Content Policy Change

"There is nothing "Slippery slope" about saying "We've made mistakes in the past (cutting works that don't need to be cut) and we need to avoid making the same mistake in the future."

The same argument could be made to justify the page cutting. Creepy pages are what horrified us/got us in trouble with Google before, and that's why the pages are being scrubbed.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:24:19 PM by CaspersWish

FE doesn't merely not endorse pedophilia, he's offended by it. I don't think that, in itself, is all that remarkable.

I mean, it should be fairly obvious that the wiki as a whole doesn't simultaneously endorse Atlas Shrugged and The Bible and the work of Michael Moore.

@ condo Well, Fast Eddie really us vehemently against anything with pedo or pure porn as some of his previous posts indicate, so it isn't just about the money. It's a motivation, but not the only one.

Furthermore, like how there is No Such Thing as Bad Publicity, there is no such thing as neutral publicity either. Tvtropes will be blamed no matter what. It really is very sad.

@ Casper's Wish Google is secondary to Fast Eddie's goal. All they (officially) said they were against was the Naughty Tentacles page.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:24:50 PM by encrypted12345

We'll be blamed?

That's why I listed it second.

@Caspers Wish: We can keep away the pedo and still not have to censor anything. You can't attack an argument and use the same one to defend yourself. It only proves that it's possible to have a different opinion.

I want to say, though, that I can appreciate Fast Eddie's crusade here as something he understands to be a good thing. I just can't ignore the Double Standard this sets up by giving "mainstream" stuff more weight.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:28:33 PM by condottiera

I kinda agree, since we are a wiki. Still, since we do have the logico 'from fans, for fans', having a work page does means the TV Tropes, the collective, do approve the work, since "we" are 'fans' of it. I doesn't mean I like it, it doesn't mean you like it. But it does mean "we" like it.

And, above all, it means Fast Eddie likes it, since it is his site (though, here, I think the problem is he is far too much personally connected to an open to edit wiki).

Skipped about 5 pages. Good chance I didn't miss any new arguments. Here we are, quibbling over the definition of another word. When I say sexualization of children, I'm not talking about the objectification that takes place in a beauty contest.

And hell yes, Caligula is porn. What could you be thinking?

@Booky Well, idiots will. To be fair, Wikipedia gets blamed by them, too. They are just too influential to be bothered by them.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:26:14 PM by encrypted12345

I didn't attack that argument, I merely stole it to use to defend my own point.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:26:26 PM by CaspersWish

Oh.

Can you please edit ccoa's post to clarify that Eddie?

@FE,

The definition of the word is kinda important when we are applying tolerance zero to it. Specially since, as it have been proved, not everyone uses the same definition. I am happy we are clear on that matter, though.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:27:47 PM by Heatth

@Caspers Wish: If you say so.

@Fast Eddie: I am against pedophilia and censorship. I believe those two principles need not be in contest with each other.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:31:37 PM by condottiera

What about censoring child pornography?

Hah, I'll stop now.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:33:17 PM by CaspersWish

I someone can find ccoa's list, I suppose a clarification of what is meant by 'sexualizing' should be added. It is the difference between a girl tap dancing in a beauty pageant and girl pole dancing in beauty pageant. Both are objectifications, but the latter is fucking' creepy.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:32:26 PM by FastEddie

One post for you, FE

Fiction doesn't hurt people, people hurt people.

If Real Life children are being hurt to make porn, I want it stopped and I want people punished.

If someone writes a pornographic story about children who don't exist, no real children are in any danger.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:35:14 PM by condottiera

@Eddie: Then just say creepy sexualization. What's wrong with a single qualifier? That said, how about reworking ccoa's original proposal so that it accounts for "creepy sexualization", but still allows the council to take into consideration the other "grey-area" stuff that can be mistaken for "creepy sexualization" when it's actually not?

edited 17th Apr '12 4:36:42 PM by MarqFJA

The scene in Brave New World where 10 year old children are having sex with each other exceeds creepy. It should not be banned.

Like what has been said before, authorial intent doesn't matter according to Eddie's guidelines.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:38:36 PM by encrypted12345

And to clarify, Brave New World's setting is a Totalitarian Utilitarian Dystopia, and even the main character, who is a stranger to this setting, is squicked out.

Exactly.

I mean, pedophiles jerk off to things that weren't intended for them. We can't change that.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:39:42 PM by condottiera

If you know what you mean, and someone says they don't know what you mean, they are not wrong about that.

For that matter, if you know what you mean, and someone explains what they think you mean, even if they're wrong, chances are they really do think you mean that.

As far as Brave New World goes, the point of including the widespread in-universe sexualization of children was to indicate how horrible the society was. It is dystopian fiction. No one would reasonably argue it was designed to erotically appeal to pedophiles. But under some of the versions of various guidelines people have written, it would need to be cut.