26 Jun-05 Jul 2015: "Not-Walter" screams like a little girl

[mustache_man]

As a writer, it matters little what your intention is. You need to think outside of yourself and consider how your work will be received through implication, intention or otherwise.

Respectfully, this is foolishness. There will ALWAYS be people out there who will look for any excuse to willfully misinterpret what an author writes, but they are not his audience, they are simply persons who showed up to tear down something that they didn't care about. As a creative type, you cannot be afraid to express yourself for fear that someone won't like it; you are responsible only for conveying your own unique vision, and anyone who doesn't like it is within their rights to do absolutely nothing other than fail to consume (read, buy, promote, etc) your product. You are absolutely not answerable to the words that some malicious hanger-on puts into your mouth in an attempt to frame you for social crimes; you are not even obligated to defend yourself against such fraudulent charges, as it is the responsibility of the general public not to listen to charlatans and malcontents who try to frame the innocent.

In brief, we tire of seeing great men (or women) torn down by the small-minded and spiteful.

Your argument is wrong in many levels, but the bolded is specially wrong. Thunt's work is not being "torn apart by spiteful little people who just want to be mean", it's being "torn apart" by his own fans who supported him all the way here and through several pitfalls. If they didn't care about he comic, I wager they would've started tearing things apart during the hiatus or long before. Haters gonna hate and all that and you're never going to please everone, but when your loyal fanbase starts getting the wrong vibe from what you wrtite or draw, you're doing something wrong.

[Synch]

As a writer, it matters little what your intention is. You need to think outside of yourself and consider how your work will be received through implication, intention or otherwise.

Respectfully, this is foolishness. There will ALWAYS be people out there who will look for any excuse to willfully misinterpret what an author writes, but they are not his audience, they are simply persons who showed up to tear down something that they didn't care about. As a creative type, you cannot be afraid to express yourself for fear that someone won't like it; you are responsible only for conveying your own unique vision, and anyone who doesn't like it is within their rights to do absolutely nothing other than fail to consume (read, buy, promote, etc) your product. You are absolutely not answerable to the words that some malicious hanger-on puts into your mouth in an attempt to frame you for social crimes; you are not even obligated to defend yourself against such fraudulent charges, as it is the responsibility of the general public not to listen to charlatans and malcontents who try to frame the innocent.

In brief, we tire of seeing great men (or women) torn down by the small-minded and spiteful.

Respectfully, STFU. I've made 2500+ posts here in over a year, I'm not someone who has shown up to tear down his work, I definitely do care. As a loyal fan, I am allowed to critique his work. I call a spade a spade. If you give off a bad vibe through poor writing, I would think an author would want someone to be honest with their opinion so as to improve their work and possibly avoid the same pitfalls in future, rather than more sycophantic ass-lickers like you.

Oh, and the whole third person schtick is fucking lame. Grow up.

Sorry mods, but this chump just called me foolish, malicious, small-minded and spiteful. That deserves a retort.

[Zathyr]

I didn't think thesilence was talking about anyone on the forum, but just as a generality to support a counterargument. Try to look for the interpretation that isn't a personal attack before resorting to your own.

I agree with the fact there there do exist people who will try to tear things down by way of misinterpretations, intentional or otherwise. I do not, however, agree that this exonerates the author of all responsibility of trying to convey their point clearly. These are just generalities though. In this particular case, I'm not comfortable saying Thunt dropped the ball. What could be common (mis)interpretations will change over time, with changes in language and society. For this story, I've seen it a few times now. The first couple of times I saw it, I saw no association with rape at all. Most recently, however, when I saw the last page of the story go up, knowing Thunt's issues with that group of feminists and generally how more openly discussed things like rape have become in the past decade, I did cringe at that last panel. It hasn't been a huge cultural shift, but enough of one to change my perception of the page noticeably.

I still don't think an outfit or style of dress should be described as slutty, regardless of how it was designed. Nor do I think Greena's character should be criticized just because she was drawn with large breasts. These "character designed to appeal to the male eye" comments fall short on me, because I am a heterosexual male who does not find her appealing, but I think I've said that already.

[BlueAmaranth]

As a creative type, you cannot be afraid to express yourself for fear that someone won't like it; you are responsible only for conveying your own unique vision, and anyone who doesn't like it is within their rights to do absolutely nothing other than fail to consume (read, buy, promote, etc) your product.

