Browsing through the comments on a recent post at Sankaku Complex that featured Yes to Feedom, I stumbled across these words of wisdom:
Actualy [sic] by all logical means.
Equality should support hentai as hard as they could.But they don’t think logicaly [sic] do they?
So now, do radical feminists think “logically”? The normal, reactionary answer of most readers of this very post would be that “such people can’t be logical”, that they “obviously are acting on the impulse of emotion”.
I beg to differ. Most women – and men – that militate among organisations such as Equality Now, the very kind Yes to Freedom is fighting against, are in no way short of intelligence and logic. Equality Now’s past campaigns hint to this quite conclusively.
But then, why would they go astray to the point of launching an attempt at large-scale censorship? The answer lies within the answer, “large-scale” being the key. And such is the logical reasoning that it implies: if one thing is censored as objectionable widely enough, it will be seen as plain immoral, and thus the number of people that it appeals to will diminish considerably. As prurient fiction depicts immoral conduct, it should be banned just as the material it depicts, otherwise the first reasoning cannot work to the extent it should.
That is indeed logical. However, logic does not imply truth. For example:
All men have blue skin.
Socrates was a man.
Thus, Socrates had blue skin.
In this regard, the former reasoning has several flaws:
1. The fact that one thing is widely considered immoral does not mean that it is “immoral”, let alone that it should be.
2. Nothing proves that making something “immoral” lessens the amount of people that it appeals to. This presupposition confirms the reasoning, but is not necessarily true.
3. Prurient fiction does not inherently depict “immoral conduct”: morality is something that individuals and/or cultures define.
Consequently, most proponents of censorship do think logically. There are of course some exceptions, just as is the case among our ranks. That is why I support using logical means to attain our goals.
[Rogue editor's note: stop leaving outrageously trollish and stupid comments, I'll delete them even if the other editors approve them. Thanks.]
Tags: Censorship, Equality Now, Logic, Reasoning, Truth
They do draw the right logical conclusions most of the time, but the “axioms” they use as a basis are completely messed up.
Attacks on women occurred long before hentai even existed and if you went back a few hundred years you’d likely find that attacks on women were far more common than they are today. Clearly then if attacks on women are lower during the period hentai has existed than in the period prior to its existence then hentai cannot be attributed as a key cause of such attacks. Of the millions of people who view hentai only a tiny fraction of them go on to attack women and these would likely be attacking women whether hentai existed or not.
All evidence points to the fact that hentai does not educe viewers to attack women and yet Equality Now is claiming the exact opposite of what any logical person would conclude. When their fundamental reasoning is illogical it’s irrelevant that they later apply logic in trying to apply achieve their goals.
Yes, it is logical for Equality Now to exploit their victim status to try and gain greater rights than men but the whole victim culture is illogical and emotional to begin with so they’re just heaping lunacy on top of more lunacy. Simply put Equality Now are sick in the head. They’re living in their own fantasy world where they’ve convinced themselves that they’re victims of some heinous crime and they’ve dedicated their lives to fulfilling this delusion. It’s futile to try and argue with them on any reasonable level since their whole outlook is based on their own delusions and they simply ignore any evidence which contradicts that delusion. In a sane world such people would be ignored or locked up but with the world in the grip of political correctness such delusions are actively celebrated and encouraged. All I want to know is how I get off this merry-go-round?
I want to say something as a fellow Sankaku Complex reader.
Even though there is a fair amount of visual novels/anime/manga that show insane acts of depravation and stuff like that, it just doesn’t mean that it should be banned.
If it is being made into a visual novel, most likely, someone has done it already in the real world. Besides, its not like we don’t see horrible things like this all the time, at least here in Argentina.
Japan has already failed to bring hentai down, which owns a considerable amount of the local market. It moves a lot of money, at least in my knowledge.
Besides, I don’t get what they are trying to do… What if some VN maker decides to make a novel about a woman that goes raping guys all over the place. Is that equality? Yes, but the problem is that no one would want to admit it. They just want to cut down on hentai and make a whole lot of money out of it.
Hopefully, Japan won’t fall into the pithole that Argentina has fallen into.
