Kerfuffles times two

[adina_atl]

Out of curiosity only, with the understanding that I'm not really following either kerfuffle except what people are saying in my friends list, why is "It wasn't intended as racism" an unacceptable defense in one kerfuffle, and "It wasn't intended as child pornography" an acceptable defense in another? The defenders in each case are/were saying, "

Comments

[adina_atl]

Glad I'm not the only one.

[maygra]

Because one is a direct harm and one is a referred or hypothetical (strawman) harm.

In the first case, use of the term may not have been intended as a racist remark or in implication of supporting racism. However when informed that it directly cause harm to the person making the complaint, the response of "I didn't mean it that way," does not mitigate the direct hurt.

In the second case, people were *Squicked* but no actual harm was done to any minors or even any real people. (And I Say that having been thoroughly squicked by the art in question.)

[adina_atl]

I'm not being facetious here; I really don't understand your answer. Would it be a "strawman" if I, a white person (I mention this only because you can't see my fish-belly paleness) had objected to the racist word rather than the person of color who actually did? Does that mean LJ's actions would be acceptable if a child-abuse survivor had objected to the pictures because of the unpleasant memories they aroused? (Do we know that it wasn't a child-abuse survivor who first reported the pictures?)

No real minors were abused by the pictures, as you say, but no real minorities were discriminated against by the Daily Deviant community either; both were seen by someone as condoning behavior that neither was, by the creator's intention, condoning. Discrimination exists in the real world, but so does child sexual abuse.

[maygra]

okay, in case one, while you as a white person may object to the word, to the inherent history of miscegenation which is indivisible from the word, it can cause you no harm in the broadest sense because it was never defined to make whites a separate species, it was designed to classify blacks as a separate species, so yes, you could be offended ( I was) but thee is no *cultural* (as opposed to personal) slur in the word toward whites

[adina_atl]

I'm still not getting it.

You seem to be allowing generalization to the group "all persons of color" but not to the group of "all survivors of child sexual abuse." If the use of the word miscegenation promotes the idea of blacks as a separate species, thus harming all blacks, not just those named in the challenge (i.e. no one), then the positive depiction of sex between an adult and (what some people at least see as) a child could be seen as promoting the idea of a child as a legitimate sexual "partner," thus legitimizing the abuse experienced by all survivors, not just those depicted in the picture.

[bethbethbeth]

Like Maygra said.

Also? Fictional characters who, by the way, aren't even children in the fanart under question and which the LJ admins themselves said didn't fall under the classification of child pornography.

[adina_atl]

See the exchange with Maygra above.

I'm not interested in guessing Harry's age in that picture, and yes, I've seen it. I've seen people of good faith say everything from twelve to twenty.

[adina_atl]

Um, thanks for the information, but that's not what I asked or what I was talking about.

[adina_atl]

Just a note for general information and my own comfort:

I did not delete the post above, nor would I except for egregious flaming or irrelevant spam. The poster either deleted it herself or left LJ.

[buddleia]

I agree that "It wasn't intended that way" is not an acceptable defence in either case. Free speech isn't in question in the race debate as no-one has the power to ban speech there, there was a only request that one word be substituted for another and the correct definition be used and a subsequent debate on racism in fandom. Free speech is not quite the issue in the second case, as LJ is enforcing its own set of strictures (confusingly or not, as the case may be), but they do have one eye on the law and there is where free speech might be invoked. No-one, understandably, wants to be a test case on this, however.
All this is as I understand it. I am interested in both these cases.

[adina_atl]

Sorry for the late reply on this, I was offline most of yesterday because my contact lenses and allergies were acting up and I couldn't SEE. Without contacts I'm effectively blind.

Free speech is probably a red herring in both kerfuffles, but there are been a lot of red herrings in both. There are a lot more than two "sides" in each argument, and some people on each "side" are using arguments and tactics that other people on the same nominal side really hate. It's a mess, and it's only getting worse.