Okay, I disagreed with pretty much your entire post, but others have addressed what was wrong about most of it (Morgaln's excellent post on Death of the Author in particular), so I'm going to respond just to this part.

Anyone who doesn't like an author's work is, in fact, within their rights to say whatever the hell they want about it. Creative people and their work are not sacred.. They do not have some magical immunity to criticism. Are you seriously suggesting that readers lose the "right" to comment on a published work of fiction if their commentary isn't unqualified praise?

People do not just passively absorb works of fiction and then never talk about them again and react to their content only with respect to future purchasing decisions. If that were how it worked, these forums would not exist.

You are correct that the "creative type" is responsible for "conveying their own unique vision." Given that Thunt's "unique vision" for this story presumably didn't involve rape undertones, he failed to live up to that responsibility.

I still don't think an outfit or style of dress should be described as slutty, regardless of how it was designed. Nor do I think Greena's character should be criticized just because she was drawn with large breasts. These "character designed to appeal to the male eye" comments fall short on me, because I am a heterosexual male who does not find her appealing, but I think I've said that already.

Well, I'm with you that "slutty" isn't a good word to use. I'd be happy if that word disappeared from the language completely. As far as the design, though, it's not really about the size of the breasts. It's about how they were deliberately one of the character's most prominent visual features at the expense of logic. Breasts aren't attached to the collarbone, and they don't hang in the air as perfect spheres without something supporting them (especially if they're large). And nobody wears boob-curtains, because it would be completely impractical and you'd be functionally half-nude in the slightest breeze or even from particular angles. And Greena is repeatedly drawn in uncomfortable-looking poses where she's thrusting her chest forward. Even if you personally don't find it titillating in this art style, it's hard to argue that Thunt didn't go out of his way to sexualize the character.

A large-breasted character drawn with realistic anatomy and wearing clothes that, even if revealing, at least made sense as a kind of clothing anyone would ever wear, wouldn't necessarily come across the same way.

[Simon]

Didn't really want to say much again, but here's a few things I'm thinking.

Not-Walter isn't a nice person. In the main comic he talks about how he's going to torture Min-max. Later on, he may be funny, sarcastic, seem likeable, or maybe we feel empathetic/sympathetic towards him, but that still doesn't make him a nice person. This mini-comic seems to have been made to help show off some more of his character; he's scared of dolls and enjoys torturing people/having people tortured. From what I understand, Kyton devils cut off bits of a mortal's flesh to add to/replace their own. Not-Walter's last sentence seems to be entirely literal (well, sarcastic maybe), that he's going to take this person to get chopped and sliced up. It's not nice at all, but it's in line with what we already know about his character.

Some of you think this is comic is 'rapey' (what a horrible phrase). Just because the antagonist here is a woman, isn't wearing much clothing and says 'hiya cutie', doesn't mean Not-Walter has anything else in mind than torture (I'm not saying torture is a good thing). I find that ludicrous. Min-Max arguably had even less clothing than Greena when Not-Walter was going to flay him.

I must be missing something here though, as I can't see what's wrong (apart from the obvious, that she's going to be horrifically harmed).

Edit: I can't wrap my head around this. I don't know if I'm over thinking or under thinking or what.
Edit2: If it was Not-Walter saying "Hiya Cutie" then I would definitely agree that there's a salacious feeling to this comic, as it would make Not-Walter's intentions seem less 'innocent' (as far as torture is innocent, which it obviously isn't).
Edit3: I mean, I'd even agree that Greena isn't portrayed as a very positive female character because of her clothing and that. Or that the title isn't totally great. But I feel that these are part of a different issue.

[nikohl]

"Notice:"

---

Keep it civil in here, I've got a headache and I don't want to have to start actively being all moddy on an otherwise constructive discussion.

I request that, for a while, everyone hits "preview" before they hit "post" in this thread. Briefly skim over what you're about to put out there, and do a little self-editing if necessary. It was getting a little heated a few posts back and that's okay, but for example taking things to a more personal level isn't.

Please continue the discussion, and hopefully I won't have to get involved any further.

[BlueAmaranth]

Some of you think this is comic is 'rapey' (what a horrible phrase). Just because the antagonist here is a woman, isn't wearing much clothing and says 'hiya cutie', doesn't mean Not-Walter has anything else in mind than torture (I'm not saying torture is a good thing). I find that ludicrous. Min-Max arguably had even less clothing than Greena when Not-Walter was going to flay him.

