Coren's Off-Wiki Activities, Would you have voted for him if...? Options

[Kato]

Coren is another FT2?

I don't know. I wasn't satisfied by the evidence against FT2 - and thought a lot of it was overblown and came from a whispering campaign against him.

I've seen Coren's site with my own eyes, unprejudiced, and take a dim view for what its worth.

And Wikipedians need to understand that there is a big, big, big difference between reactionary outrage at some erotica or adult porn, and genuine disgust at the promotion of abusive acts like zoophilia.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Your definition of "promoting" lies somewhere outside of reality, Kato.

Stories that are prefaced with "I tried with this story to make a compilation of everything or almost everything that a man can do with a horse. Though this story is fiction, everything described in it is something that I or a friend of similar taste has done, which is why you won't find an exact inventory of absolutely every practice imaginable, but only those in which I actually engage and are within my physical abilities." come pretty close to promotion, in my view.

(Apologies for the shoddy translation - my French isn't what it once was.)

This post has been edited by Sarcasticidealist: Fri 29th May 2009, 1:40am

[Coren]

(Apologies for the shoddy translation - my French isn't what it once was.)

Your translation is pretty good, actually.

Eww.

Would you like to bring that crusade over to nifty? I see have have a vastly more expansive bestiality section at http://www.nifty.org/nifty/bestiality, and a cursory look at the titles show much greater diversity. (There are also more sections there, including man-boy sex which isn't allowed on gai-eros).

It's not "promotion" either. That archive (the biggest in English) has existed for some 20 years at least, and for a long time at CMU on University equipment. I'm sorry if your sensibilities are vexed by not everyone agreeing with the desire to quash authors whose topics of fiction you find distasteful.

-- Coren

[Sarcasticidealist]

Would you like to bring that crusade over to nifty?

No.

I'm sorry if your sensibilities are vexed by not everyone agreeing with the desire to quash authors whose topics of fiction you find distasteful.

I'm actually in favour of liberal laws on questions of what fiction should be allowed (I thought R. v. Sharpe probably didn't go quite far enough in that direction, though I'd rather it go not far enough than that it go too far). But
i. just because I think something should be allowed doesn't mean that I have to respect people involved in purveying it (or want them running Arbitration Committees on websites I frequent), and
ii. that fellow's preamble established him as something more than the author of fiction I find distasteful; it established him, by his own admission, as an animal abuser and a criminal.

(I'm assuming here that that story describes illegal acts; I admit that I haven't actually read past the preamble, because it seemed neither desirable nor necessary.)

[Kato]

Would you like to bring that crusade over to nifty? I see have have a vastly more expansive bestiality section at http://www.nifty.org/nifty/bestiality, and a cursory look at the titles show much greater diversity. (There are also more sections there, including man-boy sex which isn't allowed on gai-eros).

Do you think people writing erotica about "man-boy sex" is a "freedom of speech" issue?

[Coren]

ii. that fellow's preamble established him as something more than the author of fiction I find distasteful; it established him, by his own admission, as an animal abuser and a criminal.

(I'm assuming here that that story describes illegal acts; I admit that I haven't actually read past the preamble, because it seemed neither desirable nor necessary.)

It may or may not. Personally, I wouldn't take their preamble at face value. I've only skimmed the text, but some of the things in there look a little... implausible.

For what it's worth, "the narrator did it" is a fairly old trope in mystery stories, and I very much doubt the authors went and killed someone to write them too.

-- Coren

Do you think people writing erotica about "man-boy sex" is a "freedom of speech" issue?

If they write about it rather than go out and do it, yes, without a doubt. I'd suggest castration with a blunt instrument for those who do rather than write, though.

And if it were promotion, "go out and do these things", then repeated application of a brick to the cranium sounds about right.

-- Coren

[Kevin]

Do you think people writing erotica about "man-boy sex" is a "freedom of speech" issue?

If they write about it rather than go out and do it, yes, without a doubt. I'd suggest castration with a blunt instrument for those who do rather than write, though.

And if it were promotion, "go out and do these things", then repeated application of a brick to the cranium sounds about right.

-- Coren

Even if such writing is illegal - http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/cc/cc.163.1.htm? Much the same law as Australia, so far as I am aware.

Glad to find out where you stand though.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Even if such writing is illegal - http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/cc/cc.163.1.htm?

That definition was narrowed somewhat by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Sharpe - not sure of the legal situation in Australia, but in Canada statutes will often stay on the books after they're declared unconstitutional, so you really need both the statute and case law to know what the law is.

[Obesity]

It's not improbable that Coren, like FT2, is {involved in usual sexual practices} (Note: Substitution by moderator) or something like unto it. I'd bet a modest sum of money that he is.

However, I'll get behind him (figuratively speaking) him on the freedom of expression front, as it pertains to the realistic depictions of upsetting and despicable acts (though I stop well short of affiriming one's "right" to post gross images Wikipedia).

There are quite respectable genres of heavy metal, hentai, literature, horror flicks, etc, that deal exclusively with such subject matter, in a manner that--ambiguously or otherwise--seems to condone or celebrate the acts.

For example, any serious student of cinema will tell you that Salo is a meaningful and groundbreaking movie... Unfortunately, the fact that Passolini actually was a twisted fuck and a pederast in real life, does little to bolster the argument that the knowing-narrator thing is an innocent "trope", entirely separate from the monsters he creates on the page.

I daresay that, for a genius afflicted with such demons, this sort of art is therapeutic/cathartic, and that--whether they were making art or not--they would be up to no fucking good in their downtime. So hate the artist, not the art. Unless it's, like, really amateurish and stupid.... which I suppose most of the stories on Coren's website are... but I wouldn't know.

This post has been edited by Somey: Sat 30th May 2009, 7:50pm

[Milton Roe]

Your definition of "promoting" lies somewhere outside of reality, Kato.

Stories that are prefaced with "I tried with this story to make a compilation of everything or almost everything that a man can do with a horse. Though this story is fiction, everything described in it is something that I or a friend of similar taste has done, which is why you won't find an exact inventory of absolutely every practice imaginable, but only those in which I actually engage and are within my physical abilities."

Well, then one supposes it doesn't include rupturing one's colon and dying of peritonitis. Since you'd have to be alive to tell about it...

[EricBarbour]

Those stories are greatly improved by running them thru Google Translate.
Thus:

We had all taken part in ridding the table, back at the show said Lucia sas hugs with Amandine, they literally ate one undresses the other and vice versa. Pierre, he had had the quilt on the floor after entering Vulcan and Thor, he undressed burning impatience to protrude through one of the dogs, me offering to take care of the second.

Coast to coast, we were assembled by him and me by Thor Vulcan, for our pleasure. I took the bite of my new friend to masturbate, it made me politeness. Tortionnant me a bit, I managed to dive head under him for sucking. It was great a big bite of a dog in my ass and a beautiful tail in mouth, I was delighted!

Excellent..........

[Milton Roe]

Those stories are greatly improved by running them thru Google Translate.
Thus:

We had all taken part in ridding the table, back at the show said Lucia sas hugs with Amandine, they literally ate one undresses the other and vice versa. Pierre, he had had the quilt on the floor after entering Vulcan and Thor, he undressed burning impatience to protrude through one of the dogs, me offering to take care of the second.

Coast to coast, we were assembled by him and me by Thor Vulcan, for our pleasure. I took the bite of my new friend to masturbate, it made me politeness. Tortionnant me a bit, I managed to dive head under him for sucking. It was great a big bite of a dog in my ass and a beautiful tail in mouth, I was delighted!

Excellent..........

Methinks whatever was lost in translation there, was probably better lost.

[Somey]

Methinks whatever was lost in translation there, was probably better lost.

Indeed. Funny though this may be, it's also rather unfair. I mean, if we're going to make fun of Coren here for administering a website that promotes these, er, unusual sexualpractices, we might as well make fun of all the Wikipedia admins for administering Wikipedia, which essentially promotes such practices too.

All I'm saying is that we shouldn't single out one person for involvement in this sort of thing, even if he is doing it on two sites, rather than just one...

[JohnA]

Methinks whatever was lost in translation there, was probably better lost.

Indeed. Funny though this may be, it's also rather unfair. I mean, if we're going to make fun of Coren here for administering a website that promotes these, er, unusual sexualpractices, we might as well make fun of all the Wikipedia admins for administering Wikipedia, which essentially promotes such practices too.

All I'm saying is that we shouldn't single out one person for involvement in this sort of thing, even if he is doing it on two sites, rather than just one...

I think the point is: these are the kinds of people who are controlling an online encyclopedia that any child can see. I also think Coren shows admirably what is wrong with Wikipedia's governance.

[LessHorrid vanU]

...

I think the point is: these are the kinds of people who are controlling an online encyclopedia that any child can see. I also think Coren shows admirably what is wrong with Wikipedia's governance.

Since, as every parent knows, your children are just dying to bypass the Hannah Montana website, ignore the Nicklodean (whatever) page, flick past the Disney channel, just so they can comb Wikipedia for articles on unusual and/or illegal sexual practices...

Yes, any child can see - although in reality they don't because it doesn't appeal to them; but never mind, because it is far more effective to conjure up images of blond haired, blue eyed children (toddler age + 2 years, preferably) with milky white skin recoiling in uncomprehending horror upon viewing Tribadism when they had imperfectly searched for rabbit (I couldn't think of anything "naughty" that might be mistaken for bunny) to project ones own moral minimalism upon those who are inclined to allow access to any adult who wishes to peruse articles upon expressions of human sexuality.

If you want to edit the online version of Pear's Junior Encyclopedia, then by all means ensure that it is moderated by persons who are fit to interact with children and young teenagers. When considering the breadth and - a term that might appeal to you - depth of articles within Wikipedia, it is appropriate that persons are not only mature enough to determine the appropriateness of content, but having experience of involvement in some sites hosting adult material is a bonus (for instance, they are going to know what legally may or may not be published on a website). You have a choice in viewing material that you find repugnant, so please allow others the same freedom of choice and if you do have children - or intend to - take responsibility in managing their web browsing to that appropriate to their age.

[Peter Damian]

If you want to edit the online version of Pear's Junior Encyclopedia, then by all means ensure that it is moderated by persons who are fit to interact with children and young teenagers. When considering the breadth and - a term that might appeal to you - depth of articles within Wikipedia, it is appropriate that persons are not only mature enough to determine the appropriateness of content, but having experience of involvement in some sites hosting adult material is a bonus (for instance, they are going to know what legally may or may not be published on a website). You have a choice in viewing material that you find repugnant, so please allow others the same freedom of choice and if you do have children - or intend to - take responsibility in managing their web browsing to that appropriate to their age.

Oh I get it, it's our fault again.

On the argument that having experience of 'adult' websites is a bonus because of the knowledge of what is legal, why not use one of the admins of Boychat or some other pedophile forum who have very precise judgment about what will land them in prison, or not. That would be the logical choice.

of blond haired, blue eyed children (toddler age + 2 years, preferably) with milky white skin recoiling in uncomprehending horror upon viewing Tribadism when they had imperfectly searched for rabbit

Oh of course, those of us who dislike Wikipedian filthy pornographers corrupting our children are some kind of white-pride racists. Thanks, LHVU.

Also it's not really about content that can be shocking to some. Very little on Wikipedia is shocking in that kind of way. What is more insidious is the constant promotion and advocacy of certain lifestyles that can easily undermine the sense of what is right and wrong for juvenile readers. The quote below, for example, (since deleted from Wikipedia) is clearly arguing that while some commercial bestiality pornography is morally wrong because it is abusive or coercive, other kinds are OK because there is no force or coercion involved, and the animals enjoy it.

An adult with mature judgment will view it as the special pleading and big lie that it is. A child, who views this as coming from an authoritative source, will most likely believe it. And so ultimately less support for campaigners against for a vile industry that is still legal in some places and which causes untold suffering and death to animals.

Commercial animal pornography can sometimes be abusive or coercive, and amount to forcible rape, with restraints and force visible in the final versions of some productions. In other cases involving the filming by permission of established human-animal sexual partnerships, no force or coercion is involved and the act is an established mutual interest. Since animals are very open about their feelings and sexuality, the nature of the material is often clearly visible to, and can be assessed by, an informed impartial viewer familiar with both coercive and non-coercive material.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 31st May 2009, 2:33pm

[sbrown]

Of course. Its a law of nature that wikipeida IS NOT CENSORED. How dare anyone suggest that any attempt should be made to protect children from pictures of naked women and worse.

We must dance on the skulls of anyone who says such a vile thing.

[Somey]

...in reality they don't because it doesn't appeal to them; but never mind, because it is far more effective to conjure up images of blond haired, blue eyed children (toddler age + 2 years, preferably) with milky white skin recoiling in uncomprehending horror upon viewing Tribadism when they had imperfectly searched for rabbit...

I don't think people are so worried about the 2- to 6-year-old demographic - they're more worried about adolescent boys. For that group, I would certainly challenge the notion that online porn "doesn't appeal to them" - on the contrary, I'd say it was practically made specifically for them.

In any case, these "think of the children!" arguments are pretty much irresolvable. If you try to pass off content-control responsibility exclusively to the parents, as most legal systems have done after throwing up their hands and giving up, the parents will still complain - justifiably - about the near-impossibility of maintaining their own filtering regime, they'll turn to third-party services that are run mostly by censorship advocates, and you're back where you started.

I realize that doesn't help much...

Anyway, if we're going to bash Coren for his porn-related activities, I still think it's unfair to single him out. The issue should be whether or not his judgement is fundamentally unsound for thinking it's "no big deal" in a more generalized quasi-social context like Wikipedia, but for that he clearly has plenty of exemplars to support him, some of whom have far more extensive porn backgrounds than his.

[sbrown]

he clearly has plenty of exemplars to support him, some of whom have far more extensive porn backgrounds than his.

Surely you dont mean the sainted Mr Jimbo?

[LessHorrid vanU]

...

of blond haired, blue eyed children (toddler age + 2 years, preferably) with milky white skin recoiling in uncomprehending horror upon viewing Tribadism when they had imperfectly searched for rabbit

Oh of course, those of us who dislike Wikipedian filthy pornographers corrupting our children are some kind of white-pride racists. Thanks, LHVU.

...

I apologise for assuming that everyone here would recognise a description of cherub - although upon reflection I should have realised that self censoring individuals needed the extra hint of "wings" to distract them from outraged considerations of Aryan perfection being defiled. Blame me for my Christian atheism, since I am unfamiliar with depictions of idealised innocent children in other faith systems.

And anyhoo, it is a small "v" for fucksake!