Slashdot Mirror
Roasting Sacred Cows
Hans Gilde writes: "Pedophilia has been a big topic in the UK lately, there have been riots, beatings and vandalism resulting from [pedophile witchhunts]. In an attempt "to ask hard questions about the way society and the media deal with its most difficult problems" and point out "that famous people have a habit of denouncing things without knowing much about them", a comedian in the UK produced a TV show, described in an article in the NY Times, in which he actually got a member of Parliament to say the following, on the air, in all seriousness: "Using an area of the Internet the size of Ireland, pedophiles can make your keyboard release toxic vapors that can make you more suggestible."" This show is frankly hilarious, and the reaction to it is even better. You probably want to see the show, eh? It's available in .avi or Real and DivX.
> We're giving too much attention to a TV show with the intelligence of a prank phone call.
Hardly. If there's a single, take-home message from the series, it's that charities, parliamentarians, government, the press and mass media collude to make rational public debate impossible: "major news topics" derive their sole significance from the extent to which they afford lobbyists, parliamentarians and the news media a pretext for creating mutually self-serving moral panics.
So, in a programme that dealt with the social and media hypocrisy surrounding child sex abuse, the point was made that anyone dissenting from the current hysteria (and suggesting, say, that paedophiles require treatment rather than demonization) would be either ignored or vilified.
Funnily enough, within a day of transmission Morris was vilified in the tabloid press and the programme condemned -- sight unseen -- by three government ministers.
Compared with the rest of a brilliant series, the programme was arguably below par. But to conclude from the fact it was under-written that Morris is somehow a "hack" is frankly stupid.
He was also making fun about people with attitudes like yours. You seemed to miss that part.
>So we should wonder: what was the point inthe
>history of Western culture where pedophilia
>switched from white to black? And why?
Easy: With the introduction of christianity....
This comment says it well, from the end of the article:
`"How Mr. Morris must be laughing," Harry Owen of Horley, Surrey, wrote in a letter to The Daily Telegraph. "Perhaps Channel 4, instead of apologizing, should have simply said, `We rest our case.' "'
It's funny how satire becomes reality in that way. It's kind of like the South Park movie; the whole thing parodied, prior to the fact, the reaction of everyone to the movie after it was released.
Such satire is the most brilliant kind -- when a satire makes fun of the very reaction people have tot he satire. It's when you know that the satire's creators have hit their target right in the center of the bullseye.
> Sure, it is a horrible subject: grown people should nothave sex with children.
Says who?
How dare you foist your moral view point on other people!
Please prove you exist without resorting to a priori premises.
My opposition to pedophilia rests on one a priori assumption, which is fairly fundamental to my values: that imposing your will on others carries a high potential for evil. Another relevant assumption I make is that children, in general have underdeveloped choice-making capacity. This is not an a priori assumption, though proving that rhetorically is tedious and demanding. I would beg your indulgance on the point. (In fact, I will ignore you if you challenge me on it, as I have real work to do today. 8)
In the case of pedophilia, the potential evil attendant upon forcing one's will upon a person with limited capacity for choice is the disruption of normal human development caused by the untimly exposure to a powerful human drive that even adults have a hard time coping with psychologically. The potential for damage increases the younger the victim, and the closer the relation of the perpetrator.
In philosophical terms, the above argument has lots of holes. In common-sense terms, I believe it is nearly bullet-proof.
"Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there" - Will Rogers
Pedophiles do not make for a funny subject, neither does the ignorance of elected officials when it comes to technology, or any other topic, for that matter. Sure, we all get a chuckle from hearing how dumb people can be, but these elected officials are there to make laws, and if they're clueless about certain facts, we end up with stuff like the DMCA.
I'm off to put my troll-mod suit on.
- It is very much a taboo. Even a show about it raises moral objections from the masses. A murderer gets complimented in jail; a pedophile gets murdered. My simple reply (in which btw I said I though pedophilia was distasteful!) elicited a "you sick fuck child rapist" response. Need I say more?
- There is a LOT to discuss. Is it indeed harmful? To whom? Can we minimise its incidenmce? Can we minimise its harm? Why are some people pedophiles? HOw can we minimise any harm caused? How should released pedophiles return to society? What therapies work best? Is the Internet bad for allwoing free communication? Should the Internet be banned becuase it contains child sex pictures? Is the harm partly or wholly culturally caused? I could go on for a while - and all these questions are taboo, as they generally just receive reactions like that one response to my post I saw that just saud "you sick fuck child rapist". That was a typical reponse not to a pedophile but to someone merely responding to a post ABOUT the subject! And that is what we should fix, and that is what the show no doubt hopes to achieve.
Michael---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
Humour Is Subjective (i.e., do not tell other people what constitutes a funny subject)
Take an example: If I were to make a joke regarding Rome annihilating Gaul, would you respond in disgust and anger? Probably not. If I were to make a joke about the Holocaust, would you, then? Probably, yes, indeed. Why? Because you feel more of a close personal attachment to the event of the Holocaust than to the even of the conquering of Gaul. They're both tragic genocides on a similar scale. One is not greater than the other, but we have more personal, emotional interest in tip-toeing around the issue of the Holocaust. That doesn't make it rational in any way shape or form, however.
neither does the ignorance of elected officials when it comes to technology, or any other topic, for that matter. Sure, we all get a chuckle from hearing how dumb people can be, but these elected officials are there to make laws, and if they're clueless about certain facts, we end up with stuff like the DMCA.