Cheers,
Nick
@ Richard,
1. You appear to be mistaken on what “logic” means. As I wrote, logic does not imply truth. Please read my post once again, more carefully this time.
2. Most radical feminists are certainly saying something similar about you. As long as you’ll say the same old reactionary “they are sick in the head” and such, the same pattern of mutual hate will continue.
@ Niker,
Well, of course I’d agree with what you said… protecting prurient fiction is Yes to Freedom’s current goal, after all.
The way they are trying to ban hentai,is part of them acting like victimization.
It goes like this,you are told things that didn’t actualy happen or did happen to you and by being talked about it they kinda tell you that you are a big victim of it,feeling sorry for yourself you will see yourself as a victim and feel emotionaly scared,even though you didn’t need to get emotionily effected.
Those people who had bad stuff happen to them can kinda move the hate to hentai becouse they could show similar abuse,but the problem is why do they need to check such stuff if they hate it?
They could ignore it,since it isn’t actualy showing them..
Now equality now is clearly showing part of victimization,which i must say that way of emotion is wrong in such an organization like equality now.
Now hentai is fiction,so it isn’t actualy discriminating women,since there are no real women in it as in they don’t exist and even don’t have an actual age. Fiction is just like only an idea,imaganation of your mind or like a lie.,as in the end it’s not real,fiction should always be free and tell us all possible story,becouse it is a wonderfull gift that we humans have.You can always decide for which age certain fiction should be allowed.Censorship is wrong they could always make 2 version ,with parental lock.
Thanks for choosing my comment.
It’s just i read many stuff on internet and i wasn’t reading only about hentai.Where it’s pretty clear why hentai should stay.
People can always have positive and negative oppinions on fiction.
The positive ones can enjoy it,the negative ones should not bother with it if they don’t like it.
Just like you like this game but you don’t like that game so you won’t play it,sometimes becouse of certain content.
So when the negative ones start complaining trying to take away the things the positive people enjoy then it becomes unfair it’s like they don’t accept certain people at all.
And they didn’t need to limit peoples enjoyment of fictionary freedom of speech.
Btw my english isn’t native,but i ain’t so bad with english anyway.
Logic is composed of two key elements: the premise(s) and the conclusion(s). What you want to say is that while these groups may indeed have sound logic, they easily fall victim to the use of faulty premises. Logic is irrelevant if the premises upon which it is based are not correct in the first place. Often these people are reversing the scientific method anyway: they come up with the desired conclusion, then dig up as much material as is possible that supports the desired conclusion, while ignoring evidence to the contrary.
Exactly Prag, thank you for clarifying my point.
“Logic” only refers to the correct correlation between the premise(s) and the conclusion(s), and – indeed – does not prevent use of false premises, or even, as you mentioned, false conclusions…
@ Fonzer,
Oh, that was your comment… I hope I haven’t offended you by using it as – more or less – a “bad example”…
Sure, some radical feminists use victimization as a catalyst for their goals of censorship, but they are a minority, in a similar way that several otakus/consumers of prurient fiction rage against “feminazis” and generalize the actions of the likes of Equality Now to feminists as a whole.
To all of them: by the way, I’m a feminist.
The goal of my post was to show why we must use logical ways ourselves to fight against further censorship of our freedom of speech: dismissing their claims on the basis that they are “emotional” and “irrational” leads nowhere, except maybe to our own demise.
Not really offended,the end result what you do with it is important.Which you did good.
But the last sentence where i said
The first 2 sentences were totaly ment by me.
The 3rd one i just played around a little,like set a trap to see how people would comment to it,if you want to know the truth about the last sentence.
And seems like people bit on the trap like fish.
In the end our logic may be illogical to them,like you metnioned there.That is why we must fight the same way with showing proof the same way.
But i question myself how this should work,since they already have a reputation offices and people that support them.
And we are mostly only people on the internet right?
“And we are mostly only people on the internet right?”
,..not mostly; exclusively, actually. Some personalities have publicly shown support for our cause though: Neil Gaiman and Dan Kanemitsu, for example.
