If you take a statue of a Naiad and have it stuck in a basement window or on it’s knees gesturing with a cupped hand, or even with just torn pantyhose and handcuffs, you’re probably going to get a lot of complaints.
There is tasteful and agreeable and it’s a very blurry line into inappropriate but the line is there.
But are we obligated to submit to arbitrary judgements of appropriateness? And everything you described is arbitrary. I don’t disagree people would whinge, (and I know this is diverging from the subject a little, but I believe it’s still related), but how is that an obligation to bow to them?
Tasteful and agreeable are inherently subjective, and that makes them impossible to delineate in any universally equitable manner.
Personally, I don’t even recognize the majority as being a metric to determine what is and isn’t tasteful or agreeable.
I also reject the idea that something being sexual is inherently without taste or agreeableness, even when it verges into the pornographic. It comes down to “who says so?”
Who makes that moral decision for everyone else, and why should they be able to?
But are we obligated to submit to arbitrary judgements of appropriateness?
Yes. The public entity as a whole agrees on what is appropriate and what is not. If you don’t like being a part of the public, then you’ve got every right to leave.
An event official for a state run organization at the fair made this call, likely after consulting with others and hearing complaints.
“If you don’t like being a part of the public, then you have every right to leave”.
Praytell, how does one leave society currently? Other than suicide, since I doubt that’s what you meant. If it was, then dude, you gotta check yourself. Which, what you said was bad enough without it being that, so you should check yourself anyway, since nobody can escape society at this point. There simply isn’t anywhere that isn’t under the authority of one country or another. But that’s whatever.
But, you still don’t seem to get that “the public as a whole” isn’t unified. I certainly haven’t agreed that a silly joke model is somehow inappropriate. I know for a fact I’m not alone in that, because other comments have said as much.
Are you saying that the officials are automatically correct in their judgement of what is and isn’t agreed on by “the public”? Were the officials in question elected or appointed? What guidelines did they use to reach their decisions?
And, of equal import, if not greater, why should such a narrow and prudish opinion be the default? Because a vocal minority raised a fuss? That doesn’t indicate a public agreement at all, it indicates the tyranny of the minority, and officials caving to it without actually consulting the public. Or did they consult the public in some way that isn’t evident in the article? You may have information I don’t. If that’s the case, please do point me towards that.
What I’m saying is that the assumption that a given set of value judgements isn’t right just because it happens to be what is common. Nor is a position of authority proof of rightness. That’s simply proof of being given authority by someone. An elected official at least can claim majority authority, but an appointed one? Nah, that’s specious at best. When that official is applying moral judgement, it needs a higher level of scrutiny.
This model is like hiding an adult joke, in a kid’s show, for the parents. They probably would have only had a small amount of locals laugh a bit, maybe get a tiny amount of complaints from pearl clutchers. Now they have Stressand effected the piece. People all over the world now get to see it, and associate it with this local competition.
You know, in most places that legalized it, homosexuality was not seen as something that should be legal by the majority of the population. If we operated the way you propose, homosexuality would have still been a crime, in my country, from 1961, until 2003. If most of the population supports fascism, or a genocide, or slavery, etc. does it mean we should just fall in line?
Homosexuality is still a crime in some countries and if your plan is to go there and fuck in public to prove some kind of point then I strongly advise not to.
If you thought I would suddenly have an enlightenment about how obscenity doesnt actually exist in any context, you would go get yourself executed? Thats very brave of you, I guess…?
I’m aware of what it is. Because I’ve seen porn. Like I said, it’s an “if you know, you know” situation. If a kid sees this and knows what it is, that kid has seen porn. Otherwise, it’s just a room.
Eh, we have nude statues in public places, paintings too. Like, not in museums, in the open.
This model isn’t even nsfw at all, it just references the subject of pornography, with one specific “genre” that’s exemplified by a brand.
But, hey, they didn’t penalize the maker, so it’s all good to me :)
If you take a statue of a Naiad and have it stuck in a basement window or on it’s knees gesturing with a cupped hand, or even with just torn pantyhose and handcuffs, you’re probably going to get a lot of complaints.
There is tasteful and agreeable and it’s a very blurry line into inappropriate but the line is there.
