I can understand a need for intricacy, but there needs to be some kind of regulation. There needs to be a set of rules that determines if its okay to show gore depending on the situation.
is it historically/journalistically significant
is it being shown for safety training
is there a crime being committed and will the footage radicalize people
Do you really trust the fucking american justice system to set appropriate boundaries on what violates each one of those 5 points? Why does gore need to be regulated in the first place?
why does gore need to be regulated in the first place?
Because its gore? How would you feel if you or your loved one was killed in a horrible way on camera and it was posted online to be seen and made fun of by billions. People have rights even in death. Doing nothing is going to only make the problem worse in the future.
Frankly if the US government was willing to prosecute website owners who distribute gore, I wouldn't care. Like even you have to admit under a utopian government there should be rules around this stuff.
I think its a bit stupid to waste time and energy to protect the "rights" of a dead heap of flesh to this extent when the living need urgent care.
This part, especially, is alienating pop-nihilistic bullshit that would put off millions of potential comrades if it in any way became an official position of a leftist organization. "ACTUALLY your dead family members don't deserve to be grieved or avenged no matter what injustice killed them, because they are dead heaps of flesh! What about the concerns of the living, huh? Except you living that are concerned with grieving the dead! That's stupid and a waste of time and energy, you irrational widow, you irrational orphan! Get schwifty!"
The US government would just label evidence of its warcrimes "gore" and throw us all in jail. Furthermore since they are a bunch of puritanical dipshits they will ban depictions of violence in art too, eroding freedom of artistic expression and making me angry because my vidya is gone.
Legalizing absolutely everything under pretenses of "banning things doesn't work and besides the gubbmint bad therefore everything must be permitted at all times forever and ever" is a take that would be less than useless in a viable socialist society.
It would be wiser for a government to ban cars, increase expenditure to public and workplace safety, invest in good healthcare, improve vital infrastructure, etc. such that death has less opportunities to surprise the citizenry than it is to use these resources to punish people for viewing the outcome of the aforementioned failures. It is better to face the reality of death together and work to weaken it than it is to pretend it does not exist and ban the truth.
Whataboutism is exhausting and goes nowhere, especially because there simply isn't societal will to do what you're "whatabouting" while you're also condemning people for grieving what you call "dead heaps of flesh" that were once their loved ones.
Would you be euphoric enough to stand amid a BLM protest and say "Actually George Floyd is now a dead heap of flesh so you are all illogical! What about banning cars and increasing expenditures to public and workplace safety, investments and good healthcare, and improving vital infrastructure instead of this illogicalness? Must I do all the thinking around here?"
Taken as a whole, it all seems very defensive about what sounds like a source of entertainment for you, to the point that you are acting as if your entertainment is threatened by even analysis of its possible detrimental effects on a population exposed to it. You are not the only person in the world.
Also, pop nihilistic reductionistic arguments against grieving people (or the pre-death wishes of the dead to not be humiliated or used for the entertainment of others) are poison against solidarity.
I do not dare condemn grief, it is not my intention nor my right. Rather, I think it unwise for any 21st century authority to use time and energy to ban videos of people dying on the internet as opposed to issues like food security or offering aid to those left behind. If the deceased or their relatives want the videos taken down then that would be their wish and the government can honor it, but it is not a decision for the government itself to take imo.
I would never dare use such a demonic argument against ending the oppression of the citizenry by the police, my funko pop collection is not large enough for that level of mental gymnastics.
I don't think that everything should be legalized, I agree that atrocities like murder and rape should be forbidden. My argument is that any capitalist government cannot be trusted as an authority responsible for the censorship of and punishment for hosting videos of people dying.
You bring up societal will, which is a good point and is I think the real problem here. Most "gore" (violent death on camera) is due to workplace accidents, road accidents, fights (social alienation), suicides, and infrastructure failures, things that the government of a country is supposedly working to prevent. I would be very upset if the government decided to expand the list of reasons to bolster the warped criminal justice system with viewing the result of its failures on the internet.
The opinions shared here by this account are insane and heavily engineered by the FBI, CIA, <insert glow in the dark organisation here>, etc. They should not under any circumstances be used as the party line for a leftist organisation.
What are the detrimental effects of a small sample of sickos watching people die on the wider population? Is the problem that people watch violent death or the fact that people die violently in preventable ways?
"ACTUALLY your dead family members don't deserve to be grieved or avenged no matter what injustice killed them, because they are dead heaps of flesh! What about the concerns of the living, huh? Except you living that are concerned with grieving the dead! That's stupid and a waste of time and energy, you irrational widow, you irrational orphan! Get schwifty!"
My sides left the country imagining a redditor saying this at a funeral and getting beaten up.
I do not dare condemn grief, it is not my intention nor my right
BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT
Rather, I think it unwise for any 21st century authority to use time and energy to ban videos of people dying on the internet as opposed to issues like food security or offering aid to those left behind
People aren't getting food security or aid to those left behind right now so why is your loaded advocacy for anything-goes snuff film legalization even on the same table?