So because legislation is a "serious issue", it should not be joked about? Are you saying that any joke that involves circumstances that are less than beneficial should not be made? Making fun of our misfortunes is nothing if not the basis for comedy itself. Generally, I find that people who refuse to view the world with any sense of humour become extremely cynical.
Having Kevin Spacey lust after an actress old enough to be baring her body on film isn't "dealing with pedophilia," even if the character says she's in high school.
No, _you're_ wrong. The internet isn't some sort of evil robot that grabs children and puts them in porno films. Its just a place to view information that has already been acquired. When you solve a problem you don't attack it at the widest point. you attack it at a bottle-neck. The internet is the widest point where a large number of people view a relatively small number of things. If you want to get rid of child pornography, stop the _small_ number of people that create it not the _large_ number of people that host and view it.
-tfga
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
> grown people should not have sex with children
Please defend this statement without resorting to a priori or ad hominim premises. (ie: You can't say "because the Bible says so", "because it just is", or "because your an Anonymous Coward".)
I have my own reasons for disapproving of pedophilia, but I doubt that many people have given it rational thought.
Want to see some good kiddie porn? Check out the makeup/lighting/clothing/hairstyles of young girls in television commercials. How about Britanny Spears?
If people woke up to the fact that there are sexual images of children, all around them, maybe I would take this whole 'save the children' thing a little more seriously.
It is ok for the RIAA to parade a 'pre-teen-appearing' Britanny Spears in the media to sell product? It is okay for them to do it to sell clothing or shampoo?
Marketing and Advertising uses not so-subtle techniques like these with abandon, just because it is not seedy and badly-lite dosnt mean it is acceptable.... or does it?????
>1.Sexually explicit images of children, which were even classified on-air as being "obscene" by a former head of the Obscene >Publications Branch, were shown to the >unsuspecting viewing public. Broadcasting this foul artwork must surely have provided >cheap titillation to any perverts watching the programme.
The FORMER head was giving snap judgements. This section was showing how the people who decide what's obscene simply pull arbitrary judgements from thin air (for instance, a barbie doll with a penis attached to it isn't unacceptable, a womens naked body with a childs head grafted on isn't unacceptable, but a barbie doll with a penis attached and a childs head is)
>* Mockery was made of last summer's anti-paedopile protests by concerned mothers. It is simply unacceptable to criticise the >genuine fears of honest law-abiding citizens in this >manner.
These protests were absolutely disgusting. They were made by ill-informed people (banners used often had peadophile spelt incorrectly), their fears were totally illegitimate, and the hysteria came to such heights that a peadiatritcian was chased from her home my a mob. It is perfectly acceptable to mock peoples fears if they are ill advised fears that harmed innocent people. (We do not still respect the fears of the German people during krystallnacht for instance)
>* The sickening music of the notorious American paedophile rap musician "JLb-8" was openly promoted on this programme.
Is this letter a joke? (If so I shall continue writing as I'm rather enjoying this). Anyhow, JLb-8 is entirely ficticious, and this section of the programme satirised both the tabloid media's sensationalist views of rappers, and how young, middle class children buy music by people like eminem, despite it not being to do with anything they have, or will ever, experience.
>Numerous celebrities, including members of parliament, newscasters and a musician were ridiculed by their unsuspecting >involvement with this programme.
Celebrities thrust themselves into the public eye deliberatly, and as such are liable to be ridiculed, if they wanted to avoid such ridicule, they could have done the tiniest bit of reaserch into what they were saying. This section also made a valid point; that celebrities will endorse anything, so we cannot trust them alone to 'sell' a charity.
> Worst of all, real children appeared in this programme. It is clearly wrong to expose them to this sinister subject matter at such a >tender age. The experiences of this programme may permanently damage these poor infants.
This is a disgusting attitude in my opinion. Surely we should expose children in order to educate them about peadophilla, sex and other taboo subjects, rather than keep them in the dark (to maintain the victorian notion of childhood innocence). Knowledge of peadophillia means the child is more likely to report this crime in the unlikely event that they expereince it.
Futhermore this 'crusade for innocence' has resulted in Britain having the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in europe, as when this innocent child becomes a teenager they will be pressured to have sex, and because they know so little about it (contraception, and how to say 'no') they do it, and ruin their lives by becoming pregnant. This is why the final thing in the programme is a young teenager saying she will lose her virginity 'tomorrow, maybe'.
That's all I can think of right now, and this as been written pretty hastily so don't be suprised if there are copious spelling mistakes
P.S. I'm pretty sure that this 'open letter' was one big joke.
I was actually a pretty sexually active child at around age 6, with my own peers. Children are sexually active, it's just not a subject that's ever brought up.