However, the greatest weakness of the anti-censorship movement right now is not the fact that we’re “people on the Internet”, but rather its fragmentation.
Azarius, the logic that this organization known as “Equality Now” uses is flawed by design.
They are essentially basing their whole campaign around the fact that the so called “rape simulator” game(s) are direct cause of violence (rape) against women. However, since this fact is impossible to prove (outside of getting statistically significant number of alleged rapists to confess it) they resort to propaganda tactics. This is no different of how various forms of not-so-free governments have used the same tactics to convince the general population in their own narrow worldview.
In fact, the whole feminism movement suffers from the very same problem – they assume that there is some kind of forced dominance of men over women (yet the law would beg the differ) and go ahead to cite facts that may have been caused by other differences between the genders, rather than power imbalance. It’s dangerous to assume that men and women are equal in ability as opposed to rights and freedoms. Indeed, the very idea behind the most radical communism was that the difference between various social groups should be forcefully removed through law.
It is unjust to enforce equality where both sides are not exactly the same. It’s like saying that we should give everyone a college degree, just because society discriminates against people without it. The law cannot and should not force “equality”, but rather “equal opportunity” where it’s society that must regulate itself and always choose the best of any set of options. It’s too easy to blame the male population for every single injustice in society against women, and yet we all know that men tend to be generally more aggressive which not only immediately puts them in an advantageous position for positions tied to leadership (aggressive CEOs bring far more profits) or promotions (you have to go ahead and ask for that promotion/raise!). You cannot call it a social bias if a certain quality possessed by one person results in that same person growing over the other. The fact is, that men and women are _different_.
Anyway, the reason I want on this rant is to make a point of where modern feminism fails. There are great injustices against freedom in the modern world and a significant part of them are done in male dominated societies against women. But, most of the time, I see feminists demanding “equality” in countries like America and the UK where the law has guaranteed them equal opportunity long ago. Instead of doing what really matters and helping the poor women in the middle east, they (Equality Now) waste donation money to fight phantoms that may or may not be there. It’s like the scientists who don’t understand physics well enough and instead invent “dark matter” to compensate for their own ignorance. I’m do not claim there is no bias against women, but rather, that even if such bias exists, propaganda and censorship are not going to help. If women want to be equal to men then they must:
a) remove all mentions of gender specific notions of the law (pregnancy special rights, motherhood special rights etc…) and
b) earn their own equality by putting enough effort into their own career
Yes, it may be possible that it takes more effort for a woman to become a CEO. But then again some women do become CEOs, and all of this feminist whining is diminishing the value of the great effort they put in their career. They can blame it on evolution which made us different (or god if they are into that), but in no way can they blame men for having more desirable qualities to potential employers. I don’t know of anyone who would shoot himself in the foot by hiring less competent male candidate over a more competent female candidate for a job. But on the other hand every employer out there would rather pay you as little as possible if he could.
The law has guaranteed women equal opportunity. It also guarantees them they can make porn as much as they want. But there is no precedent that allows them to stop other people from making porn unless this porn directly violates any laws. And since they cannot prove that porn (or “rape simulators” for that matter) degrades women any more than it does men, every other argument they bring to the table is a moot point. In fact, persisting in that only serves to further prove the point that genders are different and should “not” be treated equally.
@ Evilmanrapist,
“Azarius, the logic that this organization known as “Equality Now” uses is flawed by design.”
No. The premisses used are potentially false – and indeed can hardly ever be proven, but the logic in itself is not flawed. Think: if this (the fiction/action correlation) was true, then there would be little to no problems with the rest of Equality Now’s propositions.
For the rest of your comment, you might wish to read about Sex-positive Feminism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_feminism
There is not one unique ideology called “modern feminism”. There exists several branches of feminism, often aimed at divergent goals. But you are right that some feminists attempt to gain “apparent equality” rather than actual equality in rights and such.
I think what azurius is tyring to argue is that yes, Equality Now does think logically, however logical in the sense that it will achieve their goals, logical or not.
However their goals; this is something which I question.
