channonyarrow (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
channonyarrow) wrote2008-04-22 04:08 pm
channonyarrow) wrote2008-04-22 04:08 pm
Entry tags:
Censorship
You know what?
You can say anything you want. You can espouse any belief you want, you can argue anything you want, you can be a total nutbar, you can be a Nazi, you can be a furry. You can even be a nutbar Nazi furry. If I disagree with you, I don't really think that I have the right to censor you - because you still get the right to your opinion, and me censoring you isn't going to change your mind. It is, in fact, quite likely to cement it even further into your head.
And yes, I do feel more strongly about censorship than I do about pretty much anything else. I feel a lot more strongly about it, in fact, than I do about politics, knowledge, awareness, or the Open Source Boob Project. I will defend your right to fuck up your life in many interesting and varied ways; I will never, ever support you if you choose to censor others.
That's my line in the sand. Censorship is wrong; there is no justification for it whatsoever.*
There is absolutely no justification for it on LJ unless both parties have agreed that a comment thread was mutually non-beneficial and both chosen to delete it. Choosing to leave the parts of the conversation that make one party look rude and deleting the parts where they were tripping over themselves to apologise is amazingly, breathtakingly rude.
*With, since I'm grammar-nazi-ing elsewhere, the exception of harmful speech, such as shouting fire in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. That's not censorship - that's harming others, which is something to be prevented at number one, on my priority list.
ETA: You know what else? When I was in college, I had a teacher who recounted the times he'd won arguments about his "hippie ways" by pointing out that not only did he fight in Korea, he'd volunteered, and he'd become partially disabled as a result - that that somehow gave him a free pass to criticise America.
This is not a true statement. Anyone has a free pass to criticise America. You and I and everyone else have a responsibility to decide what criteria we want to place on who we care to listen to critique it, but that doesn't mean that someone can't critique. And saying that someone can critique because they have volunteered to be part of the US military during a war but they couldn't if they hadn't is wrong.
That doesn't mean that my teacher didn't volunteer: that meant that my teacher did not walk into arguments saying "Well, this is wrong and this is wrong and that's wrong, and by the way, I fought in Korea, motherfucker," and expected to win. What I really don't like about the OSBP, aside from how it's taken over my flist, how it's only "okay" to feel one way about it (and I dislike![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
theferrett's retraction of the post and project from that standpoint), and how it's directly led to me being censored which pisses me off, is the fact that I could win some of these arguments if I said "Yeah, yeah, you think I don't know that women can get groped on the street by primitive screwhead assholes, but I've been groped by random strangers (and nearly broke my leg falling over in surprise), I've been whistled at by ill-mannered pigs, and I have been raped," but I can't win them by saying "Look, all I want you to acknowledge is that by phrasing what you have in that language, you're saying that I don't have the right to choose what happens to my body."
What's more fucked up here? The OSBP or the fact that's revealing really, really deeply-entrenched reflexive overcorrection of politically-correct behaviour from intelligent people who should know better than to say that no woman should be touched like that because the person saying that doesn't want to be?
What if I said I did, assuming my total control of the situation, and my right to refuse even if I said I wasn't averse to being asked the question? Does that make me not worth your support and protection and care because I don't see my body the same way you do? Would you refuse my support and protection and care because I don't march in step with you?
Why are you trying to protect me when I don't know that I want to be protected like that? I want people to see the difference between two things:
- Politeness and the Law argue that no one is touched without their consent. No one. I firmly, and wholeheartedly, and even violently, believe and affirm this.
- Choice argues that I get to decide what happens to me, and everyone running around making blanket statements about how no woman should be touched like this has made my choice for me: I now cannot make the decision that I would be intrigued to be asked that question without, evidently, abrogating my right to consider myself a woman.
I cannot possibly be the only person who sees the distinction here.
If you say that "No woman should be touched like that (implying the OSBP) without her consent", that follows politeness, the law, and choice, and is absolutely what will have me cheering you on for. If you say that "No woman should be touched like that (implying the OSBP)," that only follows politeness and the law, and does not acknowledge my right to choose.
Oh the irony of it, that we as good liberals have finally overcorrected the Right To Choose so far that there is no right to choose. When did we become Republicans?