I must be missing something here though, as I can't see what's wrong (apart from the obvious, that she's going to be horrifically harmed).

I talked about this a few posts back. Rather than retype it, I'll just quote the relevant parts (edited for length, and sorry that the term "rapey" is involved but I can't think of a better word that means what I mean):

This isn't necessarily a question of thinking, "Ah, yes, Not-Walter literally means that Greena will be raped." It's the general tone of the scene, where it's hitting the right notes to give it a rapey vibe. It's a woman who had already been designed to appeal to the male gaze (the boob-curtains), being stripped of her agency and led away into a dangerous place where the male character intends to violate her physically...it parallels a scene of imminent rape closely enough to call the subject to mind in what, judging by this thread, is a significant fraction of readers.

As far as:

I mean, I'd even agree that Greena isn't portrayed as a very positive female character because of her clothing and that. Or that the title isn't totally great. But I feel that these are part of a different issue.

I disagree. I think it's all part of the same issue. Things like that contribute to setting the tone for the scene. If the story repeatedly plays into sexist tropes, that all becomes part of the context in which we interpret the ending.

[Arch Lich Burns]

With Alt 38, you see him interactig with walter and have him do all the dirty work for him. Sure he was probably wearing less, but it was more intune to what males would wear and what males look like in siad clothing. While Greenda's clothing most defientlydoes not fit with boobs on the virge of poping out, seemingly there for gratuitus fanservice.

[thesilence]

Sorry mods, but this chump just called me foolish, malicious, small-minded and spiteful. That deserves a retort.

I didn't think thesilence was talking about anyone on the forum, but just as a generality to support a counterargument.

Zathyr is correct except maybe for the foolish part, and myself used that word to refer to your argument, Synch, not to you as a person. All of the rest was a caricature of the sort of person who thrives on more moderate souls' willingness to open the door for their attacks; this is why a hardline stance is required to prevent slippery slopes.

Anyone who doesn't like an author's work is, in fact, within their rights to say whatever the hell they want about it. Creative people and their work are not sacred.. They do not have some magical immunity to criticism. Are you seriously suggesting that readers lose the "right" to comment on a published work of fiction if their commentary isn't unqualified praise?

Not exactly, but we maintain that nobody every has the right to say "this work of art should not exist". No matter how bad you think it is, it makes a contribution to the canon of human works, and that immortal achievement is worth more than any amount of people's feelings. Anyone who thinks that a work is sending a destructive message to society should simply create their own work with the message they would rather send, or if they lack the talent, find an author who will accept their commission or favor-exchange or the like. To counter one form of art with another is noble; to try and destroy art because of politics and personal pretention is utterly unacceptible.

You are correct that the "creative type" is responsible for "conveying their own unique vision." Given that Thunt's "unique vision" for this story presumably didn't involve rape undertones, he failed to live up to that responsibility.

Why should his vision *not* have included those undertones? Thunt clearly believes that anyone who suborns another's will is the worst kind of monster, which means that Greena's attempt at torturing Grinorrarcen makes her "fair game" for similar-but-worse treatment by him. We see absolutely nothing wrong with that postulate on his part. We do not believe he meant to imply sexual connotations, but we do not think it impossible either, and frankly it is none of our business whether he had this in mind or not, since he chose not to make it explicit. As we have said before, Greena's style of dress simply furthers her characterization as an immature and somewhat sloppy individual, attempting a crude power-play now and likely having done so with others in the future - that is why she wears "boob curtains", we feel certain, and it further justifies the portrayal of her being deserving of whatever Walter does to her in retaliation for trying to torture and enslave him.

Well, I'm with you that "slutty" isn't a good word to use. I'd be happy if that word disappeared from the language completely.

We would not. It is not a word we are in the habit of using personally, but we appreciate its ability to describe a reality of how people perceived. It should be remembered that there are many individuals of both genders who use this word as a term of endearment, because they are sexually liberated and find it empowering to wear this intended insult as a badge of honor (similar to the GLBT community's embrace of "queer" and similar terms which were originally intended as perjoratives against them). The word cannot serve this positive function if it did not previously serve a negative one; both should exist, and all people have the right to use either any time they choose. Others are free to judge them accordingly, but not to prevent their free expression.

[Sessine]

I think we need to pay more attention to context here. Yes, in general, it's a good thing when writers are fully aware of all the implications and overtones of what they write. And it's totally valid for a reader to point it out when a writer apparently hasn't done that. One can justly critique a novel or a short story, for instance, for being insufficiently edited. But!

