Time to Shut Down Pornhub

[The Name of Love]

Yes, they had authoritarian elements. 19th century America was very authoritarian, given the slavery as well.

But yeah, using government to force your beliefs on others is textbook authoritarianism. That's what you are doing here. It's wrong to force your beliefs on others. Unless you want to argue Saudia Arabia as a bastion of moral governance?

First, any government action involves forcing someone’s beliefs on someone else. So are you an anarchist or a hypocrite?

Second, if that’s your definition of authoritarian, then I don’t really care if you think I am or not. You calling me an authoritarian is the same as a feminist calling me a sexist or a Black activist calling me a racist. So if there is something wrong with my views, screaming “authoritarian!” isn’t an argument.

Of course not. But you should be cautious that the policies you implement don’t backfire in spectacular fashion.

I don’t see libertarianism as a winning strategy. I see it as a surrender. The state is going to exist no matter what, the Left is going to censor us no matter what, so we ought to use state power to accomplish our goals if we gain that power. What is wrong with this logic?

 

[Abhorsen]

First, any government action involves forcing someone’s beliefs on someone else. So are you an anarchist or a hypocrite?

Second, if that’s your definition of authoritarian, then I don’t really care if you think I am or not. You calling me an authoritarian is the same as a feminist calling me a sexist or a Black activist calling me a racist. So if there is something wrong with my views, screaming “authoritarian!” isn’t an argument.

The purpose of government is to defend individual rights against those who would infringe upon them. An authoritarian government restricts people's rights. That's what you are advocating for here.

And now you also claim that censorship isn't authoritarian? Here's a definition:

from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

• adjective Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom.
• adjective Tending to tell other people what to do in a peremptory or arrogant manner. synonym: dictatorial.

Is censorship obedience to authority going against individual freedom? Yes.
Is censorship telling other people what to do in a peremptory manner? Yes.

Or maybe we can look at the long list of authoritarian regimes who all engaged in censorship, to show that censorship is an attribute of authoritarianism? Here's a few: the USSR, the PRC, North Korea, and Iran.

 

[Deleted member 88]

First, any government action involves forcing someone’s beliefs on someone else. So are you an anarchist or a hypocrite?

Second, if that’s your definition of authoritarian, then I don’t really care if you think I am or not. You calling me an authoritarian is the same as a feminist calling me a sexist or a Black activist calling me a racist. So if there is something wrong with my views, screaming “authoritarian!” isn’t an argument.


I don’t see libertarianism as a winning strategy. I see it as a surrender. The state is going to exist no matter what, the Left is going to censor us no matter what, so we ought to use state power to accomplish our goals if we gain that power. What is wrong with this logic?

In general, I would agree on principle actually.

The problem is state power is not permanent. At least unless it is captured and held.

So we are left with the unpleasant option of a violent seizure of power and a suppression of the left-via the boot and the bullet.

Are you willing to do that? Dispose of democracy and rule through fear and the bullet box?

That’s the only way conservatives can win these battles and not see them undone by the voting booth or subversion of culture.

To rule through blood and iron? An iron scepter? Or a wall of bayonets? Rule through sheer terror? Or any other dictatorial expression that suits your fancy.

 

[ShieldWife]

All authoritarian regimes practice censorship, it’s one of the defining characteristics of it. Censorship is bad not only for being oppressive, but because it quashes knowledge and encourages ignorance.

Is banning pornography the same thing as censorship? I’m not sure that I would necessarily put pornography and political speech into the same category, they are quite different. I can’t, though, say that there is a distinct enough line between political speech and obscenity that banning one can’t endanger the other. I do think that pornography probably does have some negative effects on society, but they aren’t bad enough to warrant endangering freedom of expression - the freedom which all others hinge upon.

 

[Arch Dornan]

Does food porn count?

 

[ShieldWife]

Does food porn count?

I’m on a ketogenic diet now and am really into watching The Great British Baking Show. I feel like a monk watching porn.

 

[The Name of Love]

The purpose of government is to defend individual rights against those who would infringe upon them. An authoritarian government restricts people's rights. That's what you are advocating for here.

So you are a hypocrite who wants to impose his own view of human rights onto me using the state. Alright then.