What I believe - and I will defend you for it - is that you, me, all of us, we all have the right to choose, and there is nothing whatsoever about the right to choose, in any circumstance, that says your choice has to follow the law. The law says that, in America, abortion is legal (broadly speaking). I may or may not agree with that law, but I can make a choice that allows my morality to not infringe on your morality. The law says that, in America, homicide is illegal (broadly speaking). I may or may not choose to murder, but I can make a choice without needing it to fit the law (though if I don't, I run the risk of punishment). The law says that the speedlimit is 70 mph near where I live; nothing in the law compels me not to drive over that speed, though I admit, again, that I run risks.
The law says that no one has to put up with being touched in ways they find unwelcome. I can still make a choice that allows the law to stand and does not abrogate your right or my right or anyone else's right to choose differently under specific circumstances.
The point is not that it is women whose breasts are primarily being focused on here, not for me. The point is not that, clearly, men are all asshole pigdogs who just want to touch boobies and not one of them has the sense or socialisation god gave a goat, so the OSBP is just an invitation to rape, and will concomitantly increase the number of rapists in the population. The point is not even that I feel that our culture is overly non-touch-oriented, with bad results, and that destigmatising some things, with consent offered, may improve life for us all.
The point is that there are plenty of people out there willing to take away my right to choose because they don't agree with one side of the choice. I don't agree with "wet" reservations because of harm to residents; do I have the right to use my Caucasian access to power to decree that all reservations will now be "dry"?
No. I think we all can agree that I do not, not even if it is to prevent harm to a group of people I don't represent. You have to make that choice for yourself. I will support your choice to the extent of my ability: I will never, ever let you avoid making it.
You can say anything you want. You can espouse any belief you want, you can argue anything you want, you can be a total nutbar, you can be a Nazi, you can be a furry. You can even be a nutbar Nazi furry. If I disagree with you, I don't really think that I have the right to censor you - because you still get the right to your opinion, and me censoring you isn't going to change your mind. It is, in fact, quite likely to cement it even further into your head.
And yes, I do feel more strongly about censorship than I do about pretty much anything else. I feel a lot more strongly about it, in fact, than I do about politics, knowledge, awareness, or the Open Source Boob Project. I will defend your right to fuck up your life in many interesting and varied ways; I will never, ever support you if you choose to censor others.
That's my line in the sand. Censorship is wrong; there is no justification for it whatsoever.*
There is absolutely no justification for it on LJ unless both parties have agreed that a comment thread was mutually non-beneficial and both chosen to delete it. Choosing to leave the parts of the conversation that make one party look rude and deleting the parts where they were tripping over themselves to apologise is amazingly, breathtakingly rude.
*With, since I'm grammar-nazi-ing elsewhere, the exception of harmful speech, such as shouting fire in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. That's not censorship - that's harming others, which is something to be prevented at number one, on my priority list.
ETA: You know what else? When I was in college, I had a teacher who recounted the times he'd won arguments about his "hippie ways" by pointing out that not only did he fight in Korea, he'd volunteered, and he'd become partially disabled as a result - that that somehow gave him a free pass to criticise America.
This is not a true statement. Anyone has a free pass to criticise America. You and I and everyone else have a responsibility to decide what criteria we want to place on who we care to listen to critique it, but that doesn't mean that someone can't critique. And saying that someone can critique because they have volunteered to be part of the US military during a war but they couldn't if they hadn't is wrong.
That doesn't mean that my teacher didn't volunteer: that meant that my teacher did not walk into arguments saying "Well, this is wrong and this is wrong and that's wrong, and by the way, I fought in Korea, motherfucker," and expected to win. What I really don't like about the OSBP, aside from how it's taken over my flist, how it's only "okay" to feel one way about it (and I dislike
theferrett's retraction of the post and project from that standpoint), and how it's directly led to me being censored which pisses me off, is the fact that I could win some of these arguments if I said "Yeah, yeah, you think I don't know that women can get groped on the street by primitive screwhead assholes, but I've been groped by random strangers (and nearly broke my leg falling over in surprise), I've been whistled at by ill-mannered pigs, and I have been raped," but I can't win them by saying "Look, all I want you to acknowledge is that by phrasing what you have in that language, you're saying that I don't have the right to choose what happens to my body."What's more fucked up here? The OSBP or the fact that's revealing really, really deeply-entrenched reflexive overcorrection of politically-correct behaviour from intelligent people who should know better than to say that no woman should be touched like that because the person saying that doesn't want to be?
