Author Topic: Chomsky on Pornography  (Read 429 times)

*Z* - The Queen of Dubcc

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 864
  • Karma: 470
  • "u gotta give respect to get respect"
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #15 on: August 15, 2008, 11:56:06 AM »
Z, you used an *example of porn that degrades women to get your point across (logical fallacy, any chomsky fan should be aware of that)

but you know that the genre "porn" has hundreds of sub genres, not all degrading to women. What about gay porn?


Quote
(men of course too.my bad i focused too much on women)

ive never said you guys are wrong. i just expressed my opinion on this matter. as i said, im not trying to fight or prevent pornography, i just cant identify with it and see a danger of abuse in this biz, so its nothing i can support- and thats basically what chomsky says as well. you just takin him out of context, you must see how framing the questions of the interviewer are. and i also dont think i belong to the people who deny sexuality. not at all. the way it is portrayed in movies is okay for me either. i just cant favour porn that denigrades a man/woman semiotically.
"I grew up on the chill-side, the no-big-deal-side, staying alive was no problem"
[J-Live]

 

J Bananas

  • Guest
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #16 on: August 15, 2008, 12:03:18 PM »
Amateur pornography that gets heavily dispelled throughout the internet and lot's of people see it, is that alright? Afterall it's two people who already know each other and have feelings, and there is no seedy undertow since it's non business.
My only point here Z is that the word "pornography" encompasses so many different styles and methods and genres, that blanket statements just don't feel right to me.
I'm a huge Chomsky fan, and his writing on linguistic and logical fallacies has continued to change my words in every day conversation, but it seems like on this on he was kind of being hypocritical, and it doesn't seem right for someone to co-sign him this time.
 

*Z* - The Queen of Dubcc

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 864
  • Karma: 470
  • "u gotta give respect to get respect"
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #17 on: August 15, 2008, 12:16:35 PM »

My only point here Z is that the word "pornography" encompasses so many different styles and methods and genres, that blanket statements just don't feel right to me.


Quote
i cant favour porn that denigrades a man/woman
"I grew up on the chill-side, the no-big-deal-side, staying alive was no problem"
[J-Live]

 

J Bananas

  • Guest
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #18 on: August 15, 2008, 12:20:59 PM »
aiiiiiiiiiigghhhhhht
 

*Z* - The Queen of Dubcc

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 864
  • Karma: 470
  • "u gotta give respect to get respect"
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #19 on: August 15, 2008, 12:37:51 PM »
 ;)
"I grew up on the chill-side, the no-big-deal-side, staying alive was no problem"
[J-Live]

 

Turf Hitta

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 3374
  • Karma: 13
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #20 on: August 15, 2008, 01:40:13 PM »
The "degradation of women" argument never made sense to me. First, they are there because they want to be and they are for the most part all doing things they already do. Is it degrading if I get some head from my woman and then fuck her in multiple positions? What if we film it? And why is nobody taking issue with the way men are viewed as sex objects on these very same videos? Where is the "PORN DEGRADES MEN!!" crowds bitching about it? Sounds like a double standard.
 

7even

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 11289
  • Karma: -679
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #21 on: August 15, 2008, 03:48:17 PM »
ive never said you guys are wrong.

excuse me, but yes youre wrong

Huh?

Quote
i cant favour porn that denigrades a man/woman

Oh really? So now we limit it; depending on type of porn, just what I said in my very first post, that you boldly argued against.... don't we?

How is regular pornography humiliation and degradation of women? I'm serious, I don't understand why people feel this way. Of course there are types of porn that obviously are that way, but I never, ever was able to understand how normal porn in principle is considered to be just that.

becuz it seriously is just that. i mean what else are the women who perform in pornographical videos or photos? they are simply sex objects. nobody who is sane and realizes that women are humanbeings can be in favour of that. these women are used, most of them are too naive, in need of money or/and ignorant to realize that aint that reason enough to be against pornography?
-for me it is

That is, with all due respect, completely delusional. Not all women are like you (want to be), get over it.
ok stop catching feelings...youre right if you say that there are pornstars who do it "out of choice/pleasure"and in my opinion it is humiliation, if you sell your body, well its just the way i see it and thats why im not in favour of that biz.
as u admitted and this is my primary concern that there are women(men of course too.my bad i focused too much on women)teenagers etc who get abused in this business and in my oppinion this business calls for it. chomsky may seem very conservative in this regard and may not have a lot to do with pornography but i understand where he is coming from and why he doesnt support it. im not in favour of forbidding this or fighting against it either-we live in a free society dont we`? but im concerned about the im pact it socially and culturally has.