Here's the thing: every single ideology that recognizes what human rights are are going to disagree what they entail. Neo-Thomists, Rawlsian Liberals, Anarcho-Capitalists, and Social Democrats all have differing views of what is or isn't a human rights violation. For example, a social democrat might say that we all have a right to government-funded schooling and a living wage while an Anarcho-Capitalist would say that counts as a human rights violation. A Rawlsian Liberal would consider a ban on gay pride parades to be violating human rights to self-expression while a Neo-Thomist would say that such a ban could be necessary to preserve the right of humans to live in a morally upright society; meanwhile, an Anarcho-Capitalist would be asking "it depends on who owns the property. And that's only the groups that think human rights are actually meaningful things that exist.

Point is, not everyone agrees with you on whether human rights exist, not everyone agrees on your definition of human rights, and citing a dictionary definition that agrees with you won't help. Again, you are no different from the feminist that would call me a sexist.

And now you also claim that censorship isn't authoritarian? Here's a definition:

How is censorship of pornography a human rights violation if I don't even agree that there is such a thing as a human right to indulge in pornography? More question-begging.

Tell me, @Abhorsen, do you want to debate me so badly on what human rights are? If so, I can start a separate thread. Otherwise, we can talk about the effectiveness of banning Pornhub. The case was made in the OP was based on both science and the history of bad behavior on the part of porn websites. I then cited examples of how that could be done effectively in a liberal country like the United States. Not a single person on this forum website has even come close to refuting it on those terms.

In general, I would agree on principle actually.

The problem is state power is not permanent. At least unless it is captured and held.

So we are left with the unpleasant option of a violent seizure of power and a suppression of the left-via the boot and the bullet.

Are you willing to do that? Dispose of democracy and rule through fear and the bullet box?

That’s the only way conservatives can win these battles and not see them undone by the voting booth or subversion of culture.

To rule through blood and iron? An iron scepter? Or a wall of bayonets? Rule through sheer terror? Or any other dictatorial expression that suits your fancy.

Here's a better question: if there really is a swinging pendulum as you claim, how come the Left is able to make society more Left wing over the course of several decades?

I see two possible explanations.

1. You are wrong, and the Right-wing, which has been run for decades by people like Ben Shapiro and David French (read: people who share your views of government authority) has caved in to the Left on every issue because it's too scared to really grab power and use it.

2. You are right, in which case, no Left-wing policies are ever overturned while every Right-wing policy is overturned. This would lead us to the conclusion that democracy as a system is inherently Left-wing. In that case, no Right-wing movement could ever be efficacious and the only way for Right-wingers to ever get their policies implemented in any real sense is to overthrow democracy.

 

[Arch Dornan]

I’m on a ketogenic diet now and am really into watching The Great British Baking Show. I feel like a monk watching porn.

No wonder I like war porn.

Apparently there's now other kinds of porn that's not sexually explicit on Wikipedia.

Inspiration porn, pessimism porn and poverty porn.

 

[Abhorsen]

Tell me, @Abhorsen, do you want to debate me so badly on what human rights are? If so, I can start a separate thread. Otherwise, we can talk about the effectiveness of banning Pornhub. The case was made in the OP was based on both science and the history of bad behavior on the part of porn websites. I then cited examples of how that could be done effectively in a liberal country like the United States. Not a single person on this forum website has even come close to refuting it on those terms.

Yeah, they have. There was no good evidence in your posts that showed Pornhub to be knowingly engaged in child pornography, for just one example.

Point is, not everyone agrees with you on whether human rights exist, not everyone agrees on your definition of human rights, and citing a dictionary definition that agrees with you won't help. Again, you are no different from the feminist that would call me a sexist.

I gave multiple reasons why censorship is considered authoritarian. Outside of dismissing points, you haven't countered this. I also noted that you are calling for censorship. Those two things combine pretty nicely into a statement you don't like, but is true regardless.

 

[Deleted member 88]

So you are a hypocrite who wants to impose his own view of human rights onto me using the state. Alright then.

Here's the thing: every single ideology that recognizes what human rights are are going to disagree what they entail. Neo-Thomists, Rawlsian Liberals, Anarcho-Capitalists, and Social Democrats all have differing views of what is or isn't a human rights violation. For example, a social democrat might say that we all have a right to government-funded schooling and a living wage while an Anarcho-Capitalist would say that counts as a human rights violation. A Rawlsian Liberal would consider a ban on gay pride parades to be violating human rights to self-expression while a Neo-Thomist would say that such a ban could be necessary to preserve the right of humans to live in a morally upright society; meanwhile, an Anarcho-Capitalist would be asking "it depends on who owns the property. And that's only the groups that think human rights are actually meaningful things that exist.

