About bnfleming

bnfleming

Location:

Not specified

Joined on:

06/13/07

• not yet rated

  Media

  response to  anya218's post the good word

  Well put, but...

  Nice response. I agree that we need to take a step back and examine the larger problems facing us today. But your response, as I see it, is a bit naive.

  You are right to point out that a definition of good is subjective. Everything is always going to be subjective for the most past.
  I agree that the topics are dead-on relevant. Well to people like you and me I suppose, but I suspect GOOD magazine is not the hottest topic among the people we claim we want to do GOOD for. Anyway,

  You say things like benevolence, charity, universal health care, cost-free higher
  education, reduction of pesticide use, improvement of highways are good things. Of course they are, no one would probably argue with most of this.
  Still, ceasing to condone pornography should be on your list.

  You evaded my entire question. These people you think need universal health care, for instance. Are they negatively affected by this industry? Yes or No? Pornography is evidence of a larger, systemic problem in our society you are ignoring. Yes, there are more pressing facts to shine the
  spotlight of outrage upon, but once you shine the light you may find that this one not only contributes to those problems but is, in some cases, the direct cause of them.

  How much interaction have you had with people who have been hurt by this industry? In my profession, I see it all the time. Coudl you for one moment suspend judgment on people who disagree with you and actually listen to those voices. And please, answer this, does pornography make our lives better? Regardless of what else you want to address (i.e. health care, et al), you could hardly answer this question in the affirmative.

  The problem here for you is that you want ethics without morals. You want to have your idealogical cake and eat it to. Taking a stand on what is good means more than just espousing your own utopian vision of public policy. It means taking a moral position on very specific issues, especially as you weigh the consequences of those issues against the larger problems we are facing today as a society.

  There is a classic dichotomy you hear debated in the academic world all the time, that between philosophy and anthropology. More specifically, between the big picture and the everyday details, between ideology and praxis. In your response, you seem to be great at flowing in the big picture and in espousing ideology. There are bigger fish to fry, of course, but once you start to fry those fish you are forced into the real lives of people, people who do not share your position in life, your beliefs, your convictions, your world view. People who probably do need universal health care but also people who need to be free from social ills like pornography.

  Doing good is a great ideology, but at some point it requires you and me to come down off our ideological thrones and out of our liberal echo-chambers and actually engage this broken, hurting world. When we do, we will find that sexual oppression is a very real thing that requires we take a moral stand on what is, in fact, good.

  But I suspect you don't want to do that because you live with the illusion that you can be liberal and libidinous, you can be socially progressive and morally evasive.

  Being a do gooder is more than an idealogical endeavor. It is a moral endeavor that requires moral stances, a moral compass, and a willingness to address larger, systemic issues even when they challange our own lifestyles, interests, tendencies, and world views.

  I think you are afraid to actually wrestle with just how subjective "good" really is.

  Please respond. This is a fun and important dialog to have.

  Comments (0)

  Commented on November 28, 2007 by - bnfleming

• one who disagrees

  Authored by anya218 - 1 vote

• not yet rated

  Media

  response to  aliceinreality's post o.O

  I agree

  Great post. I replied with an emphatic yes to what you said. Thanks for speaking up.

  Comments (0)

  Commented on June 13, 2007 by - bnfleming

• o.O

  Authored by aliceinreality - 6 votes

• 3 votes

  Media

  response to  Max Joseph, Don C, Jon Miller, and Cameron Cohen's post Internet Porn

  Help me, please

  I have a question. How is it that modern day progressives seem to be turning such a blind eye to the sad, depraved phenomena that is internet pornography? I am having a hard time understanding how people can post all sorts of comical, light hearted responses to this feature while ignoring the sad reality that this industry has become. Maybe it does exhibit some traces of "art,' but art in the historic sense that featred nude models was hardly a multi billion dollar industry that preyed on the socially desperate, alienated, and poor like this one does. "aliceinreality" posted something I hope we can all think about. This stuff ruins lives, confuses people, and fosters violence, gendered sterotypes, and twisted sexuality.

  So what I need to understand is how a magazine where most of its readers (I presume) speak out against sweat shops in China and environmental destruction can also be so permissive when it comes to something like pornography? How is it that 'progressive thinking' in this country has become so confused with moral and ethical depravity? Now I know there are a lot of issue at stake in my last statement, but this one thing alone. How can internet porn in any way serve a good, admirable place in a society we hope to improve?

  I guess I just long for the days when it seemed like liberals stood for something (e.g. Tipper Gore speaking out against the record industry and pusing for censorship laws), and were not afraid to address just how confused and perverse something like this is.

  How about this post? "People (overwhelmingly female) who are desperately poor, drug addicted, single moms, living in a third world/eastern bloc countries. I champion people like Jenna Jameson who willingly participate and control their own careers, but people like that are rare."

  What the heck is this all about? How do you sleep at night holding this opinion? How can you live with such a wicked contradiction? Who care about Jenna Jameson? What about the single moms and people in third world countries? These are the people pornography hurts the most! You can't ignore this just because a small pocket of the porn world does it voluntarily.

  You want to do "good" in this world, give up on your lax morality and look at the things that are hurting individuals and families. Just because you are not affected is hardly an excuse. This stuff hurts people.

  So again, help me. I guess my concern is more ideological than anything. How does a magazine like this and its so-called do-good readers tolerate something like internet porn? To those who have had a similar reaction as me, let me know what you think. But to those who disagree, let me know too.

  Comments (2)

  Commented on June 13, 2007 by - bnfleming

• 2 votes

  Art & Design

  response to  Meryl Rothstein's post Seeing Red

  Yes!

  I agree, and I hope many more people will come to see that half-hearted idelaism with little to no real sacrifice is hardly what it means to do "good" in our world. I find it sad that in our country, we can buy a 5 dollar latte at Starbucks while donating 10 cents to charity and actually think we have really made a difference. It's all just consumer driven greed masked in guilt reducing opportunism. This has sadly become the hallmark of the socially confused, well intentioned but greedy, self-centered culture in which we live. I hope people like Ben Davis are able to educate us about what it means to trully give in a world of so much need. Not as an after thought to my brand new $300 IPOD, but as a $300 donation to someone who might not even know (or care) what an IPOD is.

  Comments (0)

  Commented on June 13, 2007 by - bnfleming