EDIT: To clarify my position, the "what about more important things" argument is exactly the rhetorical tactic that "Effective Altruists" pushed in their claims that helping living actual people in need doesn't matter in the long run because billions of years in the future the immortal cyber-angels dancing on the head of a Singularity(tm) pin will thank us for making billionaires richer in the present instead. "We can't have small thing until vague and out of reach big thing happens" first is the death of momentum.
What are the detrimental effects of a small sample of sickos watching people die on the wider population? Is the problem that people watch violent death or the fact that people die violently in preventable ways?
I'm not even going to entertain the "a few bad apples" line of bullshit arguing there. Sometimes one is enough and a few is a crowd.
If someone I loved was killed and "a small sample of sickos" were getting off to footage of that killing, yes I would be more than upset and no amount of Rick and Morty binge watching would change that.
My sides left the country imagining a redditor saying this at a funeral and getting beaten up.
Good, because in a just universe, that's exactly what would happen in such a measurable and predictable way that clocks could run on it.
To your credit you answered well enough where I'm not quite as pissed off at your first post here with provided additional context. I still disagree with you strongly, but it's something.
Well I think that snuff films classify as murder (people killed for the sake of the camera) and therefore should be banned because of that, I don't think content like that should be legal or legalized. I am referring more to the common violent content shared on the internet which involves horrific deaths that happen to be recorded on camera spontaneously out of coincidence.
I agree that it makes sense for the government to give an option to people as to whether, in the event of their death being recorded on camera, they would want the videos taken down for privacy's sake. The decision should be in the hands of the citizen and their family, not the government.
To the in-effective altruists I will say that they are mad for considering the opinions of their fanfiction omnissiah 9000 gorillion years in a future that only exists in their imagination more important than... solving world hunger.
You already declared that all banning is futile and that all attempts to ban something automatically result in government abuse of said bans (yes, the government sucking sucks in Burgerland, but it's still a presumptive worldwide claim to make), so it's not like there'd be much to distinguish killed-to-entertain-hogs from killed-for-other-reasons-but-hogs-get-entertained.
By banning I mean hunt down the murderers who profit from their killings and shut down the site permanently. I do not agree that all government regulation is futile, for instance, the manufacture of nuclear weapons should be banned wholesale by any government (unless the BETA invade or something).
Furthermore, in my view, a video which coincidentally captures a violent death is a sincere snapshot of reality at the time and it in itself is neither good nor bad. However, I do acknowledge that there are sick fucks (e.g. les francais) who use free speech as an excuse to get a rise out of mocking and belittling the victims of a tragedy through such videos. The issue I see with banning the videos themselves is that the bullies will remain bullies and move on to something else. After all they are the products of a capitalist society where human life and death is cheap.
Rather I think it would be better to ban the behaviour, as in allow the archival of gore away from sites where people can be accidentally traumatized by stumbling upon it, presented with sobriety without a comment section. The best strategy would be to build a world such that human life is treasured and everyone is taken care of, reducing levels of sick fuckery.
The best strategy would be to build a world such that human life is treasured and everyone is taken care of, reducing levels of sick fuckery.
This one part is in steep contrast to the reductionist description provided for dead people earlier in this comment chain. I prefer this side of the contrast, so works for me.
I can understand a need for intricacy, but there needs to be some kind of regulation. There needs to be a set of rules that determines if its okay to show gore depending on the situation.
is it historically/journalistically significant
is it being shown for safety training
is there a crime being committed and will the footage radicalize people
is the footage purely for shock value
is there any kind of consent for the dead
Do you really trust the fucking american justice system to set appropriate boundaries on what violates each one of those 5 points? Why does gore need to be regulated in the first place?
Because its gore? How would you feel if you or your loved one was killed in a horrible way on camera and it was posted online to be seen and made fun of by billions. People have rights even in death. Doing nothing is going to only make the problem worse in the future.
Frankly if the US government was willing to prosecute website owners who distribute gore, I wouldn't care. Like even you have to admit under a utopian government there should be rules around this stuff.
Removed by mod
This part, especially, is alienating pop-nihilistic bullshit that would put off millions of potential comrades if it in any way became an official position of a leftist organization. "ACTUALLY your dead family members don't deserve to be grieved or avenged no matter what injustice killed them, because they are dead heaps of flesh! What about the concerns of the living, huh? Except you living that are concerned with grieving the dead! That's stupid and a waste of time and energy, you irrational widow, you irrational orphan! Get schwifty!"
Legalizing absolutely everything under pretenses of "banning things doesn't work and besides the gubbmint bad therefore everything must be permitted at all times forever and ever" is a
take that would be less than useless in a viable socialist society.
Whataboutism is exhausting and goes nowhere, especially because there simply isn't societal will to do what you're "whatabouting" while you're also condemning people for grieving what you call "dead heaps of flesh" that were once their loved ones.
Would you be euphoric enough to stand amid a BLM protest and say "Actually George Floyd is now a dead heap of flesh so you are all illogical! What about banning cars and increasing expenditures to public and workplace safety, investments and good healthcare, and improving vital infrastructure instead of this illogicalness? Must I do all the thinking around here?"
Taken as a whole, it all seems very defensive about what sounds like a source of entertainment for you, to the point that you are acting as if your entertainment is threatened by even analysis of its possible detrimental effects on a population exposed to it. You are not the only person in the world.
Also, pop nihilistic reductionistic arguments against grieving people (or the pre-death wishes of the dead to not be humiliated or used for the entertainment of others) are poison against solidarity.
Sir I think we are confusing a few things here:
I do not dare condemn grief, it is not my intention nor my right. Rather, I think it unwise for any 21st century authority to use time and energy to ban videos of people dying on the internet as opposed to issues like food security or offering aid to those left behind. If the deceased or their relatives want the videos taken down then that would be their wish and the government can honor it, but it is not a decision for the government itself to take imo.
I would never dare use such a demonic argument against ending the oppression of the citizenry by the police, my funko pop collection is not large enough for that level of mental gymnastics.
I don't think that everything should be legalized, I agree that atrocities like murder and rape should be forbidden. My argument is that any capitalist government cannot be trusted as an authority responsible for the censorship of and punishment for hosting videos of people dying.
You bring up societal will, which is a good point and is I think the real problem here. Most "gore" (violent death on camera) is due to workplace accidents, road accidents, fights (social alienation), suicides, and infrastructure failures, things that the government of a country is supposedly working to prevent. I would be very upset if the government decided to expand the list of reasons to bolster the warped criminal justice system with viewing the result of its failures on the internet.
The opinions shared here by this account are insane and heavily engineered by the FBI, CIA, <insert glow in the dark organisation here>, etc. They should not under any circumstances be used as the party line for a leftist organisation.
What are the detrimental effects of a small sample of sickos watching people die on the wider population? Is the problem that people watch violent death or the fact that people die violently in preventable ways?
My sides left the country imagining a redditor saying this at a funeral and getting beaten up.
I already don't like where this is going.
BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT
People aren't getting food security or aid to those left behind right now so why is your loaded advocacy for anything-goes snuff film legalization even on the same table?
EDIT: To clarify my position, the "what about more important things" argument is exactly the rhetorical tactic that "Effective Altruists" pushed in their claims that helping living actual people in need doesn't matter in the long run because billions of years in the future the immortal cyber-angels dancing on the head of a Singularity(tm) pin will thank us for making billionaires richer in the present instead. "We can't have small thing until vague and out of reach big thing happens" first is the death of momentum.
I'm not even going to entertain the "a few bad apples" line of bullshit arguing there. Sometimes one is enough and a few is a crowd.
If someone I loved was killed and "a small sample of sickos" were getting off to footage of that killing, yes I would be more than upset and no amount of Rick and Morty binge watching would change that.
Good, because in a just universe, that's exactly what would happen in such a measurable and predictable way that clocks could run on it.
To your credit you answered well enough where I'm not quite as pissed off at your first post here with provided additional context. I still disagree with you strongly, but it's something.
Well I think that snuff films classify as murder (people killed for the sake of the camera) and therefore should be banned because of that, I don't think content like that should be legal or legalized. I am referring more to the common violent content shared on the internet which involves horrific deaths that happen to be recorded on camera spontaneously out of coincidence.
I agree that it makes sense for the government to give an option to people as to whether, in the event of their death being recorded on camera, they would want the videos taken down for privacy's sake. The decision should be in the hands of the citizen and their family, not the government.
To the in-effective altruists I will say that they are mad for considering the opinions of their fanfiction omnissiah 9000 gorillion years in a future that only exists in their imagination more important than... solving world hunger.
You already declared that all banning is futile and that all attempts to ban something automatically result in government abuse of said bans (yes, the government sucking sucks in Burgerland, but it's still a presumptive worldwide claim to make), so it's not like there'd be much to distinguish killed-to-entertain-hogs from killed-for-other-reasons-but-hogs-get-entertained.
By banning I mean hunt down the murderers who profit from their killings and shut down the site permanently. I do not agree that all government regulation is futile, for instance, the manufacture of nuclear weapons should be banned wholesale by any government (unless the BETA invade or something).
Furthermore, in my view, a video which coincidentally captures a violent death is a sincere snapshot of reality at the time and it in itself is neither good nor bad. However, I do acknowledge that there are sick fucks (e.g. les francais) who use free speech as an excuse to get a rise out of mocking and belittling the victims of a tragedy through such videos. The issue I see with banning the videos themselves is that the bullies will remain bullies and move on to something else. After all they are the products of a capitalist society where human life and death is cheap.
Rather I think it would be better to ban the behaviour, as in allow the archival of gore away from sites where people can be accidentally traumatized by stumbling upon it, presented with sobriety without a comment section. The best strategy would be to build a world such that human life is treasured and everyone is taken care of, reducing levels of sick fuckery.
This one part is in steep contrast to the
reductionist description provided for dead people earlier in this comment chain. I prefer this side of the contrast, so works for me.