Now I don't think a child/adult relationship would ever be healthly. There's too much a power/mental gap for such a relationship to ever be anything other than coercive. But the subject is way blown out of porportion in today's media.
And truthfully, most poeple really don't care about "saving the children", it's just a cause to talk about. If we really cared about our children we'd stop the child on child abuse that's rampant in our schools, or hell, even bother to install seat belts in the school buses that take our children to school.
It's a hostile world for children, but not because of Evil Pedophiles lurking behind every corner.
When the cookdandbombd .avi mirrors were first linked to from the Plastic forums, they were immediately unavailable due to high demand. I was able to download the first avi from mirror4 and the second avi from mirror5 (only mirrors 1-3 had been linked to from the main page), but most Plastic readers probably didn't think of that. Now, cookdandbombd has stopped distributing the avis, and their front page says "closed for legal reasons" (copyright?).
What if, instead of hosting the avis themselves, they had put the avis on freenet and given out the key on their web site? That would have taken care of the Plastic effect (which, btw, is an order of magnitude weaker than the Slashdot effect) and also any legal problems arising from distributing the copyrighted show.
The shareholder is always right.
Paedophilla is one of those things people go into hysteria about without understanding it. Paedophiles are people (usually male, age 15 or older) who are attracted soly, or almost soly, to pre-pubescencants (not 'children'). Much of this internet-paedophilla hype is bogas because the under-14s simply don't chat on the internet unattended.
I am unable to go into the prefession (speech-therapy) that I wanted because people in this country have an attitude that if any male shows any disire to work with children (teaching or otherwise), then they must be a *paedophile*. Teachers are banned from hugging children (even if they are hurt) because it could be 'paedophilic behaviour", men receive dirty looks if they go anywhere near a swimming-pool with children in it, 3 & 4 year olds are given instructions at kindergarten about how to beware of paedophilic men, fathers are sometimes afraid to hug their own children in public, men are afraid to help out at school & school events, 17 year old boys who make love to their 15 year old girlfriends are charged with 'rape' (for being 'paedophiles'), hysterical news reports go on TV about 'paedophiles' molesting 15 year olds, & so on & so on.
The hysteria that surrounds paedophilla does infinately more harm to society than actual paedophilla does. All the means of protection society uses are doing more harm than good, and don't work anyhow. Paedophiles are actually quite rare, most perverted idiots who molest children aren't even paedophiles!
What people simply don't realize is that the exploitation of little kids is all around us. People are just too nieve to realize it. I saw a show on HBO (I believe) 3-4 months back about this little girl that professionally starred in beauty pagents. Her mother grilled her constantly over walking right, talking right, smiling right, sticking out her chest ("strut it like you'll have it in 10 years"), her numerous dance routines and memorized lines, etc... The demand put on that little girl was extreme. I believe the mother home schooled her as well so they could spend more time in training. The mother would pay professional makeup artists to literally make this girl look like a little Barbie Doll. They made this little girl (eight years old I think) look like a miniature whore. It was sickening. The girl made a mistake on stage during a speaking part and started bawling when she got off stage. The mother ripped her for messing up her lines and now her makeup. It was disguisting. The mother was exploting the little girl. Hell I heard Shirley Temple was viewed as crude by many because of her short dresses and scenes with black men (tap dancing and what not). This shit is nothing more than a witchhunt and the media is doing nothing more than fueling the fire. School shootings are the same way. The media make it out to be a disease that is spreading across the nation and getting wirse every day. That's total bullshit. The number of violent incidents on school campus is dropping every year. It's less than half what it was in in the late 70's. The media will never tell you that. Blood and guts sell. Controversy sells. Early in my mother's teaching career she worked at a school in southern Kansas. A girl (known as a slut to everyone) accused the woodshop teacher of something (touching, sexual assault, I don't remember). She had no proof he did it. He had know that he didn't. Her story kept changing every time she was questioned. Never the less he was suspended. There was a big public outcry against him. Blah blah blah. You've heard it all before. Finally he left and went elsewhere. Shortly after that the girl confessed that she made it up because he gave her a bad grade in his class. It didn't matter. If you go to that town today and bring up his name with a parent around the age of say 55 now they'll probably remember his name and go on and on about his sexual misconduct and shit like that. The truth came out. No one listened. He was still run off. Hmm, I'm starting to rant now. Well, let me close with something I've long since believed. The media should be held accountable for everything they speak or write. If they accuse a teacher of sexual misconduct, they should be held legally accountable if that person is found to be innocent. Now that doesn't mean I don't think they can't print something that's not proven to be true. Say for example someone is hauled into court on sexual charges. State that. Don't print something weeks before on how some kid said person X did something to me. Kids say things. Wait until there is an actual fact. Then print it. Someone being hauled into court is a fact. It's not a fact that they did something but it is a fact that there is enough reason to let a jury or judge decide. Also, if that story is put on the front page with a 72 point headline, the retraction should be just as big and on the front page. It shouldn't be hidden back under the Classifides. It should be given just as much importance as the original story was given. Well, enough of my ramblings. We now return you to your regularly scheduled force-fed media hype.