If you are for free speech, I don't understand what being squicked has to do with the situation Okay... don't disown me or anything, because I'm not even sure how to explain this. There's going to be a lot of hyperbole and flailing about for the right words here... (Did I mention the hyperbole? I'm intentionally exaggerating by quite a bit, because if I presented this opinion to the much smaller degree I actually believe, then my point would never make it through the sea of "kinda," "sorta," and "almost.")
There's... a kind of line between what squicks me, pisses me off, whatever and things that I will take action about. My general guide is to stop and ask myself "what would I do if I saw this person standing on a public street corner saying/showing this, instead of on the radio/tv/internet/etc.?" Usually the answer is "roll my eyes and keep walking." But in this situation (at least for the first illustration, I think the second one was an overreactionary smackdown that happened due to association with the first one)... I'm quite certain that I'd be torn between calling the cops and picking a fight. It crosses the line.
Because sexual attraction to a para-pubescent 12-year-old is still pedophilia, even if it isn't quite as scary as attraction to a 5-year-old. Because I don't care if it's a fictional character and the artist in question probably isn't about to seek out actual 12-year-olds to molest (never mind that LJ/6A don't know that). It's still fucking scary and crosses the line into one of the very few things I will actually step forward and denounce as WRONG.
/hyperbole
If you haven't disowned me yet, I'm very grateful, 'cause I still like you quite a lot. Now I will clarify, and tone it down a bit:
Yes, the OPs should have gotten a warning. Or LJ should have just deleted the post with the offensive content instead of the entire journal. Something more fair than what they did.
Yes, the illustration posted was still within touching distance of the line, even if they had crossed it.
No, I don't blame LJ for not wanting that crap on their website, because I wouldn't want it on my website either and I can't guarantee I'd handle it better than LJ did.
...Great, even the not!hyperbole comes across harsher than I mean. :/ There may be PMS involved. Well, in the hopes you're still speaking to me:
I hope that very poor and hopelessly wanky analogy makes some sense It makes a whole lot of sense, actually. It's just that it seems to me a whole lot of lemmings aren't getting that far in their train of thought when they start getting offended. Even so, it's not like lemmings will jump off a cliff if there's no cliff to jump off of (and boy howdy, did LJ/6A build one Hell of a cliff...).
(You are not a lemming. You are a graceful and clever squirrel, clambering down the cliff face with your nifty backwards-turning ankles and stylish fluffy tail. Liz, Barb, and company are high-tech hamsters with fancy rappelling harnesses. ;))
Personally, I like Stoney's approach to the whole mess: Cover her ass (or her fic, as the case may be), stay mostly put, and buy the shit out of LJ stock when they go public (if only I had enough money to buy stock).
***
Ooh, you just had to play the underdog card, didn't you? ;)
I'll give you that the shaky camera work in the second one got a bit annoying (overall, it's not as good as the first one anyways). The thing that bugs me about the really stylized chases in other movies is that there's no risk to them - I just can't get involved (think Italian Job - never been so bored watching mini Coopers before). Funny you should mention CR (best Bond ever, BTW), because that was done almost entirely live, no CGI, and the only time they were on wires in that first chase was when they were up in the crane... Wait a minute. People expect us to take action movies seriously? Whoa. I never knew.
It's the custom toppings that really make Godfather's what it is - I seem to remember shrimp & black olives being quite excellent.
no subject
Okay... don't disown me or anything, because I'm not even sure how to explain this. There's going to be a lot of hyperbole and flailing about for the right words here... (Did I mention the hyperbole? I'm intentionally exaggerating by quite a bit, because if I presented this opinion to the much smaller degree I actually believe, then my point would never make it through the sea of "kinda," "sorta," and "almost.")
There's... a kind of line between what squicks me, pisses me off, whatever and things that I will take action about. My general guide is to stop and ask myself "what would I do if I saw this person standing on a public street corner saying/showing this, instead of on the radio/tv/internet/etc.?" Usually the answer is "roll my eyes and keep walking." But in this situation (at least for the first illustration, I think the second one was an overreactionary smackdown that happened due to association with the first one)... I'm quite certain that I'd be torn between calling the cops and picking a fight. It crosses the line.
Because sexual attraction to a para-pubescent 12-year-old is still pedophilia, even if it isn't quite as scary as attraction to a 5-year-old. Because I don't care if it's a fictional character and the artist in question probably isn't about to seek out actual 12-year-olds to molest (never mind that LJ/6A don't know that). It's still fucking scary and crosses the line into one of the very few things I will actually step forward and denounce as WRONG.
/hyperbole
If you haven't disowned me yet, I'm very grateful, 'cause I still like you quite a lot. Now I will clarify, and tone it down a bit:
Yes, the OPs should have gotten a warning. Or LJ should have just deleted the post with the offensive content instead of the entire journal. Something more fair than what they did.
Yes, the illustration posted was still within touching distance of the line, even if they had crossed it.
No, I don't blame LJ for not wanting that crap on their website, because I wouldn't want it on my website either and I can't guarantee I'd handle it better than LJ did.
...Great, even the not!hyperbole comes across harsher than I mean. :/ There may be PMS involved. Well, in the hopes you're still speaking to me:
I hope that very poor and hopelessly wanky analogy makes some sense
It makes a whole lot of sense, actually. It's just that it seems to me a whole lot of lemmings aren't getting that far in their train of thought when they start getting offended. Even so, it's not like lemmings will jump off a cliff if there's no cliff to jump off of (and boy howdy, did LJ/6A build one Hell of a cliff...).
(You are not a lemming. You are a graceful and clever squirrel, clambering down the cliff face with your nifty backwards-turning ankles and stylish fluffy tail. Liz, Barb, and company are high-tech hamsters with fancy rappelling harnesses. ;))
Personally, I like Stoney's approach to the whole mess: Cover her ass (or her fic, as the case may be), stay mostly put, and buy the shit out of LJ stock when they go public (if only I had enough money to buy stock).
***
Ooh, you just had to play the underdog card, didn't you? ;)
I'll give you that the shaky camera work in the second one got a bit annoying (overall, it's not as good as the first one anyways). The thing that bugs me about the really stylized chases in other movies is that there's no risk to them - I just can't get involved (think Italian Job - never been so bored watching mini Coopers before). Funny you should mention CR (best Bond ever, BTW), because that was done almost entirely live, no CGI, and the only time they were on wires in that first chase was when they were up in the crane... Wait a minute. People expect us to take action movies seriously? Whoa. I never knew.
It's the custom toppings that really make Godfather's what it is - I seem to remember shrimp & black olives being quite excellent.