Tag: Clopping

I saw it coming. When needs-more-plot called notaclopbanana “hopeless” and notaclopbanana stereotyped those on the opposing side of the issue, I realized that people were getting frustrated. That’s not always a bad thing, but the problem that usually arises is that people start to ignore the actual arguments of others and make bad arguments themselves. They start to get the mentality of: This person is clueless, so why should I care?

If it really is the same argument with nothing else to back it up, then it’s okay to ignore it. (Though I think it’s better to at least refer back to a prior response.) But if there’s something new, consider it. You will encounter people who disagree with you. If you think they’re wrong, tell them why. If you think they’re right, then you might change your views. This is what reasonable discussion is about: considering the views of others so you yourself become more reasonable.

This is especially important in discussions about morality. Unfortunately, because moral views tend to be very strongly held, discussions on these issues have a greater chance of devolving into irrational discourse. This seems to have happened with the issue of Fausticorn Rule 34.

This last part is dedicated to solarhedonist: I fully respect your decisions as a result of this issue. I’m sorry.

notaclopbanana:

Drawing or posting Fausticorn in rule 34 is terrible and I can prove it.

All I have to do is lie about what she said(to myself), ignore that it’s harmless, assume that some arbitrary hierarchy of rights to a character is what defines right and wrong instead of harm and situational awareness, ignore that the same statement that it “kind of gives [faust] the creeps,” that I’m twisting into “I can’t stand these disturbing images and it needs to stop,” and that she’d rather not have it pointed out to her was said about all clop in general, that all the main characters are her ocs, and make accusations about anyone who thinks that disrespectful actions do not equal malevolent, evil, or punishable ones.

((Reminder that you do not know me. You do not know that I rescued a stray dog a few months ago and found him a home, you do not know that I volunteered at a hospital, you do not see it everytime I sign a petition, every time I give to charity. You want to imagine that person on the other side of the screen has no empathy or compassion so you don’t have to think. Go ahead. But don’t fucking pat yourself on the back for it, and mistake that for a virtue.))

Actually, there is a thing called personality rights, though its legal applicability is doubtful. More information.

/t/post/79000069873/solarhedonist-regarding-all-the-talk-of

solarhedonist:

heartlinda:

A similar question could be asked of clop: I wonder if Hasbro/DHX will appreciate this…

Rule 34 almost always implies disrespect for a character’s creator, because most of the time they don’t appreciate pornographic depictions of them. Of course, Lauren Faust and other creators definitely shouldn’t be harassed with it, but beyond that it isn’t really that simple. But that doesn’t mean we don’t take these sorts of things into consideration.

If you didn’t see my other post, there are personality rights to consider when it comes to real people (but I’m not sure if this goes for alternative personas). So that would make the case for real people (and potentially alternative personas, at least morally, if not legally). But I just took issue with the statement: You do not do things that could creep out, upset or otherwise harm another human being without asking them first. This, I think, is overly broad, which is why I originally said the issue was oversimplified.

((You just equated Hasbro to a human being. Your argument is invalid and I’m ignoring future replies.))

I’d like to point out that I basically agreed with you in the end, because of a legal (and probably moral) consideration called personality rights. Please read my entire previous response (and the link) for details.

I’m using the comparison because, while Hasbro and DHX are not people themselves, the creators are in fact people. Lauren Faust created the characters in “Friendship is Magic.” While the discussion so far has been surrounding her avatar, there is still the question of porn of FiM in general. I don’t think Faust would appreciate this, either.

This brings up another issue: Rule 34 of fictional characters vs. avatars. Pony OCs that bronies create can be avatars, that is, representations of themselves, but they don’t have to be. I’d like to ask what people here think of Rule 34 of OCs that are not avatars. (A very popular character that fits this description is Nightmare Rarity.) Personality rights are nonexistent, so do these characters have the same level of ownership/protection?

(Also, just because I’ve been giving logic lessons in these discussions: My argument cannot be “invalid” in the strict sense of the term. “Invalid” means that it doesn’t prove what it claims to prove. It applies only to deductive arguments, those that are intended to prove something with certainty, like a mathematical proof. All our arguments are inductive, which means they try to support instead of prove. You could say my argument is “weak.” Plus, refusual to consider arguments from a particular source just because one of its arguments is bad may be an argumentum ad hominem [discrediting a person making an argument instead of the argument itself] or invincible ignorance [refusing to consider evidence].)

/t/post/79000069873/solarhedonist-regarding-all-the-talk-of

solarhedonist:

((I don’t agree… It shouldn’t be that hard to figure out. /Especially/ in the stated case where Lauren has /already said/ she doesn’t like it. You don’t get any simpler than “No”.

