Hacker News Reader

>rape is one of the most offensive crimes imaginable.

No disagreement there, but I said "rape fantasy". Do you consider them the same thing?

>So the danger is on the Internet you can easily tailor your social circle to agree with you where such a thing would be impossible IRL.

What's that got to do with anything here in this thread? Are you suggesting that HN is an enclave of rapists and aspiring rapists?

>Romance novels as far as I am aware do not involve crimes.

I'm told they do offer depictions of crimes. What other crimes should the depiction of be illegal and censored on the internet?

>Neither, simply that their fantasy is one of rape, not pretending to rape.

Completely unproven. You may repeat it all you like but you've offered no evidence.

> If it's just a fantasy then it's creepy but ok,

If it is just a fantasy then it is by definition, not rape, not an intention to rape, or a crime.

> the danger is when an echo chamber is formed and no dissenting voice exists.

There is no "echo chamber" of rape advocates.

>No of course I don't believe that suppressing such material would prevent the behaviour.

Then what good can come of suppressing the material?

>The fact is that many rapists are mentally ill individuals. My hope is that careful management can reduce the exposure these individuals have to reinforcement.

Why? It is a terribly dangerous precedent to set for something that you just admitted would not prevent rape.

>The danger is not to 'previously ordinary people'. The danger is that people with predispositions can be convinced that they are right in their beliefs or feelings.

So, even though it would not prevent rape, you want the whole of society to have their internet censored and monitored so that a small fraction of mentally ill people cannot(assuming the censorship is effective) get from the internet what you perceive would be a validation of their supposed deviant beliefs?

> For example, that feminism is against the 'natural order'. That is quite a common one.

You want to also censor debate that disagrees with feminists?

> But you want to start stamping it out on the internet first?

>Not at all, if there existed such a place where people with rape fantasies could go to discuss them together.

Even if there was a place where women discussed their rape fantasies?

> I would support its closure and perhaps even the monitoring of its participants.

So you do, in fact want to start stamping out discussion of "deviant thought" on the internet. Should psychologists and therapists be required to report people who admit to having rape fantasies during counseling sessions, so the deviants can