Tag: Discussion

Okay.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1GKPWE1pJ99X0MpCjBmo4i4L3bzo_KEspOQ9-KXR9pJI/viewform

My blog at heartlinda.tumblr.com has quite a few different types of content (mostly NSFW), and I’ve been thinking of separating them into different blogs. What do you think?

If you’re following me (or even if you’re not), I’d appreciate it if you took this short survey. You can just say “no” to any separation if that’s how you feel.

In reply to this post:

I’m pretty sure you already know my stance on the subject.

Like I said, it’s for anyone to answer. (I was really hoping for some people other than those who already participated before.) But leaving that aside, I honestly don’t know your answers to the questions. I’ll explain, but I’m not going to force you to respond. (You know, maybe I should start a separate blog for these discussions.)

1. Are sexual/”Rule 34” depictions of Lauren Faust’s pony avatar morally acceptabe? Why or why not?
   Okay, I know your answer to this, anyway.
2. What right to people have to create “fan work” with characters created by others? How does this apply to sexual depictions (“Rule 34”)?
   I ask this because practically all fan work of “Friendship is Magic” (sexual or not) is based on characters created by Lauren Faust. I think a lot of people don’t have a problem with this. Why not? What about other types of OCs, such as furry characters that aren’t fursonas. That leads me to the third question…
3. Are there special considerations for avatars (such as fursonas and pony “OCs”) as opposed to other fictional characters? Why or why not?
   Again, the characters in FiM (or the main six, at the very least) are essentially Faust’s OCs. So, is there some special consideration for her avatar, an alternative representation of herself, as well as other people’s avatars? It seems that the answer for you is yes. Why?
4. What about creating and sharing a drawn depiction of the sort [a nude person such as a celebrity], or any other depiction that doesn’t involve a breach of privacy?
   This one’s really for notaclopbanana, but I was hoping for your opinion on this.

(This is for a “general” audience, so I’ll give some background information.) A few days ago I got into a debate over the question: Are sexual/“Rule 34” depictions of Lauren Faust’s pony avatar morally acceptabe? It resulted in way too much flak that I’m just recovering from.

It’s mostly died down, but recently I came across another post relevant to this issue.

It raises more questions than it answers, and I think the questions are the same ones that I tried raising earlier in the debate. These seem to have gone unanswered, so I’ll ask them again. I invite anyone who’s interested to respond.

I’d like to make it clear that I don’t have a firm stance on this issue. I’ve tried to respond to all sides as neutrally (reasonably) as possible, and I hope that by starting off with these questions I’ll be able to do that better.

1. The cardinal question: Are sexual/“Rule 34” depictions of Lauren Faust’s pony avatar morally acceptabe? Why or why not?
2. What right to people have to create “fan work” with characters created by others? How does this apply to sexual depictions (“Rule 34”)?
3. Storytellers create characters that may rightfully be called “OCs” (original characters), but often they are not alternative representations of themselves (“avatars,” as I like to call them). Are there special considerations for avatars (such as fursonas and pony “OCs”) as opposed to other fictional characters? Why or why not?
4. It is clear that taking nude pictures of a person (such as a celebrity) is an invasion of privacy, and therefore wrong. What about creating and sharing a drawn depiction of the sort, or any other depiction that doesn’t involve a breach of privacy?

(If you decide to use the Tumblr answer feature as opposed to reblogging, I will respond with a post tagged with your blog name [as it appears in your blog URL]. Please check the tag if you’re interested in seeing my response.)

solarhedonist:

needs-more-plot:

sheeponmyhead:

This was inspired by something that recently happened to a friend. Might considering posting my source of inspiration for B if they still do not see the error of their ways after being informed by various people including the artist themselves. People. OTL

If anyone identifies with B please understand and change? I’m sure you’re not a jerk inside but just behaving so due to ignorance/convenience/pride/whatever. Do you really want to continue?

Relevant to the Fausticorn OC debate I was having here earlier.

((Oh my god yes. I had this same talk on Twitter not long ago about some girl stealing someone’s fursona but feeling OK about it because she “gave credit” to the maker.

My example “So if I go and steal your car, it’s OK and not stealing so long as, when stopped by the police, I tell them it belongs to you and give you full credit for paying for it?” ))

(For the record.)

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.