Point is, not everyone agrees with you on whether human rights exist, not everyone agrees on your definition of human rights, and citing a dictionary definition that agrees with you won't help. Again, you are no different from the feminist that would call me a sexist.


How is censorship of pornography a human rights violation if I don't even agree that there is such a thing as a human right to indulge in pornography? More question-begging.

Tell me, @Abhorsen, do you want to debate me so badly on what human rights are? If so, I can start a separate thread. Otherwise, we can talk about the effectiveness of banning Pornhub. The case was made in the OP was based on both science and the history of bad behavior on the part of porn websites. I then cited examples of how that could be done effectively in a liberal country like the United States. Not a single person on this forum website has even come close to refuting it on those terms.


Here's a better question: if there really is a swinging pendulum as you claim, how come the Left is able to make society more Left wing over the course of several decades?

I see two possible explanations.

1. You are wrong, and the Right-wing, which has been run for decades by people like Ben Shapiro and David French (read: people who share your views of government authority) has caved in to the Left on every issue because it's too scared to really grab power and use it.

2. You are right, in which case, no Left-wing policies are ever overturned while every Right-wing policy is overturned. This would lead us to the conclusion that democracy as a system is inherently Left-wing. In that case, no Right-wing movement could ever be efficacious and the only way for Right-wingers to ever get their policies implemented in any real sense is to overthrow democracy.

Institutional hegemony. Control of mass narratives.

I would say its a combination of the two-the conservative luminaries of today and recent decades would balk at real use of power. Either because they lack the stomach or are just afraid.

Democracy inevitably leads to a leftist triumph. Leftism at its core appeals to the base sentiments people have-a desire for equality, envy towards those with things they lack, and discontent against the established order(i.e the church, the family, the military, etc...). Which in a democratic society will grow ever stronger and more pronounced. Because the people can express these deep(and I would say eternally present) sentiments.

Or as someone else so aptly put it, " democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy. "

So in the end the only way for us to truly win-is to rule through blood and steel. Permanently.

 

[The Name of Love]

Yeah, they have. There was no good evidence in your posts that showed Pornhub to be knowingly engaged in child pornography, for just one example.

Why did they delete the tweet where they admitted to verifying the fifteen year old trafficked girl? It seems that they are guilty of, at the very least, negligence. And if you are claiming that they didn't know they were verifying a young teen because they don't ask for your age, then how many other young teens are on their website?

I gave multiple reasons why censorship is considered authoritarian. Outside of dismissing points, you haven't countered this. I also noted that you are calling for censorship. Those two things combine pretty nicely into a statement you don't like, but is true regardless.

I did counter this by 1) pointing out your definition of authoritarianism almost everything before modern times was authoritarian, making it about as useless as word as "racist" or "sexist" and 2) showing how your argument that censorship violates individual freedom or human rights or whatever begs the question by assuming that your definitions of those things is correct. There is, in fact, a substantial disagreement between us on the definitions of those things.

If you want to have that argument, then here is the thread.

Institutional hegemony. Control of mass narratives.

I would say its a combination of the two-the conservative luminaries of today and recent decades would balk at real use of power. Either because they lack the stomach or are just afraid.

Democracy inevitably leads to a leftist triumph. Leftism at its core appeals to the base sentiments people have-a desire for equality, envy towards those with things they lack, and discontent against the established order(i.e the church, the family, the military, etc...). Which in a democratic society will grow ever stronger and more pronounced. Because the people can express these deep(and I would say eternally present) sentiments.

So in the end the only way for us to truly win-is to rule through blood and steel. Permanently.

That's a pretty dark view. I myself prefer a more pacifistic end to modern liberal society. The current order is so contra naturum that I expect it to collapse within a few generations. When that happens, the pockets of reactionary resistance will rise from the rubble and rebuild society in their image.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Why did they delete the tweet where they admitted to verifying the fifteen year old trafficked girl? It seems that they are guilty of, at the very least, negligence. And if you are claiming that they didn't know they were verifying a young teen because they don't ask for your age, then how many other young teens are on their website?


I did counter this by 1) pointing out your definition of authoritarianism almost everything before modern times was authoritarian, making it about as useless as word as "racist" or "sexist" and 2) showing how your argument that censorship violates individual freedom or human rights or whatever begs the question by assuming that your definitions of those things is correct. There is, in fact, a substantial disagreement between us on the definitions of those things.

If you want to have that argument, then here is the thread.


That's a pretty dark view. I myself prefer a more pacifistic end to modern liberal society. The current order is so contra naturum that I expect it to collapse within a few generations. When that happens, the pockets of reactionary resistance will rise from the rubble and rebuild society in their image.

