I want to be very clear when I say this: I am not suggesting the ban of controversial speech by way of it being controversial. I am suggesting that websites like IB, FA, E6, Twitter, and the like should not platform ideologies which promote the harm of animals, children, or anyone else. These are not debate platforms, firstly (especially not Twitter, despite how hard it wants to be), and there has been a notable radicalization caused by engagement with groups which are, by design, indoctrinating people into their way of thinking. Indoctrination and incitement of harm or violence is wrong and I, personally, do not believe it falls under free speech. This would include discussions on these platforms such as “minors can consent to sex with adults,” “animals actually enjoy being raped,” and “x race of people are lesser than y race and it is our responsibility to guide these savages.” Feel free to place any similar dangerous or cult-like ideologies here, as there’s plenty not covered.
Freedom of speech (in America) secures your right to speak openly for or against whatever political side you are supporting, criticize the current government, and similar. It does not cover art websites and hellholes like Twitter which are subject to their own personal TOS, and thus, are free to make their own rules. I do not agree with the censorship of fiction, transgressive or otherwise, but it is also completely within the rights of the website to ban certain things if they so choose. Still, the censorship sucks, especially when it is effecting harmless artists and not actually doing anything about the real problems festering in these sites and communities.
None of these websites are equipped for discussions related to paraphilic disorders, or really, any psychological disorder, disability, illness, or whatever else. Because they are not equipped for these discussions (as they are art websites first and foremost), this has allowed harmful ideologies to spread. Even among MAPs it is well known that “pro-contact” (the belief that minors can consent to sex, and should be engaged with sexually by adults) is becoming a much more prevalent ideology, and how damaging this is to them overall. It implicates innocent paraphiles who do not wish to do harm, and want help. This was made even more unfortunate when MAP and zoo symbols (pride-related or not) were overtaken by these groups and associated with the sharing and spread of illicit material (see: https://inkbunny.net/j/495413#commentid_2639689 and https://inkbunny.net/j/495413#commentid_2644707), not simply the desire to discuss and be open about their struggles and/or treatment. I am 110% pro-rehabilitation, treatment, and not treating paraphilic disorders as a “ticking time bomb,” because we have plenty of evidence to suggest that they aren’t. The number one factor in offending is typically isolation and stigmatization, which prevents them from getting help. Sadly, that does not undo the damage that bad actors have done to the community, and it’s become a cesspit of “contact discourse” and soliciting illegal material. There’s a very real problem here that has no easy answer, and a website meant for fictional art certainly isn’t the place to try and figure all that out.
It’s important to remember that incitement of harassment and harm is different from having a controversial opinion. Saying “the legalization of x material lowers the rate of y crimes” would be different than saying “we must legalize bestiality porn because animals can consent and if it’s not illegal, then it’s not a crime, therefore crime rates go down” or other such nonsense. Controversial speech has its places, certainly. Consider having a blog! Or just use Twitter. (Not specifically directed at you, more of a general statement.)
But yes, this has gotten off topic, and I apologize for that. You’re correct: there is presently no evidence that correlates fictional violence or sex with increased harm in the real world. In fact, quite the opposite. Many studies suggest that the availability of such content actually lowers rates of offense. There is also no correlation between sexual depictions of fictional minors (cubs, lolicon, etc) and clinical pedophilic disorders. A pedophilic disorder must be present first, and a study done on VirPed actually suggested that it’s not “real enough” for some of them. Because, again, paraphilic disorders are about the real world, not drawings.
A predator is going to prey on someone regardless of what community they are in. YouTube, furry, brony, none of that matters. There’s rotten people everywhere. It’s just our job to push them out when they crop up, lest we’re thought to be sweeping it under the rug.
“Normalization” is as much of a buzzword as “problematic.” People have no idea how to use it. It’d be best applied to things like Victoria’s Secret having a line of underwear for minors, rather than some “gross” drawings of cubs on IB.