What if I said I did, assuming my total control of the situation, and my right to refuse even if I said I wasn't averse to being asked the question? Does that make me not worth your support and protection and care because I don't see my body the same way you do? Would you refuse my support and protection and care because I don't march in step with you?
Why are you trying to protect me when I don't know that I want to be protected like that? I want people to see the difference between two things:
- Politeness and the Law argue that no one is touched without their consent. No one. I firmly, and wholeheartedly, and even violently, believe and affirm this.
- Choice argues that I get to decide what happens to me, and everyone running around making blanket statements about how no woman should be touched like this has made my choice for me: I now cannot make the decision that I would be intrigued to be asked that question without, evidently, abrogating my right to consider myself a woman.
I cannot possibly be the only person who sees the distinction here.
If you say that "No woman should be touched like that (implying the OSBP) without her consent", that follows politeness, the law, and choice, and is absolutely what will have me cheering you on for. If you say that "No woman should be touched like that (implying the OSBP)," that only follows politeness and the law, and does not acknowledge my right to choose.
Oh the irony of it, that we as good liberals have finally overcorrected the Right To Choose so far that there is no right to choose. When did we become Republicans?
What I believe - and I will defend you for it - is that you, me, all of us, we all have the right to choose, and there is nothing whatsoever about the right to choose, in any circumstance, that says your choice has to follow the law. The law says that, in America, abortion is legal (broadly speaking). I may or may not agree with that law, but I can make a choice that allows my morality to not infringe on your morality. The law says that, in America, homicide is illegal (broadly speaking). I may or may not choose to murder, but I can make a choice without needing it to fit the law (though if I don't, I run the risk of punishment). The law says that the speedlimit is 70 mph near where I live; nothing in the law compels me not to drive over that speed, though I admit, again, that I run risks.
The law says that no one has to put up with being touched in ways they find unwelcome. I can still make a choice that allows the law to stand and does not abrogate your right or my right or anyone else's right to choose differently under specific circumstances.
The point is not that it is women whose breasts are primarily being focused on here, not for me. The point is not that, clearly, men are all asshole pigdogs who just want to touch boobies and not one of them has the sense or socialisation god gave a goat, so the OSBP is just an invitation to rape, and will concomitantly increase the number of rapists in the population. The point is not even that I feel that our culture is overly non-touch-oriented, with bad results, and that destigmatising some things, with consent offered, may improve life for us all.
The point is that there are plenty of people out there willing to take away my right to choose because they don't agree with one side of the choice. I don't agree with "wet" reservations because of harm to residents; do I have the right to use my Caucasian access to power to decree that all reservations will now be "dry"?
No. I think we all can agree that I do not, not even if it is to prevent harm to a group of people I don't represent. You have to make that choice for yourself. I will support your choice to the extent of my ability: I will never, ever let you avoid making it.
no subject
That aside: I agree with what you've said here completely, about touch experiments, choice, and space, though I will quibble and add that, at cons, there's a whole lot that goes on that I, personally, disagree with, but running through a con and shouting "OMG FURRIES" is not likely to get me any friends; I do have a very, uh, laissez-faire view of things that are not directly infringing on me, and I own that; if I don't want to see it, I can look away and not be bothered by it, and other peoples' mileage varies.
But away from that post - which I did not read the comments of, and have only reacted to where other people have reacted in their journals - I have been attacked, a lot, for saying that, see, this language shuts out people who have said yes, and that's not okay. So it's fair to say I'm not even really reacting to the OSBP any more, so much as I'm reacting to the people who want to see it quashed and all
All because I'm asking people to realise the irony of saying "No woman can be touched like that, blanket generalisation." Where is that different from "No woman can have an abortion, end of conversation"?
Which is not to say that I am attacking you with that, or saying that you're not saying that - I'm sorry, I do tend to overexplain online, because I'm never sure I got my point across, so I'm probably making you nuts by droning on - or even that I don't agree with you, just that I'm coming from a slightly different place about all of this, I think, by not having looked at the original post's comments. Hell, I'm not even saying I agree with the OSBP or that I would say yes if asked; just that I want people to realise that a whole lot of them are speaking in terms that, if a man, particularly, say, John McCain, used, they'd be calling for his blood.
no subject
Having said that, I find the statement "no woman can be touched like that" absolutely outrageous. WTF and who elected whoever said that arbiter of who touches my tits? My tits are mine and I am the only person who gets to say who touches them (absent prior agreements I made). If the goddamn PC patrol doesn't like who I permit to touch my tits, they can kiss my lily-white Texas ass.
