poster attacks. Beautiful. Enjoy.
phantom [30931. Posted 28-Apr-2016 Thu 04:35]
The latest microaggression to `harrass` the snowflake generation on the tube:
Not to be outdone by tube passengers the student unions also ponder matters of severe gravity; i.e. whether to censor the net or not to preserve their `safe space`:
goatboy [30930. Posted 24-Apr-2016 Sun 15:46]
On the subject of Erdogan, noted Dutch comic Hans Teeuwen was in take no prisoners mode on the subject- http://www.chortle.co.uk/news/2016/04/19/24691/hans_teeuwen:_president_erdogan_was_a_%E2%80%98boywhore
Melon Farmers (Dave) [30929. Posted 24-Apr-2016 Sun 06:15]
I just downloaded the VPN system and it works fine on Windows 7. An excellent facility