Would it be safe to say that EN is one of many other groups who have another agenda underneath their facade? They are most likely well aware that their agenda on the surface of their campaign is flawed, BUT as Azurius mentioned by exploiting various emotional and moral fallacies in the public they are able to push their view, and hence reel in the money. With Money they are able to hide these facts as money equals power.
Alternatively, a more believable view is that their moral inclinations make them very narrow minded and hence they do not care to reason for things that go against them.
Anyway group of people would be excellent entrepreneurs if their talents were placed in a more appropriate area. In my opinion they just exploit the weak.
http://core.nctritech.com:86/do/2007_EN_taxreturn.pdf < something interesting, from one of the sankaku members.
@ mnotty,
“I think what azurius is tyring to argue is that yes, Equality Now does think logically, however logical in the sense that it will achieve their goals, logical or not.”
Again, no. See the_pragmatist’s previous comment here for a more concise formulation of what I am arguing. By the way, the_pragmatist – an active YtF member – is the one who posted that document you linked to.
As for their goals, I disagree. I think that their primary goal is the same as any radical sex-negative feminists: “Eliminate discrimination against women in all its forms.” Which implies, also fictional one…
Although I, as well as most people who will read these lines, disagree with such a view, it is in no way irrational. They might be narrow-minded, but that does not change that basically, their claims do make sense.
I’d wish people would stop bashing the likes of Equality Now. Only through understanding will our fight succeed.
“Only through understanding will our fight succeed.”
Indeed, but more in the sense of “know your enemy and know yourself”. Understanding their motivations and reasoning – and completely opening up to them and considering them like they were our own – is what enables us to clearly see where and why they are wrong, and specifically address these points for effective lobbying. It also makes sure that we really are not erring on the wrong side. I’ve ended up changing my opinion 180° several times in the past after opening up completely to the other side. So far this hasn’t happened on the issue of censorship. And in fact, I think I understand EN better than they understand themselves…
We will not however be able to convince all pro-censorship radfems that their efforts are misguided. It simply won’t happen, no matter how much we understand them and how much understanding we show…
At least that’s how I see it.
Evilmanrapist:
“(outside of getting statistically significant number of alleged rapists to confess it)”
I wouldn’t be convinced. Rapists have a vested interest in displacing the blame for their crimes, and even if their confessions were true, that doesn’t change the fact that many people indulge in rape fantasy (including rape simulator games) and do not go on to commit rape. EN is targeting ideas here, not just behaviors. If they had the power and the ability to enforce it, do you think they would impose a ban on misogynistic thoughts?
Censorship is illogical if you claim to believe in freedom of speech. I am not aware of EN making a statement anywhere that they believe in freedom of speech. And if they do, their current actions clearly betray the lie.
“And since they cannot prove that porn (or ‘rape simulators’ for that matter) degrades women any more than it does men,”
I like how you put that. That porn (or more specifically, rape simulators) degrade men. After all, they frequently depict men as insensitive, sex-crazed, brutish lovers (if they love at all), do they not? I’m offended by that stereotype, but I don’t think it deserves to be silenced (I do believe in freedom in speech, after all). I even think some good can come of it. EN should take note.
All I know is, banning fictitious rape material will *not* stop the practice of actual rape. There aren’t enough studies out there done by reputable, peer-reviewed, interested neutral parties to support either argument (for OR against rape fantasy media). This will always be contested on moral or financial grounds, either behind the scenes or behind a thinly-veiled agenda.
The media makers (mangakas, audiovisual producers, or eroge companies) will gravitate towards ideas which will maximize profits while limiting bad Public Relations. The radical feminist agenda has always been on ‘apparent’ or actual equality…. and everything else has been shown to be of secondary importance to that. Oh, aside from children.. Mustn’t forget the children. :\
Logically-speaking, self-interest has for the most point driven the impetus behind both sides in this given debate, which is as old as the idea of freedom and censorship itself. Past history has shown this to be true, and I don’t see it changing rapidly for the better, sadly.
