from the internet-will-route-around-it dept.
French porn star piqued over Macron's desire to crackdown on X-rated films
A star of French porn films has challenged President Emmanuel Macron to meet with him and female porn actresses after France's leader aroused his anger by linking the porn industry to violence against women and inequality. Manuel Ferrara was furious over the president's speech at the weekend which outlined his plan to tackle violence against women and ensure equality between the sexes. According to Macron pornography makes women "an object of humiliation" and that action needs to be taken because porn films are now so widely watched among school children.
Ferrara hit back on Twitter and invited the president to discuss the issue. "I am involved in this industry that you are trying to demonize by making this kind of remark. I am ready to sit down with you and discuss a topic that by all accounts you know nothing about. I'm waiting for your call!" In an interview with France Inter radio the porn star continued to criticize the president saying he found his remark "shocking". "He demonizes the porn industry and is jumping to conclusions (faire un amalgame). It's the same with video games. It's like saying 'a teenager who plays Call of Duty is going to pick up a gun and kill everyone in his school'."
[...] On Saturday Macron announced his plan to extend the powers of France's broadcasting regulator CSA to cover X-rated films as well as launch an awareness campaign on pornography in secondary schools. "The CSA plays an indispensable role in regulating audiovisual content everywhere and stopping the most undignified behavior becoming a form of tacit propaganda," said the president. "Today we do not regulate access to video games, internet content and pornographic content that is increasingly available."
Also at BBC and Reason (archive).
Related Stories
UK age verification legislation will lead to a porn habit database (archive)
The country is eager to protect children from porn. It's a worthy goal, mind you, given that research shows that exposing kids to porn can be damaging. Unfortunately, it's a quixotic goal, given that porn is impossible to block. Nevertheless, the UK is now on the brink of creating a database of the country's porn habits.
It also seems poised to hand the age verification piece of that puzzle over to an outfit that Vice refers to as "the shady company that controls the majority of free porn tube sites." That company is called MindGeek. Vice likens it to the Walmart of porn. Britain's leading obscenity lawyer, Myles Jackman, says it supposedly owns about 90% of tube sites on the internet, and it didn't get that way by making friends in the industry.
[...] And now, MindGeek, the WalMart of porn, is getting ready to become even more filthy rich by having maneuvered itself into the position of becoming gatekeeper for consumers of porn, be they adults or kids who don't know how to use a virtual private network (VPN). It's not a done deal quite yet, but MindGeek has had several conversations with officials. It's also currently pushing its own age verification platform, AgeID. If selected, Britons could be dealing with AgeID as the principal gate between themselves and their porn.
France to set legal age of sexual consent as 15
France plans to fix the legal age of sexual consent as 15, meaning sex with someone younger than that would be considered rape.
Equality Minister Marlène Schiappa welcomed the move, which follows advice from doctors and legal experts. Currently, prosecutors must prove sex with someone under 15 was forced in order to bring rape charges. The change comes amid uproar over two recent cases of men accused of having sex with 11-year-old girls.
Under the existing legislation, if there is no violence or coercion proved, offenders may only be charged with sexual abuse of a minor and not rape. This has a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a fine of €75,000 (£66,000; $87,000).
[...] The government is to approve the new age limit as part of a package of other laws against sexual violence and harassment in the coming weeks. It had been discussing whether to set the age as 13 or 15, which is what groups fighting violence against children had campaigned for.
Les commentaires déplorables.
Also at The Local, NPR, and SBS.
