Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Slashdot Really Likes Porn

theStorminMormon (883615) writes | more than 7 years ago

User Journal 16

So porn came up again on Slashdot. This is always fun for me. The first rule of Slashdot is "Don't question porn." The second rule of Slashdot is "Dont' question porn". You get the idea. So when you do question porn, the Slashdot mods (who, let's be honest, have about a 90 - 95% chance of having GBs of porn on their computers) get angry. In my last round I got modded one +5 informative or insightful or whatever, and sure enough - the angry slashdot gods sweep in. Next thing you know I'v

So porn came up again on Slashdot. This is always fun for me. The first rule of Slashdot is "Don't question porn." The second rule of Slashdot is "Dont' question porn". You get the idea. So when you do question porn, the Slashdot mods (who, let's be honest, have about a 90 - 95% chance of having GBs of porn on their computers) get angry. In my last round I got modded one +5 informative or insightful or whatever, and sure enough - the angry slashdot gods sweep in. Next thing you know I've got something like 1 offtopic a couple flamebaits and a couple trolls. I know what it takes to get a flamebait or a troll on Slashdot, and under normal circumstances (e.g. on any other topic) this would not cut it. But when you have broken rule #1 (and #2!!!) any excuse will do.

I'm not whining that I deserve higher mods. I could care less what I get modded. I just think the pattern is very clear and interesting. Violators of rule #1 (and #2!!!) will be punished. Luckily, the only punishment available is a few downmods. Boohoo.

Check for yourself at my comments attached to "Germans Pursuing Kiddie Porn in Second Life."

cancel ×

16 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yep (1)

mwissel (869864) | more than 7 years ago | (#19073103)

I got my first and only moderation at all here 70% Flamebait and 30% Insightful at this news, resulting into bad karma now, IMHO solely on the fact that I stated a different opinion from what the meanstream-slashdotter has. It's funny how people on the one hand complain about censorship of kiddie porn and back up pedophiles. I'd like to see what they'd say if a pedophiles would give a child of them a dirty look or something. Most of them presumably just see the censorship aspect and switch over to a standard babble which arguments of violent games and movies and so on..

Re:Yep (1)

theStorminMormon (883615) | more than 7 years ago | (#19073635)

Yeah... I'm sorry you got hit by that too. I went and ready your post and it was entirely reasonable. You actually made some good points. Sucks to be introduced to Slashdot that way.

I've had so many +5s that it doesn't matter to me if they down mod my posts on porn. But I'm sure if you stick around in other topics you'll get the karma back.

Totally Offtopic (1)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 7 years ago | (#19074441)

But, based on your UID, I thought you might be interested in seeing this JE by Pudge talking about Mormonism [slashdot.org] . Personally I find Pudge to be quite extreme in many of his views which is why I read him, but YMMV overall.

Re:Totally Offtopic (1)

theStorminMormon (883615) | more than 7 years ago | (#19083621)

Ugh. Hooray for anti-Mormonism. I'm not really interested in fueling that fire. Someone who says Christians aren't a cult of Judaism because the religion is true but Mormons are a cult (implied: the religion is not true) isn't really worth taking seriously.

Thanks for passing it along though.

Re:Totally Offtopic (1)

theStorminMormon (883615) | more than 7 years ago | (#19083691)

This is the line I'm commenting on by the way: I could make the case, for example, that Christianity is not a cult of Judaism because it is a mere fulfillment of Judaism.

Although he really tries to take a reasonable tone and use "cult" in a non-perjorative sense (which I don't think is really possible) this argument for saying Christianity is not a cult is nothing but blatant exceptionalism and (ironically) seems to reveal that he can't get away from the perjorative connotations of the word himself. Why else feel the need to apply exceptionalism to try and argue that Christianity is not a cult?

Too bad he doesn't allow comments, and I'm limited to fuming about it on my own journal entry!

Re:Totally Offtopic (1)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 7 years ago | (#19085809)

When i looked at it said that its only "No Foes" so you should be able to comment in there. I was trying to say the same thing to him in my comments, though their success, or lack thereof, speak for themselves;-) While I read his JEs I rarely comment in them for that very reason: he is totally blind to his own disiginuity. But, since I think its important to be exposed to opinions far outside the scope of your own and your friends, I think I'm still better for reading them.

What's interesting, to me at least, is that of all the different religious people I've talked to, in general, the most tolerant of others religious views are LDS members. Maybe that's part of the reason why other religious types have a larger issue with them?

Re:Totally Offtopic (1)

theStorminMormon (883615) | more than 7 years ago | (#19085951)

What's interesting, to me at least, is that of all the different religious people I've talked to, in general, the most tolerant of others religious views are LDS members. Maybe that's part of the reason why other religious types have a larger issue with them?

