I'm just saying there's a weird value judgement inherent in the supposition
that a sexually explicit image might not be horrible in itself, but a
multiplicity of such images is horrible. Like there's a limit to how many
images are useful for a topic. Such a limit exists for no other type of
image I am aware of.
On 1/29/09, Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:46 PM, David Moran <fordmadoxfraud(a)gmail.com
> "just because we can have 4500 pictures of erect penises, doesn't
> mean we should."
> For what reason, specifically?
> On 1/29/09, Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:22 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com
> > > voyeurism isn't relevant to our culture?
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com>
> > >
> > > > Emphasis on usefulness. We're about providing free content, and
> > > > hope being culturally significant would still be a priority. I
> > > considered
> > > that a major point in inclusionism/deletionism debates. Are we
> > > culturally relevant? Talking about pop culture as well as
> > events,
> > > places, customs, etc. Providing information about naked people,
> > > habits, customs, fetishes even: I
consider this culturally
> a picture looking up a girl's skirt is hardly culture, and is
> If we're a dumping ground, of course none of this matters at all.
Voyeurism for the sake of itself: no. Just as masturbation for the
sake of itself, sex for the sake of itself, and any other such image
without significance would be judged in the same way. As I said:
just because we can have 4500 pictures of erect penises, doesn't
mean we should.
Quality over quantity.
What do you gain culturally from the last 4400 that you didn't get
in the first 100?
foundation-l mailing list