“I want to draw Lauren Faust’s pony being fucked in the ass” should really trigger a thought of “Gee I wonder if she’d be upset about that”.

Saying “Eh, fuck her I’ll do what I want” shows the person to be an inconsiderate asshole.

Asking her if she cares about porn of her character is the only correct approach. And if she says no, the only correct approach is to /not do it/. If you go forward anyway, you are directly violating the will of the character’s owner, and in this case the will of the character herself since Fausticorn /is/ Lauren Faust for all intent and purpose.

If it never, ever even occurs to someone that doing this might upset another human being in the first place, well, that’s a sign of being a sociopath.

It is /seriously/ that simple. Questions of morality don’t have to be complex. They’re usually only complicated by people who want to do wrong and feel justified about it anyway.

I don’t play that game. Wrong is wrong. Period. Trying to justify wrong acts is just being wrong /and/ too cowardly to admit that you know you’re wrong and just don’t care.))

A similar question could be asked of clop: I wonder if Hasbro/DHX will appreciate this…

Rule 34 almost always implies disrespect for a character’s creator, because most of the time they don’t appreciate pornographic depictions of them. Of course, Lauren Faust and other creators definitely shouldn’t be harassed with it, but beyond that it isn’t really that simple. But that doesn’t mean we don’t take these sorts of things into consideration.

If you didn’t see my other post, there are personality rights to consider when it comes to real people (but I’m not sure if this goes for avatars). So that would make the case for real people (and potentially alternative personas, at least morally, if not legally). But I just took issue with the statement: You do not do things that could creep out, upset or otherwise harm another human being without asking them first. This, I think, is overly broad, which is why I originally said the issue was oversimplified.

solarhedonist:

((Regarding all the talk of non-consenting depictions of people’s OC and personas in sexual situations:

It’s being over thought now. This isn’t something that needs to be debated to death. It’s something every fully functional human brain should already know the answer to.

You do not do things that could creep out, upset or otherwise harm another human being without asking them first. Period. It’s called basic consideration. You should really have the empathy to process that without being told. It shouldn’t be hard to understand or need a massive debate.

In the specific case of Lauren’s OC, she has said on her own DA page when asked that she doesn’t like it. It makes her uncomfortable and weirds her out.

There you go. End of discussion. The lady said no. Stop it. You do not have a right or permission. In fact, you have a request to not do it.

Done. 

…and if that isn’t enough to close the issue for you, then you lack a full range of human senses and decency and probably need to see a therapist or whoever can teach you more about right and wrong since your parents clearly failed.))

I think this is going the other way of oversimplification. As they say, everything’s offensive.

ambris-waifu-hoard:

Exactly exactly exactly.

Even without the porn aspect, it’s still wrong to use someone else’s character for selfish reasons. Truth is, one could even invoke copyright laws in some cases. It’s effectively stealing someone else’s intellectual property. Using it for porn is adding insult to injury, but the more I think about the more I realize it’s not even acceptable when no porn is involved.

The only exception to the rule I can think of is when people drew Lauren’s OC as a gift to her; For a completely selfless reason. And unanimously, she really seemed to love that attention and those gifts.

Taking OC for one’s one selfish reasons without permission is just as bad as internet art theft.

Isn’t any Rule 34 (of a creative work, anyway), an invasion of copyright? Besides, one could argue fair use/fair dealing for parody or transformation (dramatically altering the work).

When it comes to real people, though, there are what are known as personality rights, that is, the right for people to control usage of their names or likenesses. I don’t know how legally applicable this is in the case of OCs.

The ever-relevant disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Please consult a qualified professional for serious issues.

http://notaclopbanana.tumblr.com/post/78874419322/sending-out-an-sos-with-clop-perfection

needs-more-plot:

[Thread removed.]

I have some points and questions for both needs-more-plot/Ambris and notaclopbanana:

First, notaclopbanana says that “[t]his idea that it’s better to sexualize something many people identify with than what one person identifies with is just crazy” to you. But why? It seems we all understand Ambris’s/needs-more-plot’s response to this. The response to that from notaclopbanana seems to be: But on the other hand there are people who care very much but you’re not actually willing to change your behavior for them. But any fan can claim “ownership” of a public figure (celebrity or fictional character), but this is generally regarded as creepy or obsessive. No fan can claim legitimate ownership, so a fan’s wishes, no matter how strong, do not have to be respected.

But Lauren Faust, like any other person with an avatar (pony or not), indeed can claim legitimate ownership of a character. (I have some objections to notaclopbanana’s claim that needs-more-plot is singling out Lauren Faust; I’m confident that Ambris feels the same about other avatars.) I say “avatar” instead of “original character [OC]” because someone can create an OC that is a fictional character, not representing themselves; it seems that these should be treated differently.