I think its definitely related. The Mormons don't have a closed canon. This means that there's a lot of freedom of thought, and a tradition of religious speculation. This is what usually gets us into trouble. Anti-Mormon criticisms like "you guys believe in many Gods" or "you believe that God was one a person" usually have little or no basis in official Mormon doctrine. But because the Mormon church is actually very lax about what you believe outsie of a core Christian doctrine about which it is pretty infelxible (and rightly so, in my opinion) it frequently wanders into areas that other Christians consider hererical. Like the idea that we can become like God in time.

Re:Totally Offtopic (1)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 7 years ago | (#19086685)

Like the idea that we can become like God in time.

I remember when the Elders first explained that bit to me I was extremely skeptical. Then, after reading the Bible, I asked myself, why not? Its not like there are pages and pages in there describing Heaven and the afterlife in detail.

The main difficulty I have with all religions, is that by definition, once you accept X as being True, then by definition, all beliefs that are not X must be false; at a very fundamental level. It may be my own mental barrier, but that's been the main impediment to acceptaing a particular faith.

Re:Totally Offtopic (1)

theStorminMormon (883615) | more than 7 years ago | (#19087341)

The main difficulty I have with all religions, is that by definition, once you accept X as being True, then by definition, all beliefs that are not X must be false; at a very fundamental level. It may be my own mental barrier, but that's been the main impediment to acceptaing a particular faith.

That's actually one of the things that I love the most about Mormonism. It claims to be true in what it says, but it also claims not to be comprehensive.

D&C 88:118 And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.

The implication here is that there's a lot of truth to be learned outside Mormonism, and we're under commandment to go find it. This is why I study a lot of philosophies from buddhism to atheist existentilism (Sartre, Camus, de Beauvoir)

There are a few more that go slong with this. The first is also from official doctrine, the rest are from teachings of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith:

"...study and learn and become acquainted with all good books, and with languages, tongues, and people." (D&C 90:15)

"We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true Mormons." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 316.)

"I want to say to my friends that we believe in all good. If you can find a truth in heaven, earth or hell, it belongs to our doctrine. We believe it; it is ours; we claim it." (Discourses of Brigham Young selected by John A Widtsoe, p. 2)

"...the most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter Day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed, which deprived it's members of the priveledge of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter Day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time." (The Journal of Joseph: The Personal Diary of a Modern Prophet, p. 203)

"One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to recieve truth. Let it come from where it may." (An American Prophets Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, p. 395.)

"How gladly would we understand every principle pertaining to science and art, and become thoroughly acquainted with every intricate operation of nature, and with all the chemical changes that are constantly going on around us! How delightful this would be, and what a boundless field of truth and power is open for us to explore!" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, pg. 168, January 26, 1862)

"In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 14, pg. 116, May 14, 1871)


To give credit where it's due, I found these quotes in one place here: http://www.2think.org/hii/intro.shtml [2think.org] .

I really don't think I'd be able to survive in the intellectual climate of any religion out there that did not have such an agressively pro-intellectual stance.

Re:Totally Offtopic (1)

theStorminMormon (883615) | more than 7 years ago | (#19092979)

Well, I'm not sure how wise it is to piss off someone who works on the Slashdot code. I hope we don't end up with a bug that deletes user # (whatever my number is).

I'm kind of shocked, however, at how little this guy knows what he's talking about. It's one of those times where I realize half-way into the debate that I'm arguing with the intellectual equivalent of a little kid. I don't mean to insult his intelligence, but he just clearly doesn't really know what the word "scholar" means. He got all defensive about this Walter Martin character and was like "how can you not call him a scholar?" and I didn't even know who the guy was. But a little digging later and I found out the guy calls himself Doctor in 1966, doesn't get a PhD until the 70s, and when he does he gets it from a diploma mill that just takes a flat fee and hands you a degree (defined this way by a GAO report). He lied and told people he was a descendent of Brigham Young and that in this way he had inherited a secret library that revealed the truth about Mormonism.

I mean... at this point I may as well be telling him Santa Claus is not real as explaining that this guy is not really what anyone would consider a scholar. If I'd realized what an academic neophyte he was, I think I may have taken a much more gentle tone to begin with, but if you want to start calling another religion a cult I figure you should at least know what you're talking about, right?

Poor guy won't even admit to where he took this college class on cults that used Walter Martin's book as a textbook. I guessed Bob Jones or Liberty, and he won't respond, so I figure I'm not far off the mark.

