"Your topics are in bad taste!"

[Houseman]

Consider pornography. Most people watch it, but they're scared to admit to it, let alone have discussions about it, even as semi-anonymous posters. Why's that?

It could be because they're ashamed of it, so they'd rather not talk about it. It could be that people think that if they openly talk about it, that would mean that they've fully given in to their addiction, and accepted it as a part of themselves. They might think people who talk about it are degenerates without shame, who have given up the fight against their shadow.

So why do they still watch pornography, despite being ashamed of it? Why not just stop watching it? Maybe they're just addicted.
Or maybe it's nothing to be ashamed of. So, then, why not discuss it?

Most likely, I would predict that most people are afraid to discuss it because they fear that it will get back to them in some way, and then other people will judge them for being such a degenerate (even though those people likely indulge in the same things). Here we have a group of pretenders, all indulging in the same vices, but hiding them from one another. If one of them admitted to a vice, the rest would pounce on him and expel him from the group. No one person in this group is more virtuous than the other, but they all pretend to be.

Some people keep the same username across sites, so they are afraid of being rejected by one group of hypocritical "friends" for something they say on another site. Some even have their username tied to their real name, so this is even worse.

Others, though, who make new usernames or even post anonymously without tying their comments to a username, have no excuse.

I think people forget that the internet is not "real life". You don't have to be polite. You don't have to talk as though you're speaking to a co-worker and saying the wrong thing will get you fired. You can talk about taboo subjects without repercussion if you're anonymous. You don't have to use your real name.

So if you say to me "Houseman, your topics are in bad taste, this wouldn't fly in a real life discussion with a co-worker", you're right, that's why we're having this conversating using aliases, where our co-workers can't find us. That's the point of having this conversation here, and not there.

That doesn't mean that you have to engage in discussions that you don't want to engage in. By all means, just don't engage. But if all you have to say is a condemnation of the topic, and you refuse to discuss the topic further, I can only assume that one or more of the following is true:

1. You have your real name tied to your username, and you're afraid of being rejected by your friends irl.
2. You have your username tied to another platform and you're afraid of being rejected by your friends over there.
3. You're deeply ashamed, and you think that openly discussing it would mean embracing your shadow.

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

I've tried starting similar discussions in a few different places online, but most don't get any replies at all.

I'm into short petite, small-chested, tomboys (body proportions more important than colouring or even ..species..) and usually frequent Tsumino, 8Muses, and Paheal. For some real stuff, I'll use a chan or Xhamster. My max is once a day, but usually it's much less frequent. Say it averages out to 3-4 times a week. That doesn't mean I don't read some risque manga in-between.

 

[Houseman]

I've tried starting similar discussions in a few different places online, but most don't get any replies at all.

I'm into short petite, small-chested, tomboys (body proportions more important than colouring or even ..species..) and usually frequent Tsumino, 8Muses, and Paheal. For some real stuff, I'll use a chan or Xhamster. My max is once a day, but usually it's much less frequent. Say it averages out to 3-4 times a week. That doesn't mean I don't read some risque manga in-between.

I didn't ask, and this discussion isn't really what this thread is about, but I fit under category 3, I am deeply ashamed, and think that openly discussing this would mean embracing my shadow. I am proud to be able to say that I no longer look at "real stuff", however.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Uhhh, what is this "real stuff" we're talking about? Given the context this thread was created in, maybe I don't actually want to know.

So why do they still watch pornography, despite being ashamed of it? Why not just stop watching it? Maybe they're just addicted.
Or maybe it's nothing to be ashamed of. So, then, why not discuss it?

It seems like it should be obvious, but watching and talking about pornography both fulfill different needs, some of them pretty deeply rooted in human biology and instinct.

Personally, I told someone IRL my username a long time ago when I was young and stupid, so since then every post I've made has been with the knowledge that that person could be reading it so I generally don't say anything that I wouldn't say among friends. Not that I have anything really bad to hide, mind you.

There also always the possibility that you might be doxxed or hacked and all of your online activity could be irrevocably be linked to your real life identity.

 

[Houseman]

It seems like it should be obvious, but watching and talking about pornography both fulfill different needs, some of them pretty deeply rooted in human biology and instinct.