I think mnotty hit the nail on the head with the idea of Equality Now doing this for the money. They depend on corporate and private sponsors for donations. If you look at their financial statements for 2008, their annual revenue went down to $2,564,765 from $3,346,618 in 2007. That’s a huge loss, and I’m sure the American economic situation in 2009 isn’t helping either. Equality Now needed to pull some kind of mass publicity stunt to attract more sponsors and boost their funding. Unfortunately, they were unable to accomplish this by confronting legitimate women’s issues. Once the “hentai rape-simulator” controversy hit the newspapers, Equality Now jumped on the chance to be in the spotlight and be the “champion” of this cause. Since then, they have focused their efforts on this campaign and largely ignored any other issue, claiming all that nonsense about normalizing violence against women.
I believe in what Equality Now has done in the past to help women in real need. I just wish they’d go back to doing those things and leave innocent otakus like me alone.
NOW LISTEN YOU! You think making drawings of little kids fucking is going to be ok? FUCK YOU! You should all die! All porn should die and hentai as well. You think you can do something against GOD? I WORK FOR HIM AND YOU CANNOT DO ANYTHING TO HIM! FUCK YOU! Die perverted betrayers of Inanna Goddess of Venus! In her name I shall slice and dice you all! Perverted shit ass loli fuckers!
LOL @ Slayer545-sama. The “die perverted betrayers” line shall henceforth become an Internet meme! By the way, thanks for that flawless logic and detailed analysis of the current situation.
I think it would be much simpler if you put it this way:
P1: If someone watches porn (in or out of video games), that person will have an increased likelihood of becoming a violent sexual predator
P2: Banning something (specifically digital entertainment products) is an effective method of preventing its creation and distribution
P3: If porn is not created or distributed, people will not be able to view it.
A1: (P2,P3) If porn is banned, people will not be able to view it.
C1: (P1,A2) If porn is banned, people will not have the increased likelihood of becoming a violent sexual predator from watching porn
The argument itself is valid. However, as pointed out, not all valid arguments are sound. In this case, we know that neither P1 nor P2 are correct. So, while the argument is valid, it is also unsound.
The problem I see with stopping right there and calling them logical is the way they arrived at P1 and P2. Sure, if we just assume these as premises, the argument is valid. But that’s missing a number of steps, namely how they arrived at P1 and P2. Those premises are the conclusion of some other arguments – ones that EN made. EN is not getting this stuff from other organizations. From what I have read, the arguments on not based on any sort of statistical analysis but pure emotional appeals. The fallacious kind. Basically, they don’t like porn or other kinds of depictions of naked women, so they argue that these things must cause all sorts of bad things, like an increased tendency to become a violent sexual predator. The only valid conclusion of a statement that starts with “I think” or “I feel” is another statement that starts the same way. Instead, EN concludes that because they feel that these things are wrong, that something bad really does happen in reality. That is invalid reasoning.
“Slayer545-sama”… I believe I know that guy. He used to troll SanCon like that. Don’t know why he suddenly stopped. Artefact probably perma-v& him and he’s too stupid to use a proxy…
@ thanto_,
You do understand the basic structure. However, any premise is based on other premises and so on (unless you use self-closing premises, but that’s another story…) so the validity of arguments itself is nothing but a matter of one’s perception.
I think the debate here is largely boiling down to what something needs to have to be logical. My personal take on things is that both arguments are valid, and it is a matter of opinion. If we’re treating it like a proof, invalid assumptions lead to an invalid proof. The method of proving the proof may be valid and logical, but the proof taken as a whole generally wouldn’t. Take the following:
The moon is a giant ball of fire.
Fire is, by definition, hot.
The moon is a very hot place.
Valid, and wrong. It’s in the definition. I think most of the people here know this; these little discussions are surprisingly intelligent for internet banter.
I would think that the kind of mindset which nurtures the more radical feminist ideals like “ban all porn because it will reduce sex crimes” is largely based off emotional rather than logical arguments, but that’s just my own analysis on the situation and not really backed up by anything. It is worth saying that any organization anywhere near as big as Equality Now worth their salt generally has a number of leaders able to think in very logical and pragmatic ways, and at least a base grasp on how humans think. Those lacking this are usually unable to establish themselves