* Webcomics don't get second drafts. They're like live-broadcasts on TV, there's no going back. A webcomic artist writes, draws, posts, and moves on. There are no chances to practice editing old material, it's not in the universe of the possible, so how would they ever get good at it? If they do look back and notice something that strikes a false note, the best they can do is try not to do it again. Most of the time, I suspect the mindset has to be: what happened, happened. Move on.

ÔÇ£The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.ÔÇØ

* This is a casual filler piece published many years ago. It's an anecdote about Not-Walter meant to provide at most a moment's amusement for people who were flipping through the pages of a book bought for its other content. It was tossed off, likely as an afterthought close to the printer's deadline, when Thunt was younger, less mature, less socially aware, and considerably less developed as an artist.

* We are seeing it now as a glance back at what Goblins used to be, back when. It is flawed, yup. Also, the art is not at all up to the standard of what Thunt can do now.

* As others have pointed out, sensibilities have changed since it was first published. The title was sexist, even back then. The boobs and the skimpy outfit? Yeah, wince material, even back then.** The 'rapey' connotations people are picking up now...? Not there, not originally. I'm pretty sure from what I've seen of Thunt that it wasn't intended, and I'm also pretty sure that few or none of the initial readers would have interpreted it that way at the time. So that's retroactive judgement, not a fair standard to apply. That is, it's fair to discuss the responses of readers today in the context of 'hmm, the world has changed for the better since this was written,' but it's not fair to blame the work for those responses, or claim that the creator is somehow at fault because of them.


==
** You could conceivably give Greena's portrayal a pass as satirizing the very very common trope in popular fantasy literature and art, but Thunt still draws scantily-clad females, non-satirically. He seems to have locked himself into certain dress standards in his world. I certainly don't find his work as blatantly fanservice-y as, say... Misfile. (Though perhaps that's a rather low bar.)

[BlueAmaranth]

Not exactly, but we maintain that nobody every has the right to say "this work of art should not exist". No matter how bad you think it is, it makes a contribution to the canon of human works, and that immortal achievement is worth more than any amount of people's feelings.

[snip]

The word cannot serve this positive function if it did not previously serve a negative one; both should exist, and all people have the right to use either any time they choose. Others are free to judge them accordingly, but not to prevent their free expression.

That's pretty rich. So I have the right to use any words I want, unless I put them in an order that's critical of a work of art. Gotcha.

[Krulle]

One story to go: http://www.goblinscomic.org/06112015/
From what we can see inth imag abou "A story about how Minmax got arrested ended up in an Elven prison...", that story will be even closer to any problematic discussions.

I'm getting the impression Thunt has either forgotten to continue uploading the bonus comics, or is observing the discussion here and thinking about how to continue...

We know MM was a douchebag at the beginning of the story, and the pre-view panel definitely proves that.

[thesilence]

That's pretty rich. So I have the right to use any words I want, unless I put them in an order that's critical of a work of art. Gotcha.

"Critical" is fine. Just so long as you never cross the line into "prohibitive".

You are absolutely free to say "I don't like this", or even "This is bad (in my opinion)"; the latter statement has the parenthesized part as an implication, even if you neglect to state it. What you are not free to do is say "I want to make this stop existing, who will help me accomplish that goal". Which is what several people on this thread, and in previous controversies about "bigoted" works of art, seem to be saying.

(As an example, there is some famous prize in literature, we forget its exact title, which is given in the form of a bust of H.P. Lovecraft. That author's dislike of African people is well-established, and a black writer who was awarded the prize made a fuss about how she didn't think it was proper to praise her literary accomplishments with a statue of a famous racist. She started a protest lobby in an attempt to get the awarding body to stop using Lovecraft's likeness for the prize. That is the kind of thing we wish to ensure cannot happen; regardless of whether her campaign succeeds or fails, it should never have been attempted, for her feelings and Lovecraft's bigotry are equally devoid of relevance. The prize is awarded for excellence in writing talent, and even if HPL was a horrible person, he was a magnificent wordsmith, his skill so superlative that his name and face are - and always should be, until someone even better comes along - synonymous with unparalleled achievement in the field. That accomplishment stands as an unbreakable monolith in the stream of history, and we do not tolerate any attempt at undermining it, thereby depriving humanity of a crucial piece of its intellectual heritage, all because of the fleeting self-important opinions of a woman who will be dead in a hundred years or less.)

