Austin Wolf discussion not allowed?
-
@chuckBKK said in Austin Wolf discussion not allowed?:
I am glad this thread has remained visible. At least here, people can state their view openly.
This is the best place (only place tbh) to discuss that, because here you can object to a rule without defying it. I have thought about this in the past, if the moderators had a way of putting a disclaimer in certain torrents to help people decide if it's for them or not.
Initially I was thinking things like, this contains some duplicate files, or poor image quality, or choppy fps... relevant info that you only get to know after the file is downloaded. If we had this feature, it could also be used to inform about other things.
Or at the very least, instead of just waiting to remove off-topic comments the moderation could use the comment section to make a brief statement, maybe that would also help de-escalating this discussion in the comment section.
-
@ianfontinell-0 said in Austin Wolf discussion not allowed?:
Or at the very least, instead of just waiting to remove off-topic comments the moderation could use the comment section to make a brief statement, maybe that would also help de-escalating this discussion in the comment section.
Agreed. Any communication at all would be nice.
-
@ianfontinell-0 said in Austin Wolf discussion not allowed?:
This is the best place (only place tbh) to discuss that....instead of just waiting to remove off-topic comments the moderation could use the comment section to make a brief statement,
Or people can have the discussion in the only appropriate place for the discussion. Some comments make sense: "RIP Blake Mitchell" makes sense on content he's in for hopefully obvious reasons.
It's even feasible to make commentary on performers. I think a comment here is what alerted me to Johnny Rapid's behavior. But it was just a comment about the performer, and personally I think that's helpful information for deciding whether I want to download the file.
But a debate about whether such content should be allowed obviously doesn't belong on the content page itself.
Personally, I think Johnny Rapid represents a good case as to why I'm appreciative of the hand-off (except illegal content) approach mods take here. While I personally don't need to see his content any more, I'm sure lots of people disagree and reasonably so. Playing "whose crimes cross the 'do not post' threshold?" is a silly game. And that's before we start policing on politics. There are plenty of gay-for-pay performers that have political views some here would find offensive. I'm glad they're listed here, you can choose do download them or not.
-
Well said. I am a bit sick of "you should not do X because of X or you should not listen to this singer because they said the sky is green" - I tend to call them the morality police.
I think its very much a personal choice. Had his crimes and his filming crossed paths I would agree with taking them down. But its not so l am with you, let them make up their own mind.
-
@Thebigmattb-0 However, I do not really understand the claim that his crimes and his filming never crossed paths. From my perspective, they clearly did. When someone films scenes with a little person and with other performers who are presented as very young-looking, I do not see how those things can be treated as unrelated to what he was later convicted for.
-
@justatest90-0 said in Austin Wolf discussion not allowed?:
@ianfontinell-0 said in Austin Wolf discussion not allowed?:
This is the best place (only place tbh) to discuss that....instead of just waiting to remove off-topic comments the moderation could use the comment section to make a brief statement,
Or people can have the discussion in the only appropriate place for the discussion. Some comments make sense: "RIP Blake Mitchell" makes sense on content he's in for hopefully obvious reasons.
It's even feasible to make commentary on performers. I think a comment here is what alerted me to Johnny Rapid's behavior. But it was just a comment about the performer, and personally I think that's helpful information for deciding whether I want to download the file.
But a debate about whether such content should be allowed obviously doesn't belong on the content page itself.
Just weighing in here - remember though: my thoughts are worth only what you paid for them!
First off, THIS is the "forum" for discussion - comments sections of torrents is NOT a valid place to have a discussion.
IMHO, posting something like "RIP Blake Mitchell" on one (or all) of his vids is not the same as requesting that content should be removed. It imparts reasonable knowledge about one of the stars.
Along those lines, if you wanted to post in Austin Wolf torrents that he is now a convicted sex offender, I'm OK with that! (remember, that's MY opinion, not the site's!) Its when you go that next step and say "... AND this should be banned" that I object. The first part is informing about the video and its stars... the other is an attempt to censor content... and likely, those comments (requesting removal) should be removed. But not because they may or may not be valid, but rather that a torrent's comment section isn't the place for that!
Corollary: When a priest is convicted of molesting an alter-boy, is the entire congregation supposed to drop the Catholic Faith in response? Were his sermons LESS valuable because of his crimes? If you're Catholic, were his absolutions in the confessional rescinded because he sinned? If so, were they rescinded when he committed his crimes, or only after his conviction?
Another case to consider: Brent Corrigan admitted to doing porn under-age (the level of involvement in all parties in that debacle is a debate for another time), yet he remained in the business - albeit as an adult - afterwards. IMHO, it is valid that we ban his illegal content: that is, videos that include Brent while he was under-age. But do we also ban all of his other content?