Does talking about pornography fulfill a need? Personally, I've never wanted to do it, since I see it as something shameful.

Personally, I told someone IRL my username a long time ago when I was young and stupid, so since then every post I've made has been with the knowledge that that person could be reading it so I generally don't say anything that I wouldn't say among friends. Not that I have anything really bad to hide, mind you.

You should make a new username, so that you don't have that hanging over you.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Does talking about pornography fulfill a need? Personally, I've never wanted to do it, since I see it as something shameful.

The need to socialize and connect with other people on common points of interest. I mean, most people can fulfill that need just as well by talking about Star Wars or something which is why they don't to talk about porn generally, but you're the one that made the topic about porn.

You should make a new username, so that you don't have that hanging over you.

Then nobody would recognize me. It's not really that big of a hindrance, anyway.

 

[Gauche]

Houseman, your topics are in good taste, this would fly in a real life discussion with a co-worker

 

[Houseman]

The need to socialize and connect with other people on common points of interest.

Sure, I guess, but I would think that only applies if you aren't ashamed of it.

you're the one that made the topic about porn.

This topic isn't about porn, that was just an example to illustrate the point. Read the topic title: "Your topics are in bad taste!"
Now, what topics is this probably referring to? Have I made any topics about porn? No. Probably topics like these, which several people have taken issue with lately (and you should know, since you directed them to it)

Houseman, your topics are in good taste, this would fly in a real life discussion with a co-worker

idontbelieveyou.gif

 

[Drathnoxis]

This topic isn't about porn, that was just an example to illustrate the point. Read the topic title: "Your topics are in bad taste!"
Now, what topics is this probably referring to? Have I made any topics about porn?

Honestly, people in general would probably take less issue if you made a topic about porn.

(and you should know, since you directed them to it)

I do know. Absolutely shocking the reactions some people have to the earnest quest for knowledge.

 

[Arnox]

idontbelieveyou.gif

For future use:

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

Like stuff that are Federally legal in the united states?

"Since 2002, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition established that two overbroad provisions of the CPPA of 1996 was struck down by the US Supreme Court because they abridged "the freedom to engage in a substantial amount of lawful speech."
The Court found the CPPA to have no support in Ferber since the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production. Furthermore, district court Judge James E. Gritzner ruled in United States v. Handley that two parts of the PROTECT Act of 2003 criminalizing "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting" was unconstitutional. There are no cases that are considered to have overruled it."

Taste is tone-policing ,)

 

[Signa]

It could be because they're ashamed of it, so they'd rather not talk about it. It could be that people think that if they openly talk about it, that would mean that they've fully given in to their addiction, and accepted it as a part of themselves. They might think people who talk about it are degenerates without shame, who have given up the fight against their shadow.

No, it's just something that shouldn't be discussed in polite company. Going down this line of thinking is going to end up where all the progressives are, where "politeness is a social construct that needs to be dismantled" etc etc.

If you're feeling like you've lost the battle against your shadow, that's probably because you've watched too many Steven Universe x MLP videos and you know you can't actually talk about them while they are sticking in your mind. Externalizing something like that brings judgement, and no one wants that. Better to keep those thoughts to yourself for you in your private time.

 

[Houseman]

No, it's just something that shouldn't be discussed in polite company.

That's just it, I'm not talking about "real life", I'm not talking about "polite company", I'm talking about places on the internet where everyone is anonymous.

Like I said:

So if you say to me "Houseman, your topics are in bad taste, this wouldn't fly in a real life discussion with a co-worker", you're right, that's why we're having this conversating using aliases, where our co-workers can't find us. That's the point of having this conversation here, and not there.

Did you read the whole post, or did you just stop at the bit you quoted?

 

[Signa]

That's just it, I'm not talking about "real life", I'm not talking about "polite company", I'm talking about places on the internet where everyone is anonymous.

Like I said:

So if you say to me "Houseman, your topics are in bad taste, this wouldn't fly in a real life discussion with a co-worker", you're right, that's why we're having this conversating using aliases, where our co-workers can't find us. That's the point of having this conversation here, and not there.

Did you read the whole post, or did you just stop at the bit you quoted?