[BlueAmaranth]

1. Literally nobody involved in this discussion is suggesting that Goblins be removed from the internet. You're arguing with a strawman.

2. Even if anyone were saying that, that is absolutely something they would be "free" to say. It doesn't matter if you think they're wrong. You don't get to decide where freedom of speech starts and ends.

3. You say you "do not tolerate" people calling out racist authors as if you had any actual power in that scenario. That's cute. News flash: People outside of actual dystopias are allowed to protest whatever they want, even if you don't happen to agree with them.

4. Ironic how you're so invested in people respecting the creators you like, but this black woman author who doesn't want her achievements represented by a bust of a racist is suddenly fleeting and irrelevant. I guess her award-winning writing doesn't get to be part of your "canon of human works," if you're so certain that her opinions are meaningless because she'll eventually die?

5. Goblins is not an "unbreakable monolith" or whatever torturedly pompous phrasing you want to use. It is a D&D parody webcomic. You're seriously overstating its artistic importance when you act like criticizing it is some kind of violation of its supposed sanctity.

6. Phrasing everything in the most pretentious way possible doesn't make your argument any stronger.

7. Again, nobody involved in this discussion is suggesting that Goblins be removed from the internet. They are saying that Thunt did a bad job at writing this storyline. If you aren't opposed to "non-prohibitive" criticism then there is no reason for you to be objecting to this. You are arguing with a strawman.

[Sessine]

... even if HPL was a horrible person, he was a magnificent wordsmith, his skill so superlative that his name and face are - and always should be, until someone even better comes along - synonymous with unparalleled achievement in the field. That accomplishment stands as an unbreakable monolith in the stream of history...)

Lovecraft? Unparalleled achievement? I'm afraid this is not a universally-held opinion.

I would rate Lovecraft a barely competent wordsmith with an unfortunate tendency to overwrite, whose stories are nevertheless made compelling by the force of his intensely vivid imagination. For sheer evocative can't-see-how-it's-done word magic within the field of speculative fiction I'd maintain Ray Bradbury against Lovecraft any day.

And when you wave a grandiose hand at 'stream of history' and humanity's 'intellectual heritage'...? sorry. No. Lovecraft's not in the same league with the real giants.

[Krulle]

I agree.
Lovecraft's power is his imagination and the worlds he built, not the actual writing....

[thesilence]

1. Literally nobody involved in this discussion is suggesting that Goblins be removed from the internet. You're arguing with a strawman.

Such persons may not be on this thread, but they certainly exist on the Internet. They may not have the power to do much besides tell their fellow radical-feminist armchair social-justice-warriors that Tarol Hunt is a misogynist and they shouldn't read his comic, but even that is more than they should be allowed to do. We certianly feel obligated to do our part to act as a counterbalancing force, even if there is little need for it in this particular forum.

2. Even if anyone were saying that, that is absolutely something they would be "free" to say. It doesn't matter if you think they're wrong. You don't get to decide where freedom of speech starts and ends.

We believe very much in freedom of speech. Somewhat less so in freedom of action.

3. You say you "do not tolerate" people calling out racist authors as if you had any actual power in that scenario. That's cute. News flash: People outside of actual dystopias are allowed to protest whatever they want, even if you don't happen to agree with them.

Indeed, and thus I protest people saying that this comic is misogynistic, just as those people can protest thusly. Very little is accomplished, but we are certainly all free to waste our words, and so long as the other side of this argument persists, so must ours.

4. Ironic how you're so invested in people respecting the creators you like, but this black woman author who doesn't want her achievements represented by a bust of a racist is suddenly fleeting and irrelevant. I guess her award-winning writing doesn't get to be part of your "canon of human works," if you're so certain that her opinions are meaningless because she'll eventually die?

You are missing the important distinction. Her achevements as a writer, which are honored by giving her the prize in question, certainly are important. Her opinions as a person are meaningless to anyone who is not a close personal friend of hers. Her personal feelings are fleeting and irrelevant; her artistic accomplishments may endure, if they are sufficiently high-caliber (and I presume they must be, or she would not have earned the "offensive" prize in the first place). If she doesn't like the prize, she can turn it down, but she is not within her rights to try and get the prize changed to something more in line with her personal preferences; that is an act of spectacular arrogance. Even HPL himself, if he somehow rose from the dead, would not have the right to say that his own likeness may not be used to commemorate excellence in his profession, any more than he would have the right to prohibit the prize made in his image from being granted to a black author.

