Whether the "comics fandom" can define porn in a different manner than the rest of the world and expect it to stick, is.
Several posts back, I was talking about comics fandom. Now, I'm going to talk about the general public.
Comics fandom is probably the most porn-positive left-leaning slice of online fandom that you'll find. Comics fandom probably uses the most restrictive definition of porn that you'll find.
I'm fairly convinced that if you asked the "general public" you'd find most of them MORE eager to apply the "porn" label than most of comics fandom. I mean, several comments up you characterized the "general public" as openly Christian, Jesus-loving, and much more conservative than comics fandom.
I'm boggled at the disconnect here.
Tactics appear alarmingly similar.
What "tactics"?
Indisputable truth #1: Language is dynamic. Indisputable truth #2: "Porn" is a subjective term that changes over space and time. What makes a particular image pornographic is a social construct. (Ex: In China 300 years ago, feet were constructed as erotic, therefore an image of a woman's bare feet was pornographic. The same is not true in China today.) Indisputable truth #3: "Porn" is defined by how people use it.
Look, you can't change the way that language works. Bill O'Reilly knows that and tries to use it to his advantage. So what? When Bill O'Reilly calls someone a "left-wing extremist," he's shooting off at the mouth. Me? When I call something porn, I've given you proof. As much proof as can be mustered for something inherently socially constructed like the definition of "porn," mind you. I've linked you to the dictionary definitions, the sheer numbers who agree, and even given you a free linguistics lesson that you would normally have to pay to take a college class for. You can keep your fingers plugged in your ears and keep repeating that the fundamental truth about how language works is JUST LIKE BILL O'REILLY OH NOES!!! And I can keep getting increasingly annoyed at your sheer determination to single-handedly create an all-new, all-obnoxious variation on Godwin's Law.
Subjective, relative, socially-constructed terms (yes, even terms like "left wing" and "extremist") are "defined" by the majority of the people that use them. Of course Bill O'Reilly tries to get people to agree with his use of words. That's just a duh given. So does every other politician or pundit. Me? I'm not trying to get anybody to agree with me. I'm showing you that most people already agree with me. Whether you agree or not, I don't care. That's the beauty of language, right there.
no subject
Several posts back, I was talking about comics fandom. Now, I'm going to talk about the general public.
Comics fandom is probably the most porn-positive left-leaning slice of online fandom that you'll find. Comics fandom probably uses the most restrictive definition of porn that you'll find.
I'm fairly convinced that if you asked the "general public" you'd find most of them MORE eager to apply the "porn" label than most of comics fandom. I mean, several comments up you characterized the "general public" as openly Christian, Jesus-loving, and much more conservative than comics fandom.
I'm boggled at the disconnect here.
Tactics appear alarmingly similar.
What "tactics"?
Indisputable truth #1: Language is dynamic.
Indisputable truth #2: "Porn" is a subjective term that changes over space and time. What makes a particular image pornographic is a social construct. (Ex: In China 300 years ago, feet were constructed as erotic, therefore an image of a woman's bare feet was pornographic. The same is not true in China today.)
Indisputable truth #3: "Porn" is defined by how people use it.
Look, you can't change the way that language works. Bill O'Reilly knows that and tries to use it to his advantage. So what? When Bill O'Reilly calls someone a "left-wing extremist," he's shooting off at the mouth. Me? When I call something porn, I've given you proof. As much proof as can be mustered for something inherently socially constructed like the definition of "porn," mind you. I've linked you to the dictionary definitions, the sheer numbers who agree, and even given you a free linguistics lesson that you would normally have to pay to take a college class for. You can keep your fingers plugged in your ears and keep repeating that the fundamental truth about how language works is JUST LIKE BILL O'REILLY OH NOES!!! And I can keep getting increasingly annoyed at your sheer determination to single-handedly create an all-new, all-obnoxious variation on Godwin's Law.
Subjective, relative, socially-constructed terms (yes, even terms like "left wing" and "extremist") are "defined" by the majority of the people that use them. Of course Bill O'Reilly tries to get people to agree with his use of words. That's just a duh given. So does every other politician or pundit. Me? I'm not trying to get anybody to agree with me. I'm showing you that most people already agree with me. Whether you agree or not, I don't care. That's the beauty of language, right there.