I'm thinking of it as meaning (a slightly more complex version of) "children presented as a legitimate object of sexual desire by normal people." I can't think of a work that does that I would miss, and I have some confidence that the P5 will be reasonable about this.

I'm all for that removal for the manga due to Death of the Author as long as the same concept applies to anything that Shima said.

edited 17th Apr '12 3:27:02 PM by encrypted12345

I'm probably using the same definition of "sexualizing" as ccoa is. So there was the issue.

"I'm thinking of it as meaning (a slightly more complex version of) "children presented as a legitimate object of sexual desire by normal people." I can't think of a work that does that I would miss, and I have some confidence that the P5 will be reasonable about this."

So, does that mean that anything and everything involving Lolicon will be cut?

The panel will review it. If it's just lolicon fapping, it can go.

@shimaspawn: .... Would it have killed anyone if he made it clear that he's using a different, more specific interpretation of the term from the dictionary definition that I pointed out in my previous post?

edited 17th Apr '12 3:33:59 PM by MarqFJA

Let's see if Eddie agrees with that first. I'm still not sure how strict he was being.

edited 17th Apr '12 3:35:10 PM by encrypted12345

I think this is one of those situations where he has a clear vision of what words mean in his head and doesn't realise they don't mean the same thing to everyone. It's something we're all prone to being that we're humans who speak the inordinately imprecise language of English.

After all, I severely doubt he means something like Stephanie on Full House stuffing her shirt and putting on make-up because she wants to be treated like a big girl. That's sexualization, but it's not treating her as a legitimate sexual target for adults or as a source of titillation.

edited 17th Apr '12 3:38:25 PM by shimaspawn

Yes. Semantics is being very bitchy right now.

Likewise I had trouble understanding that Eddie was using a far narrower definition than my mental definition of the term.

And this part of why I dislike using our own interpretations/definition of real-life terms when there's no actual widescale real-life controversy over the exact definition (Mary Sue comes to mind). What's wrong with adding an appropiate qualifier or two to specify what we want, rather than give the word a new definition with little to no reason?

edited 17th Apr '12 3:39:11 PM by MarqFJA

The purpose of a work is not important.

How good it is is not important.

Everything has tropes, and we can keep the pedos from posting creepy stuff if just lock pages for those works.

I think that completely banning any work at all from this site is censorship.

Fiction doesn't hurt people, people hurt people.

edited 17th Apr '12 3:40:20 PM by condottiera

No, we don't want the paedo-titillating stuff and pure porn either. Personally, I would keep the pages, but the policy isn't mine, alas.

This is a web page; the staff has the right to censor whatever they please.

And buddy, if you don't think fiction can hurt people, then you've not been paying attention to history.

edited 17th Apr '12 3:44:14 PM by CaspersWish

What we're looking for here is a way to write a policy that separates main stream works from things that cater to paedophiles. This is why we keep using the term paedoshit. The fact that we made up the word means that it's not loaded down with anyone else's assumptions of what it means.

Self thump for ninja.

edited 17th Apr '12 3:42:02 PM by encrypted12345

@condo

I agree in principle, however that's not going to be how it happens, sadly.

Yeah, whoever runs the site can do whatever they want. They can also alienate everyone else. I'm not defending child molesters or perverts, but I think if something "mainstream" gets a pass, like because Lolita is a classic or because Little Miss Sunshine won Oscars, we're not following No Such Thing as Notability.

I'm confused and frustrated because violating that is like breaking a promise. Whether or not you technically can doesn't make it right.

So? What you want, basically, is for them to put themselves back in the line of fire just to suit your own preferences. Why is it so hard to remember that sometimes you have to compromise?

This is a wiki, where they can't always please everyone. If the staff decides to do something that benefits the wiki, (not just reputation-wise, but financial security-wise) then why do you feel the need to take it upon yourself combat them at every step? Just be calm, stop trying to cause a furor with those "This is injustice!"-style posts, and think for a second.

edited 17th Apr '12 3:55:31 PM by CaspersWish

Hey ccoa's post was edited!

edited 17th Apr '12 3:52:57 PM by Bookyangel2438

What was changed!? It looks the same as the last time I saw it.

I think she's referring to FE's edit.

My mistake.

edited 17th Apr '12 3:58:06 PM by TheFoxsCloak

She probably just got here and missed our argument.

Technically speaking, he can be used as a gender-neutral pronoun.

edited 17th Apr '12 3:59:23 PM by encrypted12345

@ Caspers Wish: I am offering a compromise. Work pages for anything objectionable can be purged of all sex and then locked, and you can even condemn it and say it's only for pedos. How is that bad? Denying that something exists doesn't make it go away.

edited 17th Apr '12 3:58:17 PM by condottiera

She.

And yup.

edited 17th Apr '12 3:57:10 PM by Bookyangel2438