I really do feel bad. Anyone who takes the usual anti-mormon vs. mormon apologetics as "scholarship" has no idea that they are literally 1 small step above considering UFO conspirators "scholars" - and I mean that equally to both parties.

Now I feel like I kicked a 2nd grader. :-/

Re:Totally Offtopic (1)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 7 years ago | (#19097249)

I doubt you pissed him off, since its simply a problem of you being unable to understand what he wrote;-)

I must say your first response was one of the best comments I have ever seen on slashdot. It was clear, extremely neutral in tone, and well supported. But, not everyone wants to hear, right? I've tried a couple times to get him to look at his own view point, but they were all unsuccessful, so I've more or less given up. I read him because I recognize bits of myself in him. Some of the arrogance and hubris that I carried with me earlier in life. I like to think that I've gotten rid of it, but I don't know that that's always possible. So its a good reminder.

As far as kicking a 2nd grader, while no joy comes from it, sometimes, for the 2nd graders own good, it is necessary. While he may not admit anything in his journal, I don't think he'll be talking about the LDS Church the same way again any time soon.

Re:Totally Offtopic (1)

theStorminMormon (883615) | more than 7 years ago | (#19112875)

I doubt you pissed him off, since its simply a problem of you being unable to understand what he wrote;-)

And yet... he seems rather annoyed! :-D He actually threatened to Foe me so that I wouldn't be able to respond any more. I responded again. Several times, in fact, so I fully expect to get Foe'd.

I must say your first response was one of the best comments I have ever seen on slashdot.

Well thanks for saying that. I guess I've had enough experience with anti-Mormon sentiment that my response has become practiced. I always hope that I'll run into people who have a level of interest to match the strength of their opinions, but this is a depressingly rare occurrence. Still, I try to treat everyone as though they are interested in what they are talking about and provide evidence, sources, and even entire articles as best I can.

While he may not admit anything in his journal, I don't think he'll be talking about the LDS Church the same way again any time soon.

Could be, but I've noticed a disturbing trend that a lot of people tend to protest louder and louder the less of a point they have. Eh... yay for Slashdot.

Re:Totally Offtopic (1)

theStorminMormon (883615) | more than 7 years ago | (#19128203)

I doubt you pissed him off, since its simply a problem of you being unable to understand what he wrote;-)

Well I got foe'd, so I guess I did.

What a coward.

Slashdot does love its porn (1)

skinfaxi (212627) | more than 7 years ago | (#19087227)

Which is why I come here less and less. I know that porn addicts have a vested interest in persuading themselves that it's harmless but it makes me ill to see so many porn-addled men piling on to drown out (or moderate out) voices that try to talk about research that clearly shows it's NOT harmless, to the object or the objectifier.

Some more research links:
http://bitingbeaver.blogspot.com/2005/11/for-numbe r-hounds.html [blogspot.com]

A question the pro-porn masses should ask themselves: "What's your number?" (What number of women and children enslaved and raped is acceptable in the name of your orgasms?)

http://bitingbeaver.blogspot.com/2005/10/dim-orgas ms-and-slaves.html [blogspot.com]

You might enjoy this blog:
http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/ [iblamethepatriarchy.com]
(It helps keep me sane when overwhelmed by the porn apologists).

Re:Slashdot does love its porn (1)

theStorminMormon (883615) | more than 7 years ago | (#19092713)

Which is why I come here less and less.

Aw, come on! There are tons of non-porn related stories! Here, I think this will help. I love a lot about nerd/geek culture, but the porn thing is a major issue for me. This is the way I think about it so that I don't get overly bitter.

People like dogs, right? I mean - not everyone - but there are dog people. And the dog is considered part of the family. It's loved, it's accepted, right? But then the dog goes and humps a pillow. And even dog people usually think that's pretty gross. But somehow dog people manage to look past the fact that the beloved family pet likes to sexually molest the upholstery, and that's what I try to do with nerds/geeks and porn. That is, when porn is not the topic. When it is the topic, I certainly don't hold silent.

In any case, we need all the people around who disapprove of porn. It's harder to rule 10 or 20 guys out as religious nuts then 1 or 2. (And I'm especially easy to rule out in that sense, but I refuse to change my screen name. There's a story behind that for another time.)

Thanks for the links, I'll check those blogs out.

Re:Slashdot does love its porn (1)

theStorminMormon (883615) | more than 7 years ago | (#19092747)

I notice you've commented on a couple of my journals. Have you ever checked out my blog: kiriath-arba.blogspot.com? Just curious. I'm starting to get like 100+ hits a day, and I wonder who's visiting. If you have - what did you think of it?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>