Are we still not having a discussion in polite company? I feel that we are.

Now, just because our usernames aren't our real names doesn't mean we don't have an online persona to protect. Seems like if you want a pure test of this, then you should visit 4Chan.

As for me, I don't have things I need that extra layer of privacy for. Signa is good enough for me. I'm probably the odd one for that but whatever.

 

[Houseman]

Are we still not having a discussion in polite company?

I wouldn't think so. This is like a discussion in a public park among a group of friends. It might be publicly observable, but observing it is voluntary, so if someone gets offended, that's their fault, and they are free to leave at any time.

In contrast, I would think that "polite company" would apply to something like co-workers in an office. One dictionary defines it as "in formal settings" or "with people you do not know well".

Now, just because our usernames aren't our real names doesn't mean we don't have an online persona to protect.

Yes, I covered this in the OP. This is why I asked if you had read the whole post, or if you just stopped at the bit you quoted.

 

[Signa]

I wouldn't think so. This is like a discussion in a public park among a group of friends. It might be publicly observable, but observing it is voluntary, so if someone gets offended, that's their fault, and they are free to leave at any time.

In contrast, I would think that "polite company" would apply to something like co-workers in an office. One dictionary defines it as "in formal settings" or "with people you do not know well".

Sounds like polite company to me. Even in an office, coworkers are still someone you have a relationship with and an office is also a public setting, just not quite as public as a park.

So discussing a topic like porn with you is about the same as discussing it with a coworker. The only difference is there's no HR to get pulled in front of.

Yes, I covered this in the OP. This is why I asked if you had read the whole post, or if you just stopped at the bit you quoted.

The rest of your post was just conjecture of your own. I didn't think it was worth commenting on when I started with your premise instead. There are aspects I agree with, but I think we're arriving at similar conclusions for different reasons.

 

[Houseman]

Sounds like polite company to me. Even in an office, coworkers are still someone you have a relationship with and an office is also a public setting, just not quite as public as a park.

In your opinion, what wouldn't be an example of "polite company"? Because if online forums where you can say the n-word, and offices, where you can't, count as polite company, it doesn't seem like there are very many remaining exceptions.

So discussing a topic like porn with you is about the same as discussing it with a coworker. The only difference is there's no HR to get pulled in front of.

I would think that the threat of negative consequences is a large part of what makes the difference between "polite" and "impolite" company. You will get kicked out of the former but not the latter.

 

[Signa]

In your opinion, what wouldn't be an example of "polite company"? Because if online forums where you can say the n-word, and offices, where you can't, count as polite company, it doesn't seem like there are very many remaining exceptions.

Houseman, just because you hand out Nword passes like candy doesn't mean I'm going to use it.

Kidding aside, polite company is anyone you grant respect to, with the expectation that it will be mutual. So yeah, if that doesn't happen, then you're probably not on peaceful terms, and discussing what lurks in the dark corners of your mind is still off the table.

I would think that the threat of negative consequences is a large part of what makes the difference between "polite" and "impolite" company. You will get kicked out of the former but not the latter.

As above, I wouldn't have a classification for impolite company, because the relationship becomes contentious when it's not polite.

If there is such a thing as impolite company, it would have to be a mutual that you only know through your debauchery. Like a commenter on a Porn Hub video. Any relationship you build with a person like that probably isn't going to evolve to someone you'd have dinner with or have stand up at your wedding.

 

[Houseman]

polite company is anyone you grant respect to, with the expectation that it will be mutual. So yeah, if that doesn't happen, then you're probably not on peaceful terms, and discussing what lurks in the dark corners of your mind is still off the table.

That doesn't sound like any definition of "polite company" I've ever heard. It sounds more like you're describing people who are just being civil and polite to each-other by choice, and not because the situation demands it, or that you're mixing up "being polite" and "polite company".

I think there's a lot of overlap between your definition and mine, but I think the difference is that, with my definition, "polite company" is enforced in some way, usually by people with the authority to kick you out or reject you from the group. It's not just a decision that two people make to be polite to each-other.

As above, I wouldn't have a classification for impolite company, because the relationship becomes contentious when it's not polite.