Related: French Porn Star Hits Back at President Emmanuel Macron's Plans to Censor Online Porn
(Score: 2, Disagree) by isostatic on Thursday November 30 2017, @03:16PM (11 children)
How does porn make any money? Given that pretty much any porn you could want is available for free, and there are (so I'm told) tens of thousands of videos, how can anyone actually make any money distributing it, let alone filming new stuff?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday November 30 2017, @03:19PM (1 child)
Why does anybody pay for stuff on Patreon, or pay camgirls?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 30 2017, @08:47PM
People pay camgirls? I've been doing it for free!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 30 2017, @03:20PM
I guess some folks just prefer blatantly unrealistic actors in their porn. Beats the hell out of me why but to each their own.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Thursday November 30 2017, @04:06PM
A lot of the time the free stuff uploaded to streaming sites is just clips from the full-length product, which can be rather difficult to dig up from pirates uploading it.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 30 2017, @04:09PM (2 children)
How does music make any money? Given that pretty much any music you could want is available for free, and there are (so I'm told) tens of thousands of songs, how can anyone actually make any money distributing it, let alone recording new stuff?
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday November 30 2017, @04:56PM
People pay for things like spotify. Do people really pay for porn?
Well I guess they must, after all Trekkie Monster said "In volatile market, only stable investment is porn!"
But when people used to pay for porn in the 70s and 80s (with magazines like playboy and videos from seedy shops), it seems far easier to get free porn now (hence Macron's complaint).
(Score: 2, Informative) by idetuxs on Thursday November 30 2017, @10:59PM
Obviously through real life concerts, shows and branding. That's about it. The streaming industry have its share but it's not significant to the artists.
You can relate this to a sports player, say Mayweather, Lio Messi, etc. People show up to watch them and companies pay them to appear alongside their products.
How PORN does this?? It can't.
I don't know if it's true but recently saw a documentary in Netflix about porn being an industry that mainly serves money laundering schemes. Most of the companies are owned by MindGeek (PornHub, Xvideos, RedTube, YouPorn, website with specific fetishes, etc) which is pretty weird.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 30 2017, @04:17PM (1 child)
I don't think there's a lot of money in the industry. But it's very cheap to make a porn video -- production values are usually rock bottom and it shows.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 30 2017, @04:59PM
Honestly, this is why I prefer porn from the 70's and 80's, when they were still shooting on film. Production values were way higher because they actually needed a budget. Once stuff started going straight from the CamCorder to the Shelf things really went down hill. Some good stuff exists online but it seems that online stuff really caters to different fetishes...which can be a good thing.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 30 2017, @06:43PM (1 child)
Having worked at a porn company (network/server security).
I can honestly say LOTS of people pay for porn. On avg most of the sites we ran made 80-100K/month. Niche sites would be EVEN more.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by takyon on Thursday November 30 2017, @06:56PM
Millennials will ruin it, as usual.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 30 2017, @03:50PM (1 child)
well this sort of government overreach was completely predictable. macron is an authoritarian piece of shit cloaked in transparent phony social ideals. the slaves that voted for him are ridiculous idiots.
(Score: 2) by lx on Thursday November 30 2017, @07:46PM
And now we know what kind of porn that sick sadistic bastard watches.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 30 2017, @04:07PM (8 children)
We've had that much technology since the early days of television. As soon as there were two or more channels in an area, people learned to tune in to what they preferred to watch. Or, even to turn the television off.
Don't like porn? Don't watch porn. FFS, some people are so damned stupid. I don't like kiddy porn, I don't watch kiddy porn. I don't like bestiality, I don't go looking for bestiality. I don't like gay sex, I don't click on links promising gay sex. I like gun porn, so sometimes I click on gun porn. TMB seems to like fish porn, so he probably watches fish porn. I don't like Ford, I don't click on advertisements for Ford. What could be simpler? Oh - this asshole from France likes preacher porn, and thinks that we should all be watching preacher porn?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 30 2017, @04:17PM (7 children)
I mostly agree with that, however not all of your examples are equal.
At least one of the, um, "actors" in those is not legally able to consent. That's where we should draw the line.
Unless you mean "porn that kids watch", in which case it's a parenting issue and you really shouldn't use a term with an established meaning.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 30 2017, @04:45PM (4 children)
You're right, but not all that much right. For the purpose of my argument, it matters little how legal the viewing material might be. I did mention bestiality, as well. Beasts aren't recognized as having the capacity to consent to having sex with humans either. I believe that bestiality is illegal everywhere in the United States.