How am I catching feelings.. I've been polite, lady. Maybe I should have put a "them" between "want" and "to", but I liked the ambiguity  :D



I agree with the men in this thread  ;)
Cause I don't care where I belong no more
What we share or not I will ignore
And I won't waste my time fitting in
Cause I don't think contrast is a sin
No, it's not a sin
 

*Z* - The Queen of Dubcc

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 864
  • Karma: 470
  • "u gotta give respect to get respect"
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #22 on: August 16, 2008, 12:35:52 AM »
ok first you took things completely out of context quoting me, somewhat this is typical to this forum.

Quote
excuse me, but yes youre wrong

*being used for something wasnt meant as being used in general
but being used for very low reasons:
those are:
a) putting men socially and culturally on a highler level: as someone who has control
over the woman. (...)

excuse me but
Quote
yes youre wrong
was a response to you saying: excuse me if im wrong but are these the points of your argument?
--> my "you are wrong" refered to the arguments you listed as my arguments like: "women dont have any free will" etc.


okay there are two points i argued: (next time i have an argument with you i will structure it and add footnotes)

-Pornography is to me overall degrading, becuz in my opinion (that is FOR ME PERSONALLY) it is degrading to be semiotically turned into a sex-object and robbed of humanity publically

-my second point is critisizing the entire business (im not talking about amateur videos, cuz this falls under my first point)
 which promotes an image of a woman as sex-objects (in some gay-porn the image of a man most likely too, but you must admit that porn with women as the central objects is more wide spread)
 which leads in its business competition to slavery and humen-trade in some areas of this world.
thats what i feel negative about. thats why i DONT SUPPORT the pornographical business.

of course you agree with the men in this thread becuz this is the generally accepted point of view which is unsurprisingly encouraged by this business.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2008, 12:38:32 AM by *Z* - The Queen of Dubcc »
"I grew up on the chill-side, the no-big-deal-side, staying alive was no problem"
[J-Live]

 

Australian Bastard

  • Guest
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #23 on: August 16, 2008, 02:53:26 AM »
 Dammit why dosn't anybody read my shit!!? Me. Me. Me. Me.
 

7even

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 11289
  • Karma: -679
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #24 on: August 16, 2008, 03:54:57 AM »
Z, if porn is always degrading to you, why would you say "you can't be in favour of porn that degrades people" ... That's like saying "I can't stand water that is wet"

Anyways... since you categorically label all porn degrading; this is no longer up for debate anymore... as in saying, if, to me, all porn was that way I wouldn't be in favour of it either. Since it's not, I am. But since you won't put the question whether it is or isn't up for debate anymore, I'm done talking.

Dammit why dosn't anybody read my shit!!? Me. Me. Me. Me.

I read your shit, what makes you think that I didn't? I simply won't quote such a long post and say "I basically agree"... well anyways, here's something I don't entirely agree with, since you asked for it:

Quote
Chomsky is being positive in his analysis, that is; descriptive (he would have zero academic credibility otherwise and would not be employed at any university if he just preached normative babble).


Now, in third world countries, the choices faced for women at low end of the economic demographic is either sweat-shop or sex-trade (voluntarily but more often than not, involuntarily). And the fact is its desperation out of poverty.

Another fact is:

The UNICEF estimates every child on the PLANET could be fed, housed, clothed and educated and kept WELL for $30 billion to $40 billion (US dollars) more than is currently being spent.


Incidentally,


In 2002 the US military budget amounted to $379 billion (US dollars). Chalmers Johnson estimates $1 trilllion for fiscal year 2008.





"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have too much...
...it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."

- Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Well, you are a nice guy and give this old nigga the benefit of the doubt. I, however, do think that he in fact would think it be a great thing to do; bettering the conditions and shit.
I mean one question is "How should we..." isn't that as normative as it can get?
First, it is of course incredibly ignorant to act as if porn was only produced in third world countries. You can't be serious.
Next, you can't solve structural problems with individual goody-good doing.
Also, if you dispise sweat shops, porn, prostitution and shit, what is your solution to make thise conditions better? White people giving them mad scrilla? Is that your solution to all the problems in the world? Ridiculous.
This guy is so self-righteous that I almost feel like breaking his face. Comparing porn stars to starving children in slums who get abused in exchange for food. How is that smart?


The overall tactic that is used here is to simply pick the worst of the worst, then compare it to something that is completely different and a lot worse. Overall, the third world is simply a terrible place. It's no surprise that things like the sex business are terrible over there. That, however, is no argument that videos like the one I linked are disgraceful and inhuman or something.