Hello NRG,
I want to be very clear when I say this: I am not suggesting the ban of controversial speech by way of it being controversial. I am suggesting that websites like IB, FA, E6, Twitter, and the like should not platform ideologies which promote the harm of animals, children, or anyone else. These are not debate platforms, firstly (especially not Twitter, despite how hard it wants to be), and there has been a notable radicalization caused by engagement with groups which are, by design, indoctrinating people into their way of thinking. Indoctrination and incitement of harm or violence is wrong and I, personally, do not believe it falls under free speech. This would include discussions on these platforms such as “minors can consent to sex with adults,” “animals actually enjoy being raped,” and “x race of people are lesser than y race and it is our responsibility to guide these savages.” Feel free to place any similar dangerous or cult-like ideologies here, as there’s plenty not covered.
Freedom of speech (in America) secures your right to speak openly for or against whatever political side you are supporting, criticize the current government, and similar. It does not cover art websites and hellholes like Twitter which are subject to their own personal TOS, and thus, are free to make their own rules. I do not agree with the censorship of fiction, transgressive or otherwise, but it is also completely within the rights of the website to ban certain things if they so choose. Still, the censorship sucks, especially when it is effecting harmless artists and not actually doing anything about the real problems festering in these sites and communities.
None of these websites are equipped for discussions related to paraphilic disorders, or really, any psychological disorder, disability, illness, or whatever else. Because they are not equipped for these discussions (as they are art websites first and foremost), this has allowed harmful ideologies to spread. Even among MAPs it is well known that “pro-contact” (the belief that minors can consent to sex, and should be engaged with sexually by adults) is becoming a much more prevalent ideology, and how damaging this is to them overall. It implicates innocent paraphiles who do not wish to do harm, and want help. This was made even more unfortunate when MAP and zoo symbols (pride-related or not) were overtaken by these groups and associated with the sharing and spread of illicit material (see: https://inkbunny.net/j/495413#commentid_2639689 and https://inkbunny.net/j/495413#commentid_2644707), not simply the desire to discuss and be open about their struggles and/or treatment. I am 110% pro-rehabilitation, treatment, and not treating paraphilic disorders as a “ticking time bomb,” because we have plenty of evidence to suggest that they aren’t. The number one factor in offending is typically isolation and stigmatization, which prevents them from getting help. Sadly, that does not undo the damage that bad actors have done to the community, and it’s become a cesspit of “contact discourse” and soliciting illegal material. There’s a very real problem here that has no easy answer, and a website meant for fictional art certainly isn’t the place to try and figure all that out.
It’s important to remember that incitement of harassment and harm is different from having a controversial opinion. Saying “the legalization of x material lowers the rate of y crimes” would be different than saying “we must legalize bestiality porn because animals can consent and if it’s not illegal, then it’s not a crime, therefore crime rates go down” or other such nonsense. Controversial speech has its places, certainly. Consider having a blog! Or just use Twitter. (Not specifically directed at you, more of a general statement.)
But yes, this has gotten off topic, and I apologize for that. You’re correct: there is presently no evidence that correlates fictional violence or sex with increased harm in the real world. In fact, quite the opposite. Many studies suggest that the availability of such content actually lowers rates of offense. There is also no correlation between sexual depictions of fictional minors (cubs, lolicon, etc) and clinical pedophilic disorders. A pedophilic disorder must be present first, and a study done on VirPed actually suggested that it’s not “real enough” for some of them. Because, again, paraphilic disorders are about the real world, not drawings.
A predator is going to prey on someone regardless of what community they are in. YouTube, furry, brony, none of that matters. There’s rotten people everywhere. It’s just our job to push them out when they crop up, lest we’re thought to be sweeping it under the rug.
“Normalization” is as much of a buzzword as “problematic.” People have no idea how to use it. It’d be best applied to things like Victoria’s Secret having a line of underwear for minors, rather than some “gross” drawings of cubs on IB.
Hope this has cleared things up.