My whole argument was, "I don't like it, I don't watch it." Even on the hidden nets, where both are readily available, I don't go there.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 30 2017, @04:58PM (2 children)
Animals can consent to sex no matter what the so called justice system says. Animals show clear signs of arousal when they want to have sex with humans. Time to move to Wyoming [wikipedia.org] which had the good sense not to ban it.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday November 30 2017, @06:57PM (1 child)
Do you speak from experience?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday December 01 2017, @12:00AM
He could be speaking from logic. I find it funny how pretty much everyone agrees (except organizations like PETA apparently) that non-human animals shouldn't be given the same rights as humans because they are different from humans, yet many people want to apply human standards of consent to non-human animals. How does that make sense? If we applied that logic consistently, all sex between non-human animals would necessarily be rape. A dog who humped someone's leg of its own volition would be a victim of sexual assault. And so on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 01 2017, @10:35AM
Animals not able to consent? You try telling the dog humping your leg that it is not able to give consent, so please stop doing that...
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday December 01 2017, @12:08AM (1 child)
It makes sense to go after the actual rapists. It isn't justifiable to go after every random loser who looks at the porn that has already been made, even if you try to justify by saying that it encourages more to be made in the future. If someone makes more because of some perceived demand for it, then that is still their own fault and they should be punished for it. Voodoo harm--harm supposedly inflicted upon rape victims whenever someone looks at the porn--does not exist. Such feelings are entirely subjective and no matter how much censorship you do, there is always a chance that more copies of the data are still out there somewhere; it's therefore best to focus on getting over the event, regardless of the difficulty. If voodoo harm did exist, the FBI would be in trouble for distributing so much child porn themselves.
Making possession of anything illegal also has the effect of making it easy to frame anyone for a crime, especially when the prohibited thing is merely data.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 01 2017, @10:40AM
I'm fine with going after anyone paying for it. That does actually encourage the production. This includes payment in the form of "upload something new to be able to download other new stuff".
But if we ban freely sharing it, with the excuse that it encourages the production of more, we need to stop punishing music and movie pirates for encouraging the production of more music and movies.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 30 2017, @04:16PM (6 children)
Aside from anyone's views of the morality of porn and prostitution, the industry frequently treats young girls as meat, mostly those without any star power. On xvideos, it is not hard to encounter videos where women face raped beyond any reasonable simulation of power dominance sex fantasies into actual abuse of women with little representation, and frequently, addictions to drugs, or frequently being high on those drugs during 'acting'.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday November 30 2017, @05:01PM (5 children)
If you're specifically looking for it, maybe. I'm having a hard time thinking of running across any drug references beyond alcohol.
Your wording is rather weird so I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 30 2017, @05:35PM (4 children)
They don't reference the drugs, but they are often high. There are plenty of accounts about this online, and also commonsense.
Power dominance porn? I mean the videos that go under extreme facefucking, gag hoes, puke bitches, slap, etc. Sure some of it uses cutshots, makeup, and playacting. But a lot of it is clearly a girl who didn't realize what she signed up for.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday November 30 2017, @06:19PM (3 children)
The thing about common sense is, everybody views it differently. Also it's often wrong.
If you say so...again, can't say I've ever noticed.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 30 2017, @08:53PM (2 children)
I noticed something. You are an asshole. Also, you don't address the main point. But, I get it. You are an asshole.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday November 30 2017, @09:48PM (1 child)
That's because I'm not arguing your main point; I'm arguing that the evidence you claim to present for it doesn't exist where you says it does.
You can find porn that goes too far anywhere. You saying it's "not hard to find on xvideos" is incorrect in my experience. But maybe I'm just not trying hard enough to find it. Which is hardly a bad thing...
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday November 30 2017, @09:53PM
Surely you're not surprised that I'm not buying a single Anonymous Coward's handwavy "everybody knows" evidence?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 30 2017, @04:20PM (13 children)
Here's a situation where a government nominally wants to reduce misogyny, but they're willing to tackle free speech to make that happen. Ignore the fact that the nature of the internet makes a lot of censorship efforts moot anyway.