I despise SCAT porn, and generally am not a fan of FTM tranny porn. Some S&M porn gets REALLY violent - possibly illegally so, should the performer/victim want to press charges (in spite of forms signed prior to taping). Should any of these be banned? It's a slippery slope! What's more, who becomes the decider? (I'm assuming George W Bush isn't willing to perform that role!)
IMHO: when the content itself is illegal, it should be banned. If the content legal, but objectionable to some users - but is otherwise within the rules of the site, it should stay - so long as there are people seeding and downloading it, it apparently belongs here.
Again, these are my opinions - as a user here for approaching 20 years now - and if you object to them, I'll give you a 100% refund!
-
@bi4smooth said in Austin Wolf discussion not allowed?:
Corollary: When a priest is convicted of molesting an alter-boy, is the entire congregation supposed to drop the Catholic Faith in response? Were his sermons LESS valuable because of his crimes? If you're Catholic, were his absolutions in the confessional rescinded because he sinned? If so, were they rescinded when he committed his crimes, or only after his conviction?
While I agree with part of what you are saying, I do not think the priest example is equivalent.
It would be a leap to demand that an entire congregation abandon its faith because of one man’s crimes. The individual offender, however, must be held accountable and lose the position, access, and authority that made harm possible in the first place.
In your example, the priest should be defrocked, should never again be placed in a pastoral role, and should not be put in proximity to minors or other vulnerable young people. That is the relevant parallel for me. The consequences should remain with the offender instead of being imposed on every believer around him.
-
@chuckBKK said in Austin Wolf discussion not allowed?:
@bi4smooth said in Austin Wolf discussion not allowed?:
Corollary: When a priest is convicted of molesting an alter-boy, is the entire congregation supposed to drop the Catholic Faith in response? Were his sermons LESS valuable because of his crimes? If you're Catholic, were his absolutions in the confessional rescinded because he sinned? If so, were they rescinded when he committed his crimes, or only after his conviction?
While I agree with part of what you are saying, I do not think the priest example is equivalent.
It would be a leap to demand that an entire congregation abandon its faith because of one man’s crimes. The individual offender, however, must be held accountable and lose the position, access, and authority that made harm possible in the first place.
In your example, the priest should be defrocked, should never again be placed in a pastoral role, and should not be put in proximity to minors or other vulnerable young people. That is the relevant parallel for me. The consequences should remain with the offender instead of being imposed on every believer around him.
I think you've actually reinforced my point. It IS (IMHO) ridiculous to say that his parishioners deserve any punishment (including invalidating any of his works not associated with his crimes) - that was exactly my point! (I'm sorry my sarcasm wasn't more obvious LOL).
But shouldn't the same be true of Austin Wolf's legal content? To my mind, his legal works should not be removed solely because of his extracurricular crimes... heinous as they may be. (And lets not kid ourselves: Austin Wolf is NOT profiting from having his videos downloaded on this site! LOL)
-
@bi4smooth The offender and the content are connected, which is why I do not treat the continued circulation of his work as some neutral matter.
Whether he personally profits from downloads on this site is beside the point for me. The platform still chooses to host and distribute the material, and users are entitled to object to that on ethical grounds.
-
@chuckBKK said in Austin Wolf discussion not allowed?:
@bi4smooth The offender and the content are connected, which is why I do not treat the continued circulation of his work as some neutral matter.
Whether he personally profits from downloads on this site is beside the point for me. The platform still chooses to host and distribute the material, and users are entitled to object to that on ethical grounds.
Let's differentiate here - you can find the content objectionable - AND you can say so in this forum - AND people can agree or disagree with what YOU find objectionable...
But let's not lose sight of the fact that virtually ALL of the content (gay sex) on this site is "morally objectionable" to a significant portion of society - larger in some areas, smaller in others, but significant in ALL areas!
Suggesting that his material be banned is one thing.
Insisting upon it is another. -
@bi4smooth said in Austin Wolf discussion not allowed?:
But let's not lose sight of the fact that virtually ALL of the content (gay sex) on this site is "morally objectionable" to a significant portion of society - larger in some areas, smaller in others, but significant in ALL areas!
Consensual adult gay content being considered objectionable by some people is a very different issue from raising ethical concerns about material associated with someone convicted of crimes involving minors.
In much of the Western world, public morality has moved on from treating gay sexuality itself as inherently suspect. A criminal conviction of this kind is a different matter entirely. For me, it speaks directly to conduct and character, and it is a legitimate reason to view the person and his work differently.
That is the distinction I am making, and I will leave it there.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login