I don't doubt that you're running into this, but it's totally outside the discussions I'm seeing about the issue.
no subject
I think that there's a lot of confusion, actually, of that harassment and the OSBP, which is not to say that it might not be warranted; again, if it were implemented, it should be regulated by the participants to a fare-thee-well, but it got to a point in that original post that I felt that the poster was pretty much saying "All men are assholes and don't have the decency, none of them, to even understand the concepts here, let alone ask a question." And I dislike that sort of broad-spectrum generalisation, whether about sex, gender, race, creed, colour, etc, in all things. It was a recipe made for disaster.
I also count myself pretty blessed, when I'm not bummed out by it, that I'm not a target for social-sexual interaction, whether harassment, which is not something I'm saying I need more of in my life - just that people don't harass me because a) I'm ugly, and b) I could eat everyone alive in one bite, I'm that damn tall - or not; no one flirts with me, either, and that part of me doesn't work at all, doesn't know how to deal, which probably goes a fair way to explaining why this hasn't bothered me in some specific ways. I mean, yes, I've been treated exactly as I claimed in my post, I wouldn't lie about that, but I haven't been consistently treated that way by any means, so maybe I come at the whole idea too tolerantly, but it's still my right to choose, and everyone else's right to choose, and when choice is abrogated by another person is when I blow up.
no subject
I know a lot of very decent men (including the one I married) who think the OSBP idea stinks except among close friends and can explain why in ways that don't include "all men suck". The well is poisoned so badly for a lot of women that it doesn't take all men sucking to ruin a con. It takes a small number of aggressive men who don't abide by the OSBP rules, and, sadly it's highly likely that there will be guys like that at a con with 1000 people.
Naturally the topic is going to attract a lot of attention from women because we're more likely to get groped. But guys have an investment too, and not just in enjoying touching boobs. When I said to my husband, "This is the kind of thing that makes me not want to go to cons," he was unhappy because he wants me to think of congoing as fun (the way it has been for him) and not scary (where random men may ask to touch my tits the way the OP talked about at ConFusion in the first post).
And the fact that in grad school, I was the cute girl who worked in the comics/gaming shop and effectively putting up with their skeeviness was part of my job colors my take. So does the fact that I was raised Southern enough to not make a huge fuss and be ladylike, and that in the past I have failed to belt guys who got out of line even when they really needed it. I want the presumptive public choice on boob-grabbing to be loudly NO, so women who aren't comfortable saying that NO don't have to be groped because their permission was assumed.
no subject
Ergh, oh god.
Yeah, I work with geeks now, and...I love my job, but sometimes they don't get it. Like, my boss is a complete sweetheart most of the time, but when he's talking about women who have power over him, it's...kind of scary. He's not overtly sexist about it, but if you know what you're listening for, he really is. And a lot of the guys in my department have no idea what to do with a woman; I'm just glad that I'm not in a position of public exposure for this con, because I'd be up on assault charges by the end of the month.
So, you know, you're right. When people are coming from that level of social retardation that they might think it's okay to actively just grab someone without asking (or even knowing them) then the OSBP isn't a good idea, and the water was pissed in the moment it was posted. I just - I want everyone to win the pony, okay, I want everyone to have everything they want to be come true, I want everyone to tell people who say "You can't be a doctor, you're poor and don't speak English," to fuck off and die and then go out and become the best damn doctor ever just to prove them wrong. And part of that weirdly fundamental optimism is this: whatever behaviour people display, most of them are not bad people. Most of them could learn to be good, erudite, kind people. Most of them are not so broken they can't be fixed.
And I kind of wished I lived in that world already, and forgot that really, where I'm at is better than a lot of people even in my country have it, in terms of respect they receive from "the man on the street", and that the things I don't like about myself are the things that keep me "safe".
But as far as I'm concerned, you have the choice to hand someone their ass if they behave badly again, and I personally think you should take it. *g*
no subject
Put that attitude together with moving OSBP into general conspace and you have real problems.
no subject
Seriously, I absolutely hate that justification.