So which is more important: mandated equality and fairness toward women in media, or free speech?
In the former, porn can be labeled as degrading to women and steps taken to remove/reduce it, but this in effect makes mass censorship okay (which makes, e.g., a net neutrality repeal or worse just fine). In the latter, porn becomes less problematic in the context of the free speech issue...But then "those other people" get to say, post, and publish whatever they like (and this is the position historically taken by the US).
What is the "official" view on this from the left?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 30 2017, @05:21PM (7 children)
If you want "mandated equality and fairness toward women", then you allow this. Do you think women are incapable of consenting? Do you want to treat them like children?
Plus what about when there are no women involved at all? Do you only want to bad stuff for straight people?
Macron's wife might be pushing this. She may really run France; she was his high school teacher. She is 24 years older, and went after him when he was only 15. She belongs in prison. Her daughter was in that same high school class. Macron's GILF may still have teacher-like authority over him (probably their kink) and may be a bit jealous about younger-looking women.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 30 2017, @05:37PM (6 children)
As long as she was sexy when she was 39, no crime was committed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 30 2017, @05:57PM (5 children)
She was in a position of authority over him. Teachers, prison guards, superior military officers... all have this issue.
She could threaten his grades. She could reward him, causing unfairness to the other students. (unless she went for all of them!)
Plus of course age 15... unless maybe France has zero STDs and does not have the concept of child support.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Thursday November 30 2017, @06:33PM (4 children)
I suspect that you are judging France by the laws applicable in your own country. You may like your own laws and think they are wonderful - and indeed they might be - but rest assured that not every country agrees with that premise. The age of consent in France is 15 years. Macron's wife did not commit an offense under French law, and therefore should not be judged by you as though she has done something wrong. Had she done the same thing in your own country then she should be judged by your laws. However, the French President hasn't be caught boasting about how he sexually assaults women, unlike at least one President we can name.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday November 30 2017, @06:58PM
To compare to the U.S., IIRC some U.S. states have an age of consent of 16 but consider it to be 18 if the older party is a teacher or other authority figure.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 30 2017, @09:39PM (2 children)
She was his teacher. She was grading his tests and homework. She could demand sex for a good grade. That improperly influences him, and it is unfair to the other students.
Is that really OK in France? What about superior officers in the military? What about prison guards? What about a judge hearing your criminal trial?
And as for your last comment, "they let you" is consent.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday December 01 2017, @04:09AM
The Donald thinks there was consent. There was consent. There wasn't consent. Who knows?! We'll see.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations [wikipedia.org]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/11/22/president-trump-and-accusations-of-sexual-misconduct-the-complete-list/ [washingtonpost.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/nov/30/donald-trump-sexual-misconduct-allegations-full-list [theguardian.com]
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-running-list-of-all-the-women-whove-accused-donald-trump-of-sexual-assault_us_57ffae1fe4b0162c043a7212 [huffingtonpost.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday December 02 2017, @10:18AM
Had Mrs Macron tried to exert influence over her students by such threats she would have committed a crime - the student could have reported it and she would likely have received a serious sentence as punishment. Again, French law is probably different to your own laws. In fact, in each of the other cases that you mentioned there is always the possibility raising a complaint that will be investigated fully under the law. You also have no idea whether the relationship was initiated by the student or the teacher. As it resulted in marriage, you will probably find that both parties were willing to get together and, as both parties were also legally entitled to have a relationship what would you suggest should have been done? Should they have been forbidden to meet - despite having done nothing wrong - simply because it _might_ result in inappropriate pressure being brought by one of them against the other despite there being legal safeguards against such events being in place? Again, stop looking at this matter with your own laws in mind because elsewhere they may have completely different views to yourself on how to prevent such things.