But it makes me wonder, again: How much respect do they deserve? Do real people deserve more respect that fictional characters? Of course, real people shouldn’t be harassed (“spammed”) with any porn, much less Rule 34 of themselves. But I’m sure there are people who want to get with any given celebrity, so maybe they get off to or even draw a sexual image of that person.

It is morally wrong to take nude pictures of someone without their consent, but notaclopbanana correctly points out that this is mainly due to privacy concerns. Ambris, what do you think about sexual depictions of real people that don’t involve a breach of privacy, such as with look-alike actors or drawn depictions? If real people deserve this level of respect beyond freedom from harassment, why?

I don’t exactly understand why notaclopbanana sees Fausticorn as wholly separate from the real Lauren Faust; why is that? (The view that Rule 34 of a real public figure is okay doesn’t require this; after all, someone could draw a nude Lauren Faust with no invasion of privacy.)

However, I think notaclopbanana is correct in this response to needs-more-plot: That she looses [sic] the right to her personal self-expression the moment it’s posted on the internet?(No, again, false dichotomy. You have the right to not be harassed, you have the right to not have your work exploited for financial gain, you don’t really have the right to stop people from drawing porn.) After all, do celebrities lose total control over their likeness when people draw porn of them?

This is a very interesting issue, and I’d like to say that I don’t completely agree with either of these two positions.

http://notaclopbanana.tumblr.com/post/78874419322/sending-out-an-sos-with-clop-perfection

blazinroc88:

I have to admit, this is a good debate with strong points being made by both sides of the argument. The combatants are correct in everything they say. On one side, we ARE effectively stealing Fausticorn for our own purposes, and perhaps discouraging their use. On the other side, Lauren Faust, and her avatar Fausticorn, are NOT one in the same. They are two distinct figures, one of which is by many just connected to the other, out reverence or respect or as one side put it “hero worship”

This further presses the issue, “is it morally wrong to post r34 of Faust?” I would look at this issue as follows. Tara Strong and Andrea and Tabitha, they are all amazing VAs with dozens of characters within their repertoire. I mean, you can’t google “Teen Titans Raven” in standard search without getting at least one NSFW image. The point I am making it, these VAs KNOW that some people use the characters they voice in these manners. Raven, for example, has been nude, loved, and raped more times than at one point I could have ever cared to remember. In full knowledge of this, Tara still sometimes openly acts like Raven at the request of her fans, so I don’t think porn being made of a character particularly “steals” anything.

The flip side of this issue is that Lauren Faust, probably is not used to such attention and will not be as ready to ignore it as Tara might be. Truth be told, the first time she stumbled on R34 of her ponysona, she probably was creeped out. However, and made evident by the one arguers assertions, Faust also realizes that trying to stop people from making porn is a lost cause. Furthermore, nude art has existed for centuries, and although it is a little strange to be doing so with imaginary horses; there probably a couple clop artists who do what they do, as their HIGHEST form of praise and adulation. Trying to stop them IS a futile effort. They are not doing anything illegal, and until they are, no counter arguments really have anywhere to stand on.

In summation, with regards to it being “morally wrong to make/share r34 of the one called Fausticorn”. Is it really morally wrong? No, the raw truth, is NO it is NOT morally wrong to be doing these kinds of productions and sharing. Now “Is it OBJECTIVELY wrong?” Indeed! Yes it is objectively wrong, and by that, I mean it is subject to YOUR OWN approval on which side of this issue you fall. It is sort of like being gay within this judgmental society. Is it wrong to be gay? No, not at all; but no matter what you do (at least for the next 2-5 decades) there will be those of us on this world (me not being one) who think that being gay is wrong. If you don’t want to see r34 Fausticorn, fine, unfollow a blog and move on with your life. If you want to see it, more power to you, but do note that someone out their may be made a bit uncomfortable by what you are enjoying. The important thing here is to love and tolerate. Some people will be different than you, but, as long as no person or persons are being harmed by what anyone is doing. Where is the rub? (Shakespearean you people…read your Hamlet <3)

Thanks for this. (Though, judging by what you’ve said, I think you mean subjectively [depending on opinion], rather than objectively [based on fact].)

/t/post/78881858289/finally-found-it-spoiler-fausticorn-rule-34

Wow, and I didn’t even give my opinions in the first place!

needs-more-pony:

broniesagainstbullshit:

pinkiepony:

NSFW My Little Pony art: a guide

I’d put gore under NSFW as well. Although its a case by case basis, a lot of gore can be much worse than porn.

Otherwise, this is a good rule of thumb and can also be applicable to other series as well. Stuff listed under NSFW (including gore) and suggestive on this list are also stuff I recommend flagging when doing SafeSearchWrapUp.

If anyone does see people not tag stuff, click.

This this this this This THIS^^^