It doesn't matter who wants the prize to exist, or who doesn't want it to; it doesn't matter what any person wants, ever, except in that person's immediate and temporary sphere of influence. What matters are things that endure, things that contribute to the legacy of the species - books, inventions, explorations, historical milestones. Everything that a person thinks or feels, solely within the context of their own mortal lifespan, is of no more consequence than the confetti from yesterday's birthday party. If they can create something which has meaning to other people, and continues to have meaning decades and centuries later, then that achievement matters - but they, themselves, did not, except insofar as they contributed to the body of human works, and deserve some small token of remembrance for that.

5. Goblins is not an "unbreakable monolith" or whatever torturedly pompous phrasing you want to use. It is a D&D parody webcomic. You're seriously overstating its artistic importance when you act like criticizing it is some kind of violation of its supposed sanctity.

It is a work of excellent quality; that it is a parody does not undermine this. It is absolutely deserving of far more respect than our biased society will ever grant to a work whose value is so easily mis-perceived, based on pre-existing prejudices about what's "real art" and what's "weird and geeky".

6. Phrasing everything in the most pretentious way possible doesn't make your argument any stronger.

I speak this way because I am this way. No pretense is involved. (Well, maybe a little. I am not actually multiple people, although I often feel as though I was. I habitually use the plural in my self-talk, so it seemed little stretch to practice its use here, as a harmless affectation.)

7. Again, nobody involved in this discussion is suggesting that Goblins be removed from the internet. They are saying that Thunt did a bad job at writing this storyline.

And they are mistaken in that claim. There is far more fault to be found with the second bonus story, yet my thread devoted to it has less than a page of comments. Why? Perhaps because it does not deal with a highly charged topic, around which immense furor can easily be gathered. Solely faulting its artistic merits would not feed the egos of those who need to perpetuate controversy; claiming that it is a bigoted work, however, easily fuels these fires. And I...er, we...will do whatever is in our limited power to stamp them out, because these childish and destructive acts should not go unopposed.

[RocketScientist]

radical-feminist armchair social-justice-warriors

Don't do this. Really, seriously DO NOT make this an MRA buzzwords style discussion.

And to everyone who has been arguing with strawmen, and fighting the faceless hordes who might possibly make certain arguments that no one here is making, don't do that, either. If you want to argue with things just for the sake of arguing with them, please take it to the Controversy forum.

[SpeaksManyLanguages]

I don't want to participate in the discussion any further as, I'm pretty sure, I already stated my opnion etc., but i couldn't take no notice of the wrong usage of "freedom of speech" term.

Here's what I'm talking about. (note the tooltip-text too)

[BlueAmaranth]

Thesilence, I'll just say that I completely disagree with your priorities. You won't convince me that the attempts of living people to effect social change are rendered completely meaningless if they happen to involve criticizing a historically prominent artist. Art isn't the only aspect of human culture that endures, and besides that, the thoughts and feelings of individual people who actually exist at a given moment aren't irrelevant--they're the entire point.

RocketScientist already addressed the other statements I would have objected to. (Thank you!) So I'm going to leave it at that. We've veered off topic and I've already stated, in the clearest terms possible, my issues with the actual craftsmanship of the actual comic.

I don't want to participate in the discussion any further as, I'm pretty sure, I already stated my opnion etc., but i couldn't ð¥ take no notice of the wrong usage of "freedom of speech" term.

Here's what I'm talking about. (note the tooltip-text too)

That's true, and I'm aware. If thesilence had just said "we think people shouldn't be allowed to say XYZ," or "if we were in charge of the forums we'd ban people who said XYZ," or "people who say XYZ should be socially ostracized," I'd disagree but I wouldn't make freedom of speech arguments. But what they were actually saying was that people don't have a right to say XYZ, that they're not "free" to say XYZ. That's just not true outside of a dystopia.

[thesilence]

and besides that, the thoughts and feelings of individual people who actually exist at a given moment aren't irrelevant--they're the entire point.

Obviously we could not disagree more, but at least we will acknowledge that this is a valid stance on your part. We might even have agreed in our younger, more idealistic days, before we realized how thoroughly Lovecraft struck the mark about the meaninglessness of the human condition.

That's true, and I'm aware. If thesilence had just said "we think people shouldn't be allowed to say XYZ," or "if we were in charge of the forums we'd ban people who said XYZ," or "people who say XYZ should be socially ostracized," I'd disagree but I wouldn't make freedom of speech arguments. But what they were actually saying was that people don't have a right to say XYZ, that they're not "free" to say XYZ. That's just not true outside of a dystopia.

We conceded that "are not free" is factually incorrect; people are free to do many things they should not. For example, they are free to go on shooting sprees; absolutely nothing prevents them from successfully accomplishing mass murder, they are merely forced to suffer consequences afterward, and not always then. This is a perspective that we believe everyone should be forced to consider when they speak of "freedom"; too many people think it is a solely positive virtue, and have not considered that it means freedom to do the worst things imaginable.

But "rights", we stand by. The concept of "rights" is a pointless human construct, existing nowhere outside the imaginations of people who are feebly striving to exert a sense of control over the uncaring, incomprehensible cosmos around them. Nobody has any rights whatsoever, and if they did, they certainly would not have the right to limit the rights of others, in any way shape or form, as this forms a basic logical paradox. So either you have the right to say absolutely anything, or more likely you have no right to ever say anything at all, and are simply doing so because you can. If the former, then everyone in any position of authority at all casually violates that right so consistently that it really cannot be said to exist; ergo, the latter seems obviously apparent.

[BlueAmaranth]

Yeah, individual human lives are meaningless in the grand scope of the cosmos. I hope you'll figure out in a few years that you don't actually need to use the grand scope of the cosmos as your working context for everything.

[Xavier78]

Not exactly, but we maintain that nobody every has the right to say "this work of art should not exist". No matter how bad you think it is, it makes a contribution to the canon of human works, and that immortal achievement is worth more than any amount of people's feelings.

A Man once tied a dog to a pole and left it there for days without Food and Water. It died inside an "Art" studio a slow, painful death. Another Man would capture, torture and mutilate Cats and Kittens all while filming/taking pictures he would later sell, you know, for "Art". Lets not forgot all the Child porn in the world masquerading as so called "Art". People do INDEED have the right to say that SOME "Art" should NOT exist.

Anyone who thinks that a work is sending a destructive message to society should simply create their own work with the message they would rather send, or if they lack the talent, find an author who will accept their commission or favor-exchange or the like. To counter one form of art with another is noble; to try and destroy art because of politics and personal pretention is utterly unacceptible.

So, pictures of pretty Flowers counter the above? Really? That is naive and stupid, no offense.

While this has little to do with Goblins or Hunt, it IS relevant to what I just read.

[thesilence]

A Man once tied a dog to a pole and left it there for days without Food and Water. It died inside an "Art" studio a slow, painful death. Another Man would capture, torture and mutilate Cats and Kittens all while filming/taking pictures he would later sell, you know, for "Art". Lets not forgot all the Child porn in the world masquerading as so called "Art". People do INDEED have the right to say that SOME "Art" should NOT exist.

We still disagree. While it is likely that the "artists" here were simply sociopaths justifying their diseased actions, it cannot be ruled out that there was a legitimate point being made, one important enough to justify the extreme nature of the medium. "Porn" is by its nature gratuitous and shallow, and you are right that most of it "masquerades" as art rather than being so legitimately - but no person's individual opinion, nor the collective will of any group, is sufficiently perfect in judgment that it can be trusted to arbitrate where artistic merit ends. When in doubt, assume that people and animals were going to suffer and die anyway, simply by virtue of the world's unforgivingly cruel nature....so they might as well have at least the chance of fulfilling some higher purpose by it, something that transcends the pointlessness of reality, however fleetingly and insubstantially.

So, pictures of pretty Flowers counter the above? Really? That is naive and stupid, no offense.

Offense is taken, but our feelings are as irrelevant as anyone else's. We absolutely do believe that good art justifies bad, and good art is in no way diminished by the existence of bad, and remain completely certain that it is worth paying any price to create something truly meaningful. We are fully prepared to put our money where our (not-pictured-in-the-avatar) mouth is on this subject.

[mustache_man]

I was going to write a well thought answer and counter the "arguments" provided, but two and a half drafts later I thought to myself "Screw this shit". This discussion should make any human being with half a brain cell and a shred of a conscience throw up. I sincerely hope you're just a childish troll instead of the sociopath you look to be.