« Last Edit: August 16, 2008, 04:08:17 AM by 7even »
Cause I don't care where I belong no more
What we share or not I will ignore
And I won't waste my time fitting in
Cause I don't think contrast is a sin
No, it's not a sin
 

Australian Bastard

  • Guest
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #25 on: August 16, 2008, 05:48:41 AM »
^I was just fuckin wit chall, I was just confused about what PIFF TANNEN said about how we shouldn't co-sign the dude so I had to go watch the video myself, but I still essentially agree with the old dude; he's just getting muddled as is with old age (your metabolism will change too someday young man!)




First of all, Noam Chomsky is an old ass dude and naturally he is conservative about sexuality and the display of pornography.

Thats his personal opinion, I quote:

'if thats people's erotica then well thats their problem, I don't have to contribute to it'.


Now, as a consumer in the free-market, thats his choice and opinion and he is entitled to it, if a product does not suit his goals he dosn't have to consume it or approve of it.


This Chomsky dude is getting old and his mind ain't as sharp as it used to be in that interview he makes the mistake of (to much glee of the 10%) of confusing in his mind the exploitive third world sex trade with the sex industry of the West (+Japan) and mistakenly criticises both as one and the same. In all reality they are totally different worlds.

As I said:

There ain't nothing wrong with the act of pornography itself, provided there is an adequate:


-level of establishment of the rule of law in that society.

-level of economic equality and economic options.

-level of availability of living necessities (food, clothing, shelter, health)


If those factors are poor, than of course; industry in general will become more prone to exploitation.



Now secondly, I got to say word, what he is saying is true; just because these individuals are given a choice between the sex-trade and some other exploitive industry, what type of choice is that?

What a free and libertarian world we are where people can choose the manner and method of their suffering and exploitation!


And it IS unnecessary:

The UNICEF estimates every child on the PLANET could be fed, housed, clothed and educated and kept WELL for $30 billion to $40 billion (US dollars) more than is currently being spent.


Incidentally,


In 2002 the US military budget amounted to $379 billion (US dollars). Chalmers Johnson estimates $1 trilllion for fiscal year 2008.




Alot of yall think that these economic structures of the world are simply how it is and always was due to its own natural progression of the free market. This ain't so yo, the free market is  being manipulated so that the means (supply and demand) is an end in itself, over supply leads to less demand, so destruction of over-supply and stimulation of demand is purposefully engineered. The latest example of that in this modern century was 9/11 (stimulation of demand) and the Iraq debacle (destruction of surplus [US domestic] and expansion of the market [oil and arms]). All them Lords of War were shook after the fall of the Berlin wall...

Heres a good article on that my university professor gave us:

http://www.antiwar.com/spectator2/spec619.html

« Last Edit: August 16, 2008, 06:10:29 AM by Ra's al Overfiend »
 

7even

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 11289
  • Karma: -679
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #26 on: August 16, 2008, 06:12:04 AM »
^I was just fuckin wit chall, I knows yall read my shit, I was just confused about what PIFF TANNEN said about how we shouldn't co-sign the dude so I had to go watch the video myself, but I still essentially agree with the old dude; he's just getting muddled as is with old age (your metabolism will change too someday young man!)




First of all, Noam Chomsky is an old ass dude and naturally he is conservative about sexuality and the display of pornography.

Thats his personal opinion, I quote:

'if thats people's erotica then well thats their problem, I don't have to contribute to it'.

It is not necessary to call it "their problem", like they are sick people who need help or something.

Now, as a consumer in the free-market, thats his choice and opinion and he is entitled to it, if a product does not suit his goals he dosn't have to consume it or approve of it.

Of course, nobody would force him to watch porn, that's absurd.

This Chomsky dude is getting old and his mind ain't as sharp as it used to be in that interview he makes the mistake of (to much glee of the 10%) of confusing in his mind the exploitive third world sex trade with the sex industry of the West (+Japan) and mistakenly criticises both as one and the same. In all reality they are totally different worlds.

Exactly my nigga.

As I said:

There ain't nothing wrong with the act of pornography itself, provided there is an adequate:


-level of establishment of the rule of law in that society.

-level of economic equality and economic options.

-level of availability of living necessities (food, clothing, shelter, health)


If those factors are poor, than of course; industry in general will become more prone to exploitation.

I know you said that nigga. I didn't quote it because I agree with it in principle.