Wait a minute, here we have a powerful man sexually assaulting women and, perhaps because they felt intimidated or threatened in some other way, they have given 'consent'? NO THEY HAVEN'T. How is this different to your allegations that a teacher cannot have a relationship with a legally consenting student? Who knows what the victims of the sexual assault were thinking. The fact that they were also of legally consenting age does not make this a slam-dunk case. They might have had fear of physical personal danger, of danger to their spouse, of threats to their financial future because 'contracts might be threatened' or jobs held in the balance. Do you think that that is acceptable? It isn't acceptable for a famous film director to do such things, nor an actor, but for a business man it is an entirely reasonable thing to do? Perhaps you ought to have a closer look at your own laws to see if better protection can be afforded to the people it is supposed to be helping. As the heading that you initially selected states: "What about the power relationship?". Et tu, Brute!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 30 2017, @05:41PM (2 children)
I wouldn't advocate banning porn. I would regulate it heavily. Its all too common where poor very young women who didn't realize they signed up to get abused by assholes who take her to near suffocation, and on't listen to her cries. You should see how many women break down crying afterward with bruised faces and ..
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 30 2017, @06:08PM
Breeder sluts deserve to face the consequences. There should be less regulations not more.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 01 2017, @12:31PM
It's called acting fool, some people get off on strong women cry, so there's porn featuring that. What, did you think they really moan like that too? Out was a true story of fucking his sons girlfriend and her mom too? Dumbass
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday November 30 2017, @06:18PM (1 child)
What is the "official" view on this from the left?
There isn't one. Many feminist organizations are pro-porn. Or, at least, proponents of the idea that women should be free to pursue porn if they wish.
I've linked examples on this topic before but not gonna try that search at work!
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Thursday November 30 2017, @10:08PM
I have to say, I like Canadian feminist Wendy McElroy [wendymcelroy.com]'s overview and opinion on the issue.
In general, I believe there's a way to do porn that respects the rights of performers. There's also porn that doesn't do that. And what laws that exist regarding porn should focus on that, not censoring anybody. Make sure all the all the people involved are adults who are getting compensated fairly for their work, and what they're doing is basically not substantially different than what other kinds of actors are doing.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by iru on Thursday November 30 2017, @04:21PM (8 children)
Thats accurate.
90s: "Video games are violent and are making kids violent".
Now: "Video games are sexist and are making kids sexist".
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday November 30 2017, @06:05PM (7 children)
Considering the filth that is exchanged back and forth in video games. Filth being the language used, I could see a correlation regarding "Video games" making kids sexist / racist. Though, I would say the vast majority of that isn't the Video game itself. It's the other people in those Multiplayer games that are influencing your kids' mind. I stopped playing multiplayer FPS games by in large, because I didn't want to hear the filth that 10 year old kids were shouting into their mics. (Mostly COD on a PS3.) In contrast, violent movies would have been the downfall of our civilization, if they turned kids into Psycopaths. Which is more or less what's being implied with the Violent games == Violent kids. I have gotten back into some FPS games (Not COD) and happily haven't been subjected to tirades from 10 year old kids. Plenty of them playing still, but maybe Overwatch / Blizzard is better at inducing a modicum of decorum?
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Gaaark on Thursday November 30 2017, @10:24PM
I remember when The Bugs Bunny Road Runner show was "the most violent show on TV" .
What. A. Laugh.
Kids who didn't know you'd die if you jumped off a cliff are probably dead from something else.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday December 01 2017, @12:29AM (5 children)
I think people can think for themselves, at least to some extent. I doubt seeing certain language is going to make kids sexist or racist.
Also, there is no word that is inherently sexist or racist or even bad. It all depends entirely on the context and the intentions of the speaker. Even a word like "nigger" is often thrown around as a generic insult by people who have no racist intentions. That can happen because words can have any number of meanings.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday December 01 2017, @05:10PM (4 children)
I take it you haven't played multiplayer Call of Duty in recent history? A kid who hangs around peers who are racist / sexist or who at least talk like that. Will likely become sexist / racist or at the least talk like that.(Anecdotal evidence, my wife didn't use a certain "bad" word. Then she started saying it here and there. Come to find out, the client she was working with at the time, used it every day. She doesn't use it anymore, but she also isn't subjected to it every day anymore.) You may not have an issue with a word like nigger, but the word itself is negative and inherently racist in today's society. Straight from wikipedia: "In the present-day English language, the word nigger is a racial slur, usually directed at black people. The word originated as a neutral term referring to people with black skin,[1] as a variation of the Spanish and Portuguese noun negro, a descendant of the Latin adjective niger (meaning the color "black").[2]" Assuming someone has no issue using a racial slur, then they're at least promoting racism, if they aren't straight up racist themselves. I would also categorize much of the vitriol spewed forth in multiplayer CoD as Verbal Abuse.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday December 01 2017, @11:35PM (3 children)
I know how people speak online, even in games. I just don't care. I don't see any evidence that it will somehow turn people racist or sexist, even if they are children.
It is viewed that way, but so what? Again, when determining whether someone is sexist or racist for using these words, you have to take into account intent and context.
No, they aren't. That's not how language works. Language evolves, and especially so in small groups. No string of letters has any inherent meaning that is decided by the universe; meanings are arbitrary. Whether someone using racial slurs is promoting racism or not depends on their intentions and the context.
Do words that can be used as racial slurs magically become exempt from the reality that language evolves? How could that be, especially when you consider that they didn't always have that meaning? The fact is, any word can have multiple meanings, and small groups can even invent more that are not used by society at large. Society may be irrational about certain words, but it happens.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday December 05 2017, @05:50PM (2 children)
The "universe" in this instance would be society in general. Whether or not you accept it is irrelevant to how others perceive the use of such language. It doesn't matter what one thinks a word is supposed to mean. It matters how others interpret the meaning of the word. Otherwise, we could each have our own list of meanings for any word and no one would be able to communicate. It would be like having a different dialect for every person in the whole world. Which would be totally unmanageable. It's like the word gay; it used to mean happy. Sure, you can use the word gay in that manner, but it's meaning could easily be confused. It is the same with the use of the word nigger. It used to have an innocuous meaning, but it no longer does. Thus, the evolution of language as you have pointed out.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday December 09 2017, @02:21PM (1 child)
Yes, and how others perceive the use of certain language has nothing to do with whether their perceptions are actually correct. As long as you're smart enough to realize that a person might be using a word differently from how you understand it, you won't fall into the same fallacious trap that "society in general" often does.
But you're right: If you use a word in a non-standard way when speaking to people who aren't aware of said non-standard usage, you could create misunderstandings. Do so at your own risk. However, this has nothing to do with whether someone is actually racist or promoting racism for using a particular word; that isn't just about society's perception, but objective truth.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday December 11 2017, @04:49PM
One can still inadvertently promote racism, if most of the audience listening perceives the language that is used as racist. Whether one is or not and one's benign intent doesn't change the fact. Really, the only use case I can see would be purely academic. Most, if not all other uses of the word would likely promote racism.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 5, Funny) by krishnoid on Thursday November 30 2017, @07:04PM (1 child)
... with sexy results!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 30 2017, @08:00PM
Good old Manuel! He KNOWS assfucking, and doesn't want to be on the receiving end (from Macron)!
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Thursday November 30 2017, @10:12PM
Violence against women from porn? How about rape gangs from "urban youths":
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/346059 [digitaljournal.com]
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/223741/muslim-gang-rapists-france-french-are-all-sons-daniel-greenfield [frontpagemag.com]
..There's literally a ton of results. There seems to be huge resistance to reporting such rapes
in the news least it cast a negative light on the "urban youths" they are importing by the
hundred thousand. Humorously that's probably the same group that doesn't like online porn.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 01 2017, @10:43AM
Simpler solution:
Female porn stars need to tell the president, that what he is really proposing is that a man (him) should be the one to decide what women can and can't do with their own body.
We have words for men like that. "Misogynist" is one of the more recent of these words.