March 17, 2014 Re: Appropriateness of posts | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | On 3/17/2014 2:31 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>
> The difference between porn and art has defied all attempts at writing a
> bureaucratic rule defining it, yet we all know which is which when we
> see it.
>
That categorizational difficulty only exists because "porn" and "erotic art" realistically *are* the same thing, the only difference is the speaker's positive/negative spin and the compulsion of certain factions in the art world to feel ethically insulated from the works of the less "artsy" factions.
|
March 17, 2014 Re: Appropriateness of posts | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to deadalnix | On Monday, 17 March 2014 at 22:33:40 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Monday, 17 March 2014 at 22:15:25 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> On 3/17/2014 11:50 AM, Graham Fawcett wrote:
>>>
>>> The pervasive sexism in our profession is a serious problem, and should
>>
>> Pervasive sexism in programming? What a complete crock of shit.
>
> And all these pull request we rejected because they were made by women ? HA! See!
>
> Oh wait...
And all these women do not program because of the "pervasive sexism" in programming?! What a complete crock of shit.
|
March 17, 2014 Re: Appropriateness of posts | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Nick Sabalausky | Nick Sabalausky:
> That categorizational difficulty only exists because "porn" and "erotic art" realistically *are* the same thing, the only difference is the speaker's positive/negative spin and the compulsion of certain factions in the art world to feel ethically insulated from the works of the less "artsy" factions.
Despite them being not always easy to tell apart, it doesn't mean they are the same thing. In your brain there are several different subsystems designed for different purposes, and "porn" and "erotic art" don't stimulate the same areas, despite they have some common traits. This can even be measured experimentally with brain imaging since many years.
Bye,
bearophile
|
March 17, 2014 Re: Appropriateness of posts | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Araq | On Monday, 17 March 2014 at 22:13:17 UTC, Araq wrote:
>> From my personal experience in the UK, It's a pretty good indicator. Not exclusively, but perhaps 80% of the time.
>
> If only you would understand how ironic your argument is.
I'm not sure if it's an argument, more an observation... Nonetheless, please do enlighten :)
|
March 17, 2014 Re: Appropriateness of posts | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to John Colvin | On Monday, 17 March 2014 at 22:53:48 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
> I'm not sure if it's an argument, more an observation... Nonetheless, please do enlighten :)
"I am against offending people at all costs, so I'd better call that guy a jerk because he think differently"
|
March 17, 2014 Re: Appropriateness of posts | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to deadalnix | On 3/17/2014 6:33 PM, deadalnix wrote:
> On Monday, 17 March 2014 at 22:15:25 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> On 3/17/2014 11:50 AM, Graham Fawcett wrote:
>>>
>>> The pervasive sexism in our profession is a serious problem, and should
>>
>> Pervasive sexism in programming? What a complete crock of shit.
>
> And all these pull request we rejected because they were made by women ?
> HA! See!
>
> Oh wait...
Exactly, right!
People see that software development is predominately male, and they assume "Oh, it *MUST* be because those EVIL, SEXIST men are TRYING to keep women out!" That genuinely pisses me off, what the hell is this, 1920? When people actually *wanted* to join men's clubs and such post-college fraternities? For f...*couch*..."freaks" sake, one of the things I hate MOST about software dev is that it's such a saus...is that it's all guys.
There's only one kind of sexism in this profession, and that's the kind that compels people with more many and self-importance than actual sense to create computer science scholarships which explicitly state: "No, you're not eligible *because* you're a man." Funny thing, I've never seen a scholarship that had a rule against women. And yet somehow programming is allegedly full of women-hating men? Fucking crock of shit.
|
March 17, 2014 Re: Appropriateness of posts | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Dicebot | On Monday, 17 March 2014 at 22:56:21 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On Monday, 17 March 2014 at 22:53:48 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
>> I'm not sure if it's an argument, more an observation... Nonetheless, please do enlighten :)
>
> "I am against offending people at all costs, so I'd better call that guy a jerk because he think differently"
That's really not a fair representation of what I said.
|
March 18, 2014 Re: Appropriateness of posts | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to bearophile | On 3/17/2014 6:49 PM, bearophile wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky:
>
>> That categorizational difficulty only exists because "porn" and
>> "erotic art" realistically *are* the same thing, the only difference
>> is the speaker's positive/negative spin and the compulsion of certain
>> factions in the art world to feel ethically insulated from the works
>> of the less "artsy" factions.
>
> Despite them being not always easy to tell apart, it doesn't mean they
> are the same thing. In your brain there are several different subsystems
> designed for different purposes, and "porn" and "erotic art" don't
> stimulate the same areas, despite they have some common traits. This can
> even be measured experimentally with brain imaging since many years.
>
That doesn't imply there's an inherent difference, only that most people interpret a difference. In both cases, it's a visual stimulus (ie "art", as if "art" even had a real definition at all) that's erotically-themed. I think it's entirely reasonable to argue that the differences in brain activity relate more to whether an individual person subconsciously (or consciously) chooses to view a piece for artistic purposes or for...other...purposes.
It's not at all difficult see that a single work, whether "porn" or "erotic art", can easily lead two different viewers, or even *be* led by the viewers themselves, to *either* mental reaction. This very strongly suggests that the distinction has little to do with the work itself.
Furthermore, it could easily be argued (and I suspect many would) that burring, if not destroying, the lines between "sexual" and "respectable" is a major part of the whole point behind "erotic art". Interesting to note, then, how closely this parallels the increasingly mainstream acceptance of porn. That sounds to me like very strong evidence that we're not examining two different things at all, but rather looking at one-and-the-same thing from two different vantage points and *choosing* to interpret them differently (and yes, interpreting something differently is naturally going to manifest as a difference in brain activity).
|
March 18, 2014 Re: Appropriateness of posts | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Araq | On 3/17/2014 6:45 PM, Araq wrote:
> On Monday, 17 March 2014 at 22:33:40 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>> On Monday, 17 March 2014 at 22:15:25 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> On 3/17/2014 11:50 AM, Graham Fawcett wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The pervasive sexism in our profession is a serious problem, and should
>>>
>>> Pervasive sexism in programming? What a complete crock of shit.
>>
>> And all these pull request we rejected because they were made by women
>> ? HA! See!
>>
>> Oh wait...
>
> And all these women do not program because of the "pervasive sexism" in
> programming?! What a complete crock of shit.
Unfortunately, there is a *perceived* sexism in programming: Anytime something is predominantly male, there's hordes of people blindly assuming "it *must* be men trying to keep women out!" (Right, as if this were 1950). It wouldn't surprise me if, in some cases, this has become a self-fulfilling prophesy.
|
March 18, 2014 Re: Appropriateness of posts | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Nick Sabalausky | On 3/17/2014 7:02 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> ...people with more many and self-importance...
s/many/money/
Every notice how typos are significantly more embarrassing in a rant? ;)
|
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation