An Editorial Announcement
Jan. 14th, 2004 11:18 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
percival![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
sff_corgi, you're the best.*** *** ***
To all those who replied to my last post: I don't have the time at the moment to reply to all of you. I will get there eventually, but it may take a week, because I am very busy at the moment. A quick thank you to those who took the time to argue with me, both in favour of and against the position I presented.
Just to clarify: I follow a certain spiritual path, and as a consequence, I try to follow certain ethical guidelines. If I share the guidelines that I have adopted for myself in this LiveJournal, then this does not mean that all dissenters are wrong, evil, nuts, or on the way to hell, that I'm trying to convert you to my way of thinking or that I would like to silence all dissenters. Far from it!
If you disagree with my ethics, please say so, and tell me why, and what leads you to come to a different conclusion than me. I want to understand why people disagree. I'm not interested in labelling anybody, or judging anybody, because that never does a person justice.
I also don't want to convert anybody to the path I follow - in fact, I strongly believe that every person needs to find their own spiritual / ethical path. (Here, I disagree with most of the evangelical Christians on my Friends list, who see Jesus as The One True Way. But the point is, folks, that even though we disagree, I respect their opinion and their religion, and they respect mine.) I do reserve a right to my own opinion, though ;)
If I seem condescending at times - sorry, don't mean to! If I appear not to have researched what I say - well, I don't like to provide my LJ entries with extensive footnotes, but be assured that I do think before forming an opinion and that, having a Ph.D., I know how to do my research, both in the humanities and in the sciences.
Finally, venturing to post something about my personal ethics does not mean that I am perfect, or that I follow those ethics to the letter. On the contrary, I'm far from perfect, but I find it's good to have an idea of the person I would like to be.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 04:31 am (UTC)I gotta tell you that I have strong views on the topic of your last post that don't fully align with yours, but *I* certainly didn't find your post to be condescending, objectionable, or ill-researched...
no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 04:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 04:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 05:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 05:18 am (UTC)I don't agree with everything that you say, but I do think that the vehemence of some is born more of their own biases than of any mistakes of yours.
I think that the discussion from your last post was an interesting one. If you can use it to further your knowledge, great- but you shouldn't be discouraged at all, at any level, by the responses you got. I think that your approach was and continues to be consistently thoughtful and considerate- considerably more so than many who replied to you.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 05:28 am (UTC)It's just that some of the words and the name-calling in the comments shook me so much that it was almost impossible for me to react as I would like to, in a calm and understanding manner. They certainly taught me a lot about my own emotional trigger points :)
That said, I've seen quite a few entries where friends of mine expressed somewhat similar views - but they did not forget the required hedges re. censorship and tolerance. As a consequence, they received far less violent reactions. I'll certainly be more careful to include these hedges in any "ethics" posts in the future.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 05:37 am (UTC)Noelle
no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 06:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 06:41 am (UTC)Don't let the really biased and negative responses get to you. Some people don't know how to discuss. They focus on red herrings, ad homimum, straw man, and band wagon arguments. You're fine. They're noise.
Catherine
no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 09:43 am (UTC)That some who read it did see it that way says more about them than about you.
As for research: Who wants to see footnotes in a LJ? It's not a research paper, for Pete's sake. I do like it when posters refer to an interesting book or article which helped form their opinion, not because I want to see the footnotes but because I might be interested in checking it out, too.
Again - you have nothing to apologize for as far as I am concerned.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 10:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 12:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-14 03:56 pm (UTC)People, if your children can get around the protections then you have more serious problems than porn and you need to look at your family dynamics.
If you don't like what is being written, too bad for you. We have free speech in the US. This means that even if you don't like it, you have to tolerate it. If not, we run the risk of no tolerance regardless of content - including religious ideas and text.
Keep in mind, some people are highly offended by religion - of all sorts. People tend to forget this, especially religious/spiritual people, when advocating censorship.
Porn will always exist - as long as original sin remains a fact of life, there is nothing that can be done.
Do what the rest of the conservative community should/does do - ignore it like mature adults. If you're tempted - don't ask people to remove the temptation because you don't have will-power. That's selfish and immature. It also doesn't solve the overall problem. You'll/people will find access elsewhere.
Yep, I'm logging in as anonymous because I don't want my journal flagged or flooded. Selfish me!
no subject
Date: 2004-01-15 08:40 am (UTC)Yet I think that your comment here was misplaced and unfair. You SEEM to be suggesting that some pieces of work should be immune to criticism- or that any questioning of some modes of consumption must intrinsically be "conservative"- or that to criticise a work is to call for its suppression.
Such suggestion reeks of misunderstanding.
I look forward to discourse where both sides do their best to understand and then politely respond to the perspective of the other, instead of offering yet another knee-jerk response that seems more rooted in historical offenses rather than in the words of the current conversation.
I know that people have called for censorship of certain works in the past. Move on. That's not what is happening here, and you pollute the conversation and dicredit yourself by imputing such ideas to the original poster.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-15 11:54 am (UTC)Thanks
no subject
Date: 2004-01-15 06:35 am (UTC)I want to add my voice to all those who are correctly assuring you that you made no mistakes, you expressed your opinion in a balanced and neutral fashion, a manner inviting genuine debate. If others choose to be defensive, it says more about the shakiness of the ground on which their convictions stand than it says about your powers of expression, which, by the way, I consider to be of a very high quality.
Hang in there, lass. You be good people.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-16 10:51 pm (UTC)I couldn't possibly have put it any better. I agree.
Coward much?
Date: 2004-01-15 06:52 am (UTC)You are a Coward.
It is WRONG to blacklist an author simply because the site their work is archived at doesn't implement password protection for minors. This isn't the author's fault. Almost all authors who have home pages REQUIRE a statement from the user and a password.
As for your 'issue' dealing with incest/pedophilia. Dear that's your issue and not something that you should attempt to force on the public. I don't know where you live, but here in the US we have something called 'Freedom of Speech'.
If you attempt to force censorship because you don't like what is being written you run the risk of religious sites and articles being censored? After all, some people are offended by these topics.
Personally, I'm not stating my views beyond what I have said below - they are, in fact, none of your business. I will tell you that I do not enjoy incest or pedophilia. This does not prevent me from attempting to protect the rights of others.
PhD aside, your ignorance regarding this matter is shocking. I’ve spent years in the church and I am shocked by the behavior of you and your group. If you don’t like the stories – ignore them. It is that simple.
Re: Coward much?
Date: 2004-01-15 07:12 am (UTC)When I read your reply, it was morning, and I am currently at work. For the record, I never delete comments, I just choose not to unscreen sometimes.
I was actually leaving a considered answer to your comment until the evening, my time, to be able to give your objections the time they deserve. But since you are pressing me, here is a brief response that is more harsh than it might otherwise have been.
For the record:
- I do not advocate censorship.
- I do not advocate blacklisting. In fact, I think that blacklisting is counterproductive.
- I am not
- I am all in favour of Freedom of Speech, because it allows me to state my opinions, and it allows you to state yours.
- Heck, I even believe that teenagers have a brain and a will and a value system of their own.
I wish your crusade against censorship well, and I do not wish to flame or pester you. I have had enough of that in my own LJ, and I do not wish it on anybody.
Peace be with you.
Accept this from a Soto Zen Buddhist Quaker with a Catholic background who has Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Pagan, Wiccan, and Evangelical Christian friends.
Re: Coward much?
Date: 2004-01-15 07:51 am (UTC)It is wrong to blacklist authors. When did perceval ever say it wasn't? When did she ever say fandom_scruples is running a noble crusade and everyone should be just like them? She never did. She wouldn't. Because she also believes in free speech. Had you bothered to ask her this instead of jumping to conclusions, you might have had a pleasant conversation with a wonderful lady.
With the incest issue, all she ever said was what SHE felt. She never said, and never would say, the rest of the world should feel exactly as she should. If you read her previous post and the many comments, you'd discover that she's open to other people's beliefs. I, myself, think incest and rape fic that glorifies the acts and turns them into something wonderful is wrong. But I'm not about to say you need to believe that too. Perceval wouldn't either.
The issue of freedom of speech goes both ways, honey. If you feel it is your right (and it is) to say these things, than why in the world is it not her right to state her views?
What group are you refering to when you speak of 'you and your group'? Perceval is NOT a member of fandom_scruples. She did not start the site. She never asked to be friended. If you look, you'd realize that she did not friend them in return, which should have been a clue to you that she does not agree with what they are doing and she is not, in fact, one of them. You might also note that they don't remove you from their friends list if you ask. You have to irresponsibly post an NC-17 fic to get removed.
And if she did, who are you to say these things to her? This is her own personal livejournal. Since when is posting an opinion in your own personal livejournal forcing your views on the rest of the world? Correct me if I'm wrong, but to force your views on someone, you have to actually be aggressive in following them around and constantly telling them what they should and should not think. Perceval has never hunted out people who don't agree with her and told them they were wrong. She would never do something like that. Why you are doing it, I don't know. Posting HER OWN opinions in HER OWN journal is just that... stating her opinion.
Why are you even trying to argue with somebody who holds similar views as you do? Why are you attacking someone who mostly agrees with you?
Re: Coward much?
Date: 2004-01-15 09:30 am (UTC)When it comes to calling her a coward... well... honey, you don't know her.
If always finding the bright side of a horrible situation makes her a coward,
then by all means, I want to be a coward too.
I called her a coward
because my previous post did not show up. Based on this post I must ask,
What bright side Where in my post did I say she was a coward based on her
posts? Read my post again please.
If you knew her, you'd be ashamed for even thinking that. I have never
in my life met a woman as brave. She has faced so much pain and emotional
trauma, and yet she has done it all with a smile.
Yah well, so have I - faced trauma. I am, myself, not well and in quite a
bit of pain. You would know this had you read my journal.
It is wrong to blacklist authors. When did perceval ever say it wasn't? She
also believes in free speech. Had you bothered to ask her this instead of
jumping to conclusions, you might have had a pleasant conversation with a
wonderful lady.
Did I have the chance to ask her- NO, we are in different time zone. I
responded to her post. I also had the right to jump to my conclusions based on
her post.
With the incest issue, all she ever said was what SHE felt.
Did I say I advocate incest and rape, no. I simply said that authors
who write this type of fiction have the right to post it to the archives. Once
again, please read my pervious post where I said I did not enjoy incest
and most authors have protections in place on their sites..
The issue of freedom of speech goes both ways, honey. If you feel it is
your right (and it is) to say these things, than why in the world is it not
her right to state her views?
She does have the right to say what she feels. She does not have to right
to ask people to stop writing, regardless of content. After all, in some
countries, her lj would be deleted due to it's Catholism and Buddhist title.
What group are you refering to when you speak of 'you and your group'?
Perceval is NOT a member of fandom_scruples. She did not start the site. And
if she did, who are you to say these things to her?
Okay - I was wrong to assume she started the site. I admit that. Had
she started the site, I have a right to be upset. This is my right as a
person.
I called her a coward because my previous post did not show up. NOT because
of her views. Read my post.. Had she started the site - I l have every
right to be upset - once again - Freedom of Speech!
This is her own personal livejournal. Since when is posting an opinion
in your own personal livejournal forcing your views on the rest of the world?
Why you are doing it, I don't know.
I am providing the feedback and opinions, she stated she wanted! Why
are you so set on attacking me? As for the rest, once again, read my post.
Posting HER OWN opinions in HER OWN journal is just that... stating her
opinion.
As I have stated mine when she asked for feedback.
Why are you even trying to argue with somebody who holds similar views as
you do? Why are you attacking someone who mostly agrees with you?
I'm not arguing, simply providing and alternative point of view. I did NOT
attack her. I posted my view. You are taking this personally.
When someone asks for feedback, they have to accept differing points of view.
If you personally can't, well, that's your issue.
These attacks against me, simply show a lack of respect and maturity. Nothing
more.
Re: Coward much?
Date: 2004-01-15 10:42 am (UTC)As for calling her a coward for not unscreening your post, you have to give a person time to see it. You gave her half a day to unscreen and comment.
Yah well, so have I - faced trauma. I am, myself, not well and in quite a
bit of pain. You would know this had you read my journal.
I did read your journal, and I do know you suffer from health problems. I never called you a coward. I never said you didn't face trauma. I simply said that perceval was not a coward and stated why I believe she is not.
Did I have the chance to ask her- NO, we are in different time zone. I
responded to her post. I also had the right to jump to my conclusions based on
her post.
You jumped on her case for not unscreening a post and immediately jumped to conclusions and attacking instead of asking about it and giving her a chance. A few hours to respond to something is not a chance. You didn't ask in your anonymous comment and you didn't ask in your second comment. Yes, you had a right to jump to conclusions, but I can't figure out where you got the idea that because of her post, she ran fandom_scruples. Her post clearly stated that she does not want to convert others to her opinion.
Did I say I advocate incest and rape, no. I simply said that authors
who write this type of fiction have the right to post it to the archives.
I never said you advocate it. I was commenting on what you said "Dear that's your issue and not something that you should attempt to force on the public." My reply to that was "With the incest issue, all she ever said was what SHE felt. She never said, and never would say, the rest of the world should feel exactly as she should."
She does not have to right
to ask people to stop writing, regardless of content.
You are correct. I was saying that she NEVER asked people to stop writing. I said she stated her opinion that she didn't like it, which is within her right to do.
Had
she started the site, I have a right to be upset. This is my right as a
person.
Of course it is your right. I'm angry at them too. But your right to be upset at them does NOT give you the right to attack somebody on the assumption that she is part of it.
I am providing the feedback and opinions, she stated she wanted!
You were not providing feedback. You were insulting. You called her names and accused her of things she never did, which I consider to be an attack on her personally. Feedback is stating what you disagree with in a polite manner and explaining your views. You yourself said "Personally, I'm not stating my views beyond what I have said below - they are, in fact, none of your business." That is what she asked for. Her words were "If you disagree with my ethics, please say so, and tell me why, and what leads you to come to a different conclusion than me."
Perceval has accepted differing viewpoints from other users. What I find wrong is the way you presented it. I found you to be rude, insulting, and accusatory. Other posters were polite and simply stated their own views without calling hers wrong.
You and I apparently have different definitions of attacking someone. We obviously disagree on what you were doing. I think you were attacking, insulting, and insinuating in a rude mannor. I admit, my rebuttle was also rude. I apologize for my rudeness, though I felt my friend was being unjustly attacked. I was defending.
I'm curious now. What do you define as a personal attack? I'd like to know so I can reconcile it with my own. I can look at your post in a different light and perhaps view it as you do, as a differing opinion instead of an attack.
Re: Coward much?
Date: 2004-01-15 11:51 am (UTC)I DID read your post, though I apparently misunderstood it.
That you for admitting that.
You called her a coward seperate from anything else. I simply assumed you meant it for everything and not specific to the previous comment of her not unscreening your anonymous post. My apologies, that was my misunderstanding.
I live in the US, I apologize for assuming that same about her. However; on a topic of this matter, I would have thought that she would be screening comments on a quicker basis.
I did read your journal, and I do know you suffer from health problems. I never called you a coward.
I never said you did call me a coward, but thanks for understanding my issues. You pointed out her life, I felt my own should have been taken into consideration.
You didn't ask in your anonymous comment and you didn't ask in your second comment. Yes, you had a right to jump to conclusions, but I can't figure out where you got the idea that because of her post, she ran fandom_scruples.
This has to do with posts from other lj's. Once again, my mistake for not asking about fandom_scruples.
Her post clearly stated that she does not want to convert others to her
opinion. With the incest issue, all she ever said was what SHE felt. She
was questioning the need for various aspects of porn (incest, child porn), as
I understood it.
While I don't read this type of fic, it doesn't mean people don't have a
right to post it as long as real life children are not involved. You are
correct. I was saying that she NEVER asked people to stop writing. I said she
stated her opinion that she didn't like it, which is within her right to do.
Anytime someone asks for feedback, they should expect all views. Even if they differ from their own. Of course it is your right. To be angry. You felt that I attacked your friend, I did not feel that way. I am/was providing the feedback and opinions, she stated she wanted
What I find wrong is the way you presented it. I found you to be rude, insulting, and accusatory. Other posters were polite and simply stated their own views
without calling hers wrong. You were not providing feedback. You were insulting. You called her names
Umm, I didn't really call her names, did I? I only called her a coward because the post didn't show up. Personally, while firm in my viewpoint, I did not feel I was insulting.
I don't she is a coward
Her words were "If you disagree with my ethics, please say so, and tell me why, and what leads you to come to a different conclusion than me."
Which I felt I did.
I think you were attacking, insulting, and insinuating in a rude mannor. Other posters were polite and simply stated their own views without calling
hers wrong.
I posted my view based on her journal entry, not what others had wrote. I felt my presentation was not insulting.
I wasn't attacking her only the post, I value free speech for all - this means that if you don't like it
what you read, you can choose to ignore it. I fear the day that thoughts and the written word are suppressed based on morality
we run the risk of all books/fics being banned - Free Speech for all is a touchy subject in the US. We firmly believe in it, even if we don't agree with the topic.
I'm curious now. What do you define as a personal attack? I'd like to know so I can reconcile it with my own.
A personal attack is just that - personal. It would mean that I would assault her character and life and religion. I did not do these things. A times I do tend to come across as arrogant/condescending. I don't mean to do this. It's just that when I write - I tend to be straightforward.
Re: Coward much?
Date: 2004-01-15 12:06 pm (UTC)It also seems we are on the same page, which is nice. :)
I'm sorry I took your post so personally, but I did feel you were attacking her. Now that we are both being mature and objective, I can see how you probably meant some of your comments to come across, though both you and I said things that are easily taken wrongly. Perceval and I are both rather sensitive people, and we both took offense to your original post. I'm glad we've cleared things up though.
On a side note: I hope this new therapy that you are trying for your health problems works. I hope you start to move past it soon.
Re: Coward much?
Date: 2004-01-15 12:15 pm (UTC)As for the "cowardice" accusation: As I said in the very post you were attacking, I am very busy right now. LJ is not a constant part of my life, and sometimes, I go for days without checking because I am head over heels in work. The post you responded to was my attempt to tell people that I would get back to them as soon as my life had become a bit more manageable - a call for time out.
Peace be with you. I wish you all the best on your path.
Re: Coward much?
Date: 2004-01-15 08:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-15 11:03 am (UTC)*more hugs* Don't let the wankers get you down. You're great. :D
no subject
Date: 2004-01-15 03:00 pm (UTC)*hugs*