A different word that might be helpful here is "mixed company". You might not share certain jokes around your brother's mother-in-law, but when you and your brother are alone, you drop the filter and let loose. You do this because you don't want to offend the acquaintance. You're with people you don't know well, hence: "mixed"

If there is such a thing as impolite company, it would have to be a mutual that you only know through your debauchery.

Could it also be a bunch of bros sharing locker-room talk?

Like with the mother-in-law example, people can go from "mixed" or "polite" company to "impolite" company depending on where they are and who they are with. They can switch vocabularies right when they go inside the literal locker room.

I think this forum is more like the locker room. We can give each-other noogies and snap each-other with towels and make rude gestures, and nobody gets in trouble or offended. We can even talk about subjects that aren't appropriate for the mother-in-law. That's what I think I'm really getting at.

Your mother isn't here, so feel free to talk about whether or not you'd molest a child to save it's life.

 

[Signa]

That doesn't sound like any definition of "polite company" I've ever heard. It sounds more like you're describing people who are just being civil and polite to each-other by choice, and not because the situation demands it, or that you're mixing up "being polite" and "polite company".

I'm not in the sort of mood to debate definitions of things, so whatever you want to call it, I think the idea is similar enough. You want respect, and you give respect so you don't eject everything in your head out of your mouth.

Your mother isn't here, so feel free to talk about whether or not you'd molest a child to save it's life.

Now, there's a strong difference between engaging with the hypothetical and making an admission. The topic of this thread is closer to the latter.

 

[Houseman]

Now, there's a strong difference between engaging with the hypothetical and making an admission. The topic of this thread is closer to the latter.

This topic was made based off my musings of why bluegate found the topic about the hypothetical scenario to be in "bad taste". I don't think that bluegate was saying that the topic demonstrated a lack of respect towards anybody, but he was instead just tone-policing and tut-tutting the things that he thought weren't fit to be discussed.

I was wondering what topics are acceptable to be talked about or not, and who or what determines that?

I don't think bluegate's real issue was that he found the topic to be distasteful, I think he was either (more likely) trying to protect his reputation on another site, or (less likely) was deeply ashamed of something.

So this topic was to him, but is also to everyone who avoids discussing certain topics on the internet, and asks them, "why?"

 

[Signa]

This topic was made based off my musings of why bluegate found the topic about the hypothetical scenario to be in "bad taste". I don't think that bluegate was saying that the topic demonstrated a lack of respect towards anybody, but he was instead just tone-policing and tut-tutting the things that he thought weren't fit to be discussed.

I was wondering what topics are acceptable to be talked about or not, and who or what determines that?

I don't think bluegate's real issue was that he found the topic to be distasteful, I think he was either (more likely) trying to protect his reputation on another site, or (less likely) was deeply ashamed of something.

So this topic was to him, but is also to everyone who avoids discussing certain topics on the internet, and asks them, "why?"

Then you set this up badly. Yes, I saw Bluegates post so I know the genesis of this topic, but you immediately reframed it to be about discussing porn. Discussing the porn you engage with is still very different than engaging with a hypothetical.

 

[Houseman]

Then you set this up badly.

Possibly.

Discussing the porn you engage with is still very different than engaging with a hypothetical.

You could say that both things are in "bad taste" to discuss, which is how I tried to connect the two ideas. What makes two things, in bad taste, different?

 

[Signa]

Possibly.



You could say that both things are in "bad taste" to discuss, which is how I tried to connect the two ideas. What makes two things, in bad taste, different?

Your ability to act on them and/or the admission that you're thinking about a topic.

When you have an analogy like saving a kid's life, it's clearly NOT about diddling kids, it's about something else, and you're using the dark idea as a stand-in for something else entirely.

If you start talking about hot midgets eating shit, then you're actually talking about something you saw, and/or was seeking out.

 

[Houseman]

Your ability to act on them and/or the admission that you're thinking about a topic.

When you have an analogy like saving a kid's life, it's clearly NOT about diddling kids, it's about something else, and you're using the dark idea as a stand-in for something else entirely.

If you start talking about hot midgets eating shit, then you're actually talking about something you saw, and/or was seeking out.

That's fair.

Thank you.