If you're a "sex-positive" feminist, with a focus on individual agency, this really is a genuinely difficult issue.https://twitter.com/caitlin_roper/status/988666869774041088 …
-
Seems like there are two separate issues here. One is the representation and its effects on consumers. This strikes me as similar to the theory that violent video games cause mass shootings. The other is how consent is discussed in the article. 1/
This is Langton's stand out article: https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/voices.uchicago.edu/dist/9/177/files/2008/01/langton-speechactsunspeakableacts.pdf …
-
-
I only read the first 8 pages (insert boilerplate “day job” excuse), so my question may be inchoate, but if you support this view of speech, how do you reconcile it with (IIRC) your strong moral (rather than just strategic) position against punching Nazis?
-
It's not (mainly) a moral position against punching Nazis, it's strategic. I think it's daft politics. (I think that's the lesson of history). Plus, I don't necessarily support that view of speech. I just think it's the strongest version of the anti-porn position.
-
I probably misremembered; I thought we had disagreed on Nazi-punching (but I agree it’s strategically bad). I probably shouldn’t engage in a discussion when I have too little time for it.
-
Not sure we've ever discussed Nazi punching...? I do think it's often morally wrong, but my objection is to do with the lessons of history and strategy. (Also don't trust the motives of people who *relish* the punching.)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.