this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2024
580 points (100.0% liked)
Not The Onion
15846 readers
1936 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If they actually removed it, and didn't have anything in the rules about topicality or humor, they suck and should be ridiculed
He got to keep his ribbons, he wasn't disqualified or anything and his other miniatures stayed up.
Some things can be expected not to work as a display in public.
Only people who know would know. I don't see the problem.
I think the problem is they don't want this to become a 'thing' with people trying to push the envelope further and further.
Somebody saw a problem and got it removed. Personally, I couldn't care less because the creator really should have seen this coming, at least as well as they saw them coming.
You.. could.. care less?
Awww he does care. Even if it’s only a little.
Sorry, I do a lot of typos these days
Too much phone scrolling
I mean, I bet that person has fun testing the fences and finding out exactly where the line is.
For sure, I'm glad he submitted his piece and won a ribbon.
Eh, we have nude statues in public places, paintings too. Like, not in museums, in the open.
This model isn't even nsfw at all, it just references the subject of pornography, with one specific "genre" that's exemplified by a brand.
But, hey, they didn't penalize the maker, so it's all good to me :)
If you take a statue of a Naiad and have it stuck in a basement window or on it's knees gesturing with a cupped hand, or even with just torn pantyhose and handcuffs, you're probably going to get a lot of complaints.
There is tasteful and agreeable and it's a very blurry line into inappropriate but the line is there.
There is no nudity in the miniature. It's an empty room. This is literally an "if you know, you know" situation.
But are we obligated to submit to arbitrary judgements of appropriateness? And everything you described is arbitrary. I don't disagree people would whinge, (and I know this is diverging from the subject a little, but I believe it's still related), but how is that an obligation to bow to them?
Tasteful and agreeable are inherently subjective, and that makes them impossible to delineate in any universally equitable manner.
Personally, I don't even recognize the majority as being a metric to determine what is and isn't tasteful or agreeable.
I also reject the idea that something being sexual is inherently without taste or agreeableness, even when it verges into the pornographic. It comes down to "who says so?"
Who makes that moral decision for everyone else, and why should they be able to?
Yes. The public entity as a whole agrees on what is appropriate and what is not. If you don't like being a part of the public, then you've got every right to leave.
An event official for a state run organization at the fair made this call, likely after consulting with others and hearing complaints.
Ouch, you really went there?
"If you don't like being a part of the public, then you have every right to leave".
Praytell, how does one leave society currently? Other than suicide, since I doubt that's what you meant. If it was, then dude, you gotta check yourself. Which, what you said was bad enough without it being that, so you should check yourself anyway, since nobody can escape society at this point. There simply isn't anywhere that isn't under the authority of one country or another. But that's whatever.
But, you still don't seem to get that "the public as a whole" isn't unified. I certainly haven't agreed that a silly joke model is somehow inappropriate. I know for a fact I'm not alone in that, because other comments have said as much.
Are you saying that the officials are automatically correct in their judgement of what is and isn't agreed on by "the public"? Were the officials in question elected or appointed? What guidelines did they use to reach their decisions?
And, of equal import, if not greater, why should such a narrow and prudish opinion be the default? Because a vocal minority raised a fuss? That doesn't indicate a public agreement at all, it indicates the tyranny of the minority, and officials caving to it without actually consulting the public. Or did they consult the public in some way that isn't evident in the article? You may have information I don't. If that's the case, please do point me towards that.
What I'm saying is that the assumption that a given set of value judgements isn't right just because it happens to be what is common. Nor is a position of authority proof of rightness. That's simply proof of being given authority by someone. An elected official at least can claim majority authority, but an appointed one? Nah, that's specious at best. When that official is applying moral judgement, it needs a higher level of scrutiny.
This model is like hiding an adult joke, in a kid's show, for the parents. They probably would have only had a small amount of locals laugh a bit, maybe get a tiny amount of complaints from pearl clutchers. Now they have Stressand effected the piece. People all over the world now get to see it, and associate it with this local competition.
Never show these prudes Rocko's Modern Life.
You know, in most places that legalized it, homosexuality was not seen as something that should be legal by the majority of the population. If we operated the way you propose, homosexuality would have still been a crime, in my country, from 1961, until 2003. If most of the population supports fascism, or a genocide, or slavery, etc. does it mean we should just fall in line?
This is a stupid take
They at least let him keep his prize, though.
Ugh that just seems like fighting tightwaddery with more tightwaddery
Do we really need to put "no sex scenes" into the rules for a family friendly event?
What sex scenes? It's an empty room.
But the implication...
...is an implication you would only know if you had already seen porn. So where is the harm?
What sex scene? There isn't one.
What is in the model is, at most a reference to a type of porn, or a specific "brand" of porn.
The model doesn't include any images of any company producing porn, nor any signs visible in the pictures available that anything sexual happened. There's no jizz on the couch, in other words. Edit: there is the sweat stain though, which could be considered a post sexual stain, despite it not being inherently sexual. My couch has an ass shaped spot if I have to sit down after a shower before dressing.
This makes the model a bit of humor, maybe satire if you want to stretch the term satire far enough.
So, if the rules don't prohibit joke models, there's nothing about the model itself that's a problem for a "family friendly" event. Which, that term is getting a little damn old at this point, since it's being used as code for anti-drag arguments as well now. Which is off topic, but you might want to know the term is being coopted by bigots so you can decide if you want to avoid it or not.
Seriously, there is nothing explicit in that model. It references porn tropes, but in a way that the only way someone would know the reference is to have either enjoyed fake casting couch porn themselves, or have run into that trope in other ways (which, let's be real, chances of it being other ways approaches zero).
No kid is going to see this model and be harmed in any way whatsoever. Any kid that would get the joke is either old enough that it isn't a problem, or has way more important issues to be addressed.
So, yeah, if you don't want to allow even the most oblique references to adult subject matter, that needs to be in the rules.