My problem with all the latter stuff you say is that it's a huge stretch, problems of poor countries go much deeper than just "bad conditions in the sex business" ... and I'm not a socialist. I don't see it as my purpose in life to try to make the life of people on the other side of the globe better, sorry. We don't even have the power to do that, all that petty charity stuff is incredibly inane in the grand scheme of things. You can't solve structural problems with individual goody-good doing. Get it through your head, it will only help you in the long run, mayne. Trade, not aid. Ya dig? Like, for instance, you know that story when that white dude goes to India and there's a baby in front of his hotel room in the morning. He's completely shocked and realizes how it seems to be something normal. So he pays some church organization some nice western money so they will raise that child n shit. He feels great. The next day, however, there are 30 babies in front of his room.
Cause I don't care where I belong no more
What we share or not I will ignore
And I won't waste my time fitting in
Cause I don't think contrast is a sin
No, it's not a sin
 

Australian Bastard

  • Guest
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #27 on: August 16, 2008, 06:37:57 AM »
^
I think we do. With the collective resources of the world we could change it all. Problem is; the only authority capable of implementing anything like that would be a one world government...



Anyway, George Orwell basically deemed socialism and capitalism in their respective absolutes as leading to different, but nonetheless, forms of hellish shitness....so i guess fuck it all, just make your own heaven.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2008, 06:43:05 AM by Ra's al Overfiend »
 

7even

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 11289
  • Karma: -679
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #28 on: August 16, 2008, 06:42:27 AM »
^
I think we do. With the collective resources of the world we could change it all. Problem is; the only authority capable of implementing anything like that would be a one world government...

A one world government would do a lot more fucked up shit than good shit, I'm sure of that.
Cause I don't care where I belong no more
What we share or not I will ignore
And I won't waste my time fitting in
Cause I don't think contrast is a sin
No, it's not a sin
 

Infinite Trapped in 1996

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 11221
  • Thanked: 84 times
  • Karma: -1160
  • Permenent Resident of 1996 Pre-Sept. 13th
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #29 on: August 16, 2008, 08:23:48 AM »
Ras,

I want to discuss what you said further with you.  Please explain how Chomsky being "positive" rather than "normative" negates the validity of my point above?  My point above being that Chomsky's thinking is fanciful and irrational. 

Regardless whether it's positive or normative his perspective does not work out logically.  It is a socialist perspective in an effort to bring about equality.  But it is impossible to bring about equality, because all people are unique, made up of different value systems.  And it is only because of these inequalities that mutual exchanges are possible.  A mutual exchange benefits both parties.  The Thai girl has plenty of time on her hands, so she would rather make a dollar a day then sit at home and do nothing.  So she benefits from the exchange.  The "greedy" business CEO/CathyLeeGifford/sweat shop owner benefits because they can increase production and profits.  And Joe American benefits because he can now buy his clothes at affordable prices.  So you see that anytime there is trade without coercion then you have a mutually benefiting relationship.  But your Chomsky form of socialism involves coersion because you are trying to insist that the world be equal when this is impossible.  If you and I are equal then there could be no means of trade between us.  But you and I can never be equal because there is no such thing.


Chomsky seems like the type of irrational thinker who would be in favor of a minimum wage law.  He would demand that a law says every worker should get at least $8.00 an hour.  This idea hurts the same people it claims to help.  Now any worker who is worth less than $8.00 an hour will go jobless and hungry.  Chomsky is thinking on the assumption that the bloodsucking CEO of McDonalds will take a cut in pay and raise wage's a couple of dollars.  What he neglects to realize is that 9 out of 10 businesses fail.  And that a business can not afford to pay it's employee's a cent more than they are worth.  Every business must seek to maximize it's profit's.  If it underpays it's employee's they will naturally bear the consequences because a person who is truly worth $8.00 an hour will not work for $6.50, so therefore McDonalds must pay it's employee's what is required for them to work for the company.  So naturally a business already pays it's employee's what they are worth.

Jobs are unlimited because desires are unlimited.  The only way the job market can be limited is by socialist idea's such as minimum wage laws.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2008, 08:27:21 AM by Abdul-Infinite »
*******

"I will make records as big or bigger than Death Row".   -Dre, Source 1996

"I didn't do nothing but make people money and I didn't leave nobody high and dry.  Any album (on death row) people are going to check for.  But it's time for Dre to worry about Dre.  I'm focused on the new Snoop Doggs, not like that but you know what I mean."

Dre -  Source 1996 cover

"Eminem will be bigger than Michael Jackson as long as he doesn't change."

-Dre, Rolling Stones mag 1999 Em cover

********