Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Why Is This Man Supporting Porn At UM?


Why is Malcolm Harris, perennial loser in school elections, making taxpayer subsidized porn a central issue in his campaign to become president of Maryland's student government?

He really should be asked how he can justify this nonsense in the context of a campaign that claims it will reduce sexual assaults on the UM campus and stop the University contractors from using "sweatshop" labor practices considering the well documented social pathologies that stem from pornography.

Even if he doesn't think that the production of porn is degrading to the women involved or that it encourages some men, usually physically unattractive and socially inept losers. to dehumanize women, or that women in porn often have no more options than a woman working in a "sweatshop" somewhere were there are lots of brown people he can patronize, he should realize that there is more than a free speech issue here and he's not Larry Flynt.




19 comments:

jasper said...

dumb much?

streiff said...

yeah, I think we both agree that he is pretty dumb.

The idea that you can get prevention of sexual assault and porn at taxpayer expense in to the a political program speaks to his general doofusness as well as the lack of higher level reasoning amongst his supporters.

Joshua said...

First, this person needs to learn to use commas correctly.

Second, resolving the problem with porn can't occur if people aren't allowed to analyze and discuss it in a public and educational context. Education, not reactionary prohibition, is the only way to resolve the issue. Unfortunately for the more squeamish, such education actually requires looking at an example of the issue. Reactionary prohibition, while probably well-intentioned, accomplishes nothing more than sweeping the issue under the rug and hoping it will go away.

Third, "brown people"?!?! Racist much?

streiff said...

As a society we do "reaction prohibition" of a lot of things that have been demonstrated to be socially dysfunctional. Porn, is one which is recognized by the Supreme Court as a legitimate subject for this. Child marriage. Gambling, outside selected jurisdictions. Prostitution. Polygamy and polyandry. Intravenous drug use even in California and Alaska. Threatening violence. All of these activities have proponents somewhere who think they are free speech or "privacy" issues.

Were the showing of this film "education" one might conceivably be able to make the case that showing porn was a protest against porn but it isn't. This is nothing more than a juvenile exercise in getting attention which has succeeded remarkably well.

Oooooh, "racist." Wow, that is just so original. When you start calling the proponents of this nonsense, including yourself, what they/you are, misogynists, then I'll be willing to take you seriously on the "racist" crap.

Damo said...

In no context during this entire news story's life have I seen anything to suggest that Malcolm Harris actually "supports pornography." He has constantly brought up the issue of censorship, but in showing the film (clips which removed the hardcore pornographic portions, btw) he specifically stated (multiple times) that the point is to openly discuss the stigma as well as the legitimate political, social, moral (etc.) issues surrounding pornography.

My suggestion would be to stop looking for the quickest easiest spin and read deeper into people's intentions. In short: get your head out of your ass, please. Kthxbye!

streiff said...

Damo, I'm guessing by your comment that you are a graduate of our public school system otherwise you'd know that 1) people can't censor and 2) this is private property and as such I have a right to determine the content.

So take another hit from the bong and compose a n-v-n sentence that has some relevance to something and try again.

BTW, we have the same posting policy as the major lefty blogs have. I can't speak for why they set their policy but we set ours to reduce the number of imbeciles decrying censorship.

Mary said...

Its fantastic that a conservative voice has spontaneously decided that women are in fact important to our society. Unfortunately, this is a blatant manipulation, using women's issues as political tools in the culture war, so I could be more impressed.

Speaking of hypocrisy, how about supporting the right to choose and harsher penalties for sex offenders? Or how about bringing discussion of women's sexual exploitation in general into the open, instead of sweeping the issue under the rug with moralistic platitudes? Or how about examining the dangers of condemning all representations of female sexuality or the female body as "dirty" or "wrong"?

Drop the paternalistic attitude. As a female, I can speak for myself. I believe my higher level of reasoning makes me much more capable, considering your pointless ranting.

Joshua said...

C'mon, Streiff, now you're just being mean. I think I might have to go cry now... ='(

Joshua said...

For the sake of fairness, Damo, if the showing you are talking about is the one from Monday, the hardcore clips were not cut from the showing. They did in fact show two sex scenes. I may have misunderstood your comment... Other than this point I think the rest of your comments are spot on. =)

streiff said...

A few points. Conservatives are supporters of the equal treatment of women. That is why we are against pornography, human trafficking here and abroad. We are in favor of marriage which for some thousands of years has been shown to be the best way of ordering society and on and on.

Nothing here is manipulation. You may be suffering some degree of cognitive dissonance from your association with purveyors of pornography and their bootstrapping a good old fashioned porn movie into a non-existent "censorship" issue (see Ginsburg v NY, Miller v CA, etc.). That, however, would be your problem not mine. And while I'd be the first to agree that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds," one has to have some consistency if one is to have any beliefs whatsoever.

I do support a right to choose but until such time as we find a way to ask the baby what he chooses, I'll go with calling abortion what it is: killing a child. I don't know the degree to which you follow politics but you'd be hard pressed to find a conservative who isn't in favor of enhanced penalties for sex offenders. In Maryland it has been Democrats who have prevented such laws from passing.

No one is condemning the female body, or the male body, for that matter as dirty or wrong. Certainly not me. But if you can't see porn for what it is, the sexual exploitation of women, then I can't really help you. I don't think I'm breaking new ground it holding this to be true I think it is pretty standard fare amongst feminists and one of the few areas of common ground we conservatives have with rad-fems.

No one has said anyone else is speaking for you. I am certainly not. But porn, like abortion, is not an issue that affects women. It affects society. As a member of society I have the right and the obligation to object to the degradation and dehumanization of women, a gender which includes my wife and two young daughters, at my expense at a major university and I have the right to call the twit leading the charge on this out as a cretin.

streiff said...

Know what, Damo, I'll bet that most of those people standing under the tree in a lynching photo have never done anything to make anyone suggest they support lynching.

Of course this twit supports porn because there is no censorship issue.

No one is objecting to him holding viewing of the film at his house while his parents serve popcorn if he so desires.

As Bob Dylan said, "you don't need a weatherman..."

The issue is whether or not this activity is an appropriate activity at a public university and whether or not it should be funded by tax money.

Damo said...

Here is a fun piece you should check out: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Business/Story?id=6977202

Porn in the USA: Conservatives Are Biggest Consumers

"Those states that do consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious than states with lower levels of consumption, the study finds."

Kinda like how Rush Limbaugh loves to rant apocalyptically about drugs while being addicted to them himself.

Kinda like how most gay sex scandals in politics involve conservatives.

You say "one has to have some consistency if one is to have any beliefs whatsoever." I agree with this except when referring to consistently saying one thing and doing another, which is probably a standard trait of ANY politician regardless of party, but seems most common on the red side of things (at least lately).

I'm just sayin'.

Damo said...

Thanks for the clarification Joshua, I did not attend the screening. I got most of my facts from all the media hype. Fact is, this specific video has been shown at many many schools across the country, including those funded by taxpayer money, and somehow Maryland is the only state that got all antsy about it.

streiff said...

Damo, I take you have had a math course somewhere in what passes for your education. Have the concepts of "causation" and "correlation" ever come to your attention?

I think what the study actually shows is that Democrats in conservative areas are unable to act upon their desires in public so they stock up on porn and sit home.

Damo said...

I have a hard time hearing your point through the derision in your message. Why do you keep making BS comments about the quality of my education? And where in my math class was I supposed to learn that correlation and causation actually mean the exact opposite of the available data, such as "Conservative states buy more porn so it must be the Democrats."

Nice logic.

streiff said...

"And where in my math class was I supposed to learn that correlation and causation actually mean the exact opposite of the available data, such as "Conservative states buy more porn so it must be the Democrats.""

I rest my case.

Gee, the more churches there are in a city the more crime there is, so I guess churches must cause crime.

streiff said...

A closing note.

As what Andrew Sullivan would call a "Christianist" I will be taking off for a long weekend for Easter. The fact your comments may not appear is not because I am afraid, only because there is no computer access where I'm visiting.

Outraged_Richard said...

"No one is condemning the female body, or the male body, for that matter as dirty or wrong. Certainly not me. But if you can't see porn for what it is, the sexual exploitation of women, then I can't really help you. I don't think I'm breaking new ground it holding this to be true I think it is pretty standard fare amongst feminists and one of the few areas of common ground we conservatives have with rad-fems."

Well said, streiff.

Boy, those Wikipedia moderators and defenders of all things offensive are giving you a run.

But I submit to you all as a more final solution to get rid of what I call overly obscene pornography - group sex, pregnancy, homosexuality and the whole range of the very bizarre portrayals of demeaning hateful sexual acts.

I think there should be allowed some form of tasteful portrayal of sexuality in movies and instructional videos. If sex was portrayed as a loving act between a married couple, many of the bizarre sexual mental disorders would not be so prevalent.

Society's overreaction to sexuality by massively suppressing it pre-1960s predictably compensated to the frighteningly perverse end of the sexual spectrum.

g.m.wentz said...

UMPC: Porn in, commencement prayer out. My HARD EARNED tax dollars at work! Can't wait till these kids have to get out and earn their own hard tax dollars.

ShareThis