Leftist sentiments come from a deep place in human nature.

Fundamentally it comes from envy, guilt, and the deepest idealism in people's hearts.

That is why-when you present leftist items for people, they will choose them. Free college, housing, and a liberation of sexual norms.

No doubt there is artificial manipulation and cunning ideologues and strategists, but as reactionaries we must realize the left in some form or another is eternal.

And will win, inevitably win, as the sun rises in the east and gravity brings objects down to the earth in a democratic society.

The only way barring a massive theoretical shift in human nature(perhaps genetic engineering), or the return of Jesus Christ, this can not be prevented, only delayed and speedbumped.

However, leftism can be physically suppressed, its ideological cadre and intellectual capital destroyed, and its organizations, literature, and platforms smashed.

To do that, you need to dispense with democracy and rule by terror, the machine gun, and the propaganda microphone.

I don't like the above anymore than other reasonable people, but it is the only way to suppress leftism in any permanent or long lasting way.

 

[The Name of Love]

Leftist sentiments come from a deep place in human nature.

Fundamentally it comes from envy, guilt, and the deepest idealism in people's hearts.

That is why-when you present leftist items for people, they will choose them. Free college, housing, and a liberation of sexual norms.

No doubt there is artificial manipulation and cunning ideologues and strategists, but as reactionaries we must realize the left in some form or another is eternal.

And will win, inevitably win, as the sun rises in the east and gravity brings objects down to the earth in a democratic society.

The only way barring a massive theoretical shift in human nature(perhaps genetic engineering), or the return of Jesus Christ, this can not be prevented, only delayed and speedbumped.

However, leftism can be physically suppressed, its ideological cadre and intellectual capital destroyed, and its organizations, literature, and platforms smashed.

To do that, you need to dispense with democracy and rule by terror, the machine gun, and the propaganda microphone.

I don't like the above anymore than other reasonable people, but it is the only way to suppress leftism in any permanent or long lasting way.

I appreciate this, but how do you expect to do away with democracy at this time? That's why I'm for piecemeal solutions that will allow reactionary communities to thrive within liberalism. I don't think pretending like we can overthrow the government by force is really an option for us. The U.S. State is too powerful.

 

[Deleted member 88]

I appreciate this, but how do you expect to do away with democracy at this time? That's why I'm for piecemeal solutions that will allow reactionary communities to thrive within liberalism. I don't think pretending like we can overthrow the government by force is really an option for us. The U.S. State is too powerful.

You capture the state and forbid elections. Or rig them so only you win. In theory the movement around Trump could do this, but I doubt it will.

Or you just have to seize power via force of arms. Which as you say isn't practical, or even desirable(not to mention might be a violation of the TOS here).

 

[Terthna]

Leftist sentiments come from a deep place in human nature.

Fundamentally it comes from envy, guilt, and the deepest idealism in people's hearts.

That is why-when you present leftist items for people, they will choose them. Free college, housing, and a liberation of sexual norms.

No doubt there is artificial manipulation and cunning ideologues and strategists, but as reactionaries we must realize the left in some form or another is eternal.

And will win, inevitably win, as the sun rises in the east and gravity brings objects down to the earth in a democratic society.

The only way barring a massive theoretical shift in human nature(perhaps genetic engineering), or the return of Jesus Christ, this can not be prevented, only delayed and speedbumped.

However, leftism can be physically suppressed, its ideological cadre and intellectual capital destroyed, and its organizations, literature, and platforms smashed.

To do that, you need to dispense with democracy and rule by terror, the machine gun, and the propaganda microphone.

I don't like the above anymore than other reasonable people, but it is the only way to suppress leftism in any permanent or long lasting way.

Except it isn't, because violence always begets violence; even if your ideology managed to survive the initial transition from violent coup to ruling government (which almost never happens, and is almost always replaced by that which is primarily concerned with personal greed), do you honestly think it would be passed down intact through the generations? You'd be a fool if you did, to the point where you'd never notice the knife until it's already buried to the hilt in your back.

No; what you describe has been the mad dream of tyrants throughout history, and it has never worked out that way in reality. Even if you could get it off the ground, bare minimum, the simple fact that you're dumb enough to talk openly about this sort of thing in an internet forum means you'd be purged early; because you cannot be trusted to keep your mouth shut, and avoid attracting the wrong sort of attention.