But are we obligated to submit to arbitrary judgements of appropriateness? And everything you described is arbitrary. I don’t disagree people would whinge, (and I know this is diverging from the subject a little, but I believe it’s still related), but how is that an obligation to bow to them?
Tasteful and agreeable are inherently subjective, and that makes them impossible to delineate in any universally equitable manner.
Personally, I don’t even recognize the majority as being a metric to determine what is and isn’t tasteful or agreeable.
I also reject the idea that something being sexual is inherently without taste or agreeableness, even when it verges into the pornographic. It comes down to “who says so?”
Who makes that moral decision for everyone else, and why should they be able to?
Yes. The public entity as a whole agrees on what is appropriate and what is not. If you don’t like being a part of the public, then you’ve got every right to leave.
An event official for a state run organization at the fair made this call, likely after consulting with others and hearing complaints.
Ouch, you really went there?
“If you don’t like being a part of the public, then you have every right to leave”.
Praytell, how does one leave society currently? Other than suicide, since I doubt that’s what you meant. If it was, then dude, you gotta check yourself. Which, what you said was bad enough without it being that, so you should check yourself anyway, since nobody can escape society at this point. There simply isn’t anywhere that isn’t under the authority of one country or another. But that’s whatever.
But, you still don’t seem to get that “the public as a whole” isn’t unified. I certainly haven’t agreed that a silly joke model is somehow inappropriate. I know for a fact I’m not alone in that, because other comments have said as much.
Are you saying that the officials are automatically correct in their judgement of what is and isn’t agreed on by “the public”? Were the officials in question elected or appointed? What guidelines did they use to reach their decisions?
And, of equal import, if not greater, why should such a narrow and prudish opinion be the default? Because a vocal minority raised a fuss? That doesn’t indicate a public agreement at all, it indicates the tyranny of the minority, and officials caving to it without actually consulting the public. Or did they consult the public in some way that isn’t evident in the article? You may have information I don’t. If that’s the case, please do point me towards that.
What I’m saying is that the assumption that a given set of value judgements isn’t right just because it happens to be what is common. Nor is a position of authority proof of rightness. That’s simply proof of being given authority by someone. An elected official at least can claim majority authority, but an appointed one? Nah, that’s specious at best. When that official is applying moral judgement, it needs a higher level of scrutiny.
This model is like hiding an adult joke, in a kid’s show, for the parents. They probably would have only had a small amount of locals laugh a bit, maybe get a tiny amount of complaints from pearl clutchers. Now they have Stressand effected the piece. People all over the world now get to see it, and associate it with this local competition.
Never show these prudes Rocko’s Modern Life.
Didn’t read
You know, in most places that legalized it, homosexuality was not seen as something that should be legal by the majority of the population. If we operated the way you propose, homosexuality would have still been a crime, in my country, from 1961, until 2003. If most of the population supports fascism, or a genocide, or slavery, etc. does it mean we should just fall in line?
This is a stupid take
Homosexuality is still a crime in some countries and if your plan is to go there and fuck in public to prove some kind of point then I strongly advise not to.
No point in proving one to someone who, apparently, won’t understand it. I am talking about you, btw.
If you thought I would suddenly have an enlightenment about how obscenity doesnt actually exist in any context, you would go get yourself executed? Thats very brave of you, I guess…?
Thank you for proving the point of my last comment. You don’t even know what point I was trying to make. You truly do not understand.
There is no nudity in the miniature. It’s an empty room. This is literally an “if you know, you know” situation.
Its an actual 1:1 faithful recreation of a porn set. Cheek prints and stain included.
I’m aware of what it is. Because I’ve seen porn. Like I said, it’s an “if you know, you know” situation. If a kid sees this and knows what it is, that kid has seen porn. Otherwise, it’s just a room.
Somebody who knew didn’t like it and now people like you are filling up my inbox making a stink about it.
Whats your problem? Other people aren’t allowed to be upset about things you like? Their feelings don’t matter?
They’re allowed to be as upset as they like. People get upset about all sorts of silly things. That doesn’t mean they need to be catered to.
And what do you mean your inbox?
So you acknowledge their feelings but you wish them harm, got it.
What are you even talking about?
People are offended by statues of Martin Luther King, Jr. Should we take them down because those people are upset?