You're not reasonable; you're just delusional enough to think you are.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Except it isn't, because violence always begets violence; even if your ideology managed to survive the initial transition from violent coup to ruling government (which almost never happens, and is almost always replaced by that which is primarily concerned with personal greed), do you honestly think it would be passed down intact through the generations? You'd be a fool if you did, to the point where you'd never notice the knife until it's already buried to the hilt in your back.

No; what you describe has been the mad dream of tyrants throughout history, and it has never worked out that way in reality. Even if you could get it off the ground, bare minimum, the simple fact that you're dumb enough to talk openly about this sort of thing in an internet forum means you'd be purged early; because you cannot be trusted to keep your mouth shut, and avoid attracting the wrong sort of attention.

You're not reasonable; you're just delusional enough to think you are.

Look, I have no illusions what I say is going to happen. Or wouldn't fail or degenerate within a generation even if it did.

Franco died and so ended the power of conservativism in Spain.

Also you haven't refuted my actual point, namely that the triumph of leftism in a democratic society is inevitable.

 

[Terthna]

Look, I have no illusions what I say is going to happen. Or wouldn't fail or degenerate within a generation even if it did.

Franco died and so ended the power of conservativism in Spain.

Also you haven't refuted my actual point, namely that the triumph of leftism in a democratic society is inevitable.

You do realize that I'm not a conservative, don't you? I'm what you might call a reasonable leftist; and yes, we do exist. For point of reference; as far as I'm aware, my politics align fairly closely with Tim Pool's. As for the "inevitable triumph of leftism"; I don't agree that it's a bad thing. As long as it isn't the crazy authoritarianism that masquerades itself as leftism. I'm sure as heck not going to support your crazy authoritarianism as a counter measure.

 

[Deleted member 88]

You do realize that I'm not a conservative, don't you? I'm what you might call a reasonable leftist; and yes, we do exist. For point of reference; as far as I'm aware, my politics align fairly closely with Tim Pool's. As for the "inevitable triumph of leftism"; I don't agree that it's a bad thing. As long as it isn't the crazy authoritarianism that masquerades itself as leftism. I'm sure as heck not going to support your crazy authoritarianism as a counter measure.

You are? Well that changes the context somewhat.

You do realize I am speaking in “if thens” and hypotheticals? I wouldn’t to live in the society I describe. Mostly because I’d probably be shot.

I also don’t wish to live in a society where I must bend the knee to every form of insanity and degeneracy imaginable.

If replicators are invented and the market fades away-if utopia is achieved a la Star Trek. A compassionate, honest, and outward looking culture-now that’s a “leftist” society I could happily live under.

Call me when we get there.

The fact we(meaning conservatives) are having to discuss disposing of democracy at all shows how broken, tired, and simmering with unquenchable anguish we are. At some point sooner or later more and more conservatives will start embracing the hypotheticals I have outlined.

But that’s due to society and the triumph of leftism, not our moral rot.

So in the end, whose authoritarianism is winning right now?

 

[The Name of Love]

You do realize that I'm not a conservative, don't you? I'm what you might call a reasonable leftist; and yes, we do exist. For point of reference; as far as I'm aware, my politics align fairly closely with Tim Pool's. As for the "inevitable triumph of leftism"; I don't agree that it's a bad thing. As long as it isn't the crazy authoritarianism that masquerades itself as leftism. I'm sure as heck not going to support your crazy authoritarianism as a counter measure.

So you do realize that to someone who sees even a "reasonable leftism" as something ultimately self-destructive and immoral, this isn't a convincing argument. Right?

Now, if there were to be some sort of understanding whereby we could come to a reasonable compromise, that'd be understandable. The problem is that, every time I propose something, I get shouted down by people like @Abhorsen for being an "authoritarian" and then told by people like @LordsFire that I need to just abandon my principles and just become a libertarian. You can see why that's not compromise, right?

Furthermore, there's going to be areas where we definitely disagree and there is no compromise. You are probably pro-choice. I'm pro-life. There's no compromise there.

 

[ShieldWife]

There can’t be any kind of successful overthrow of the leftist establishment anytime soon. Nor will it be possible to work within the system and get the thoroughly corrupt government and bureaucracies to do our bidding. The best that any radical right winger might do (which I would consider myself and NoL albeit of different types) is to advance our causes on a personal level, as individuals and communities and families. To set a good example for our friends, to have children and to home school them and bring them up with our values, to live virtuous lives with the freedoms that we still have. If enough people can do that, then in time we may be able to build up a movement from the grass roots level to really oppose the system, or at least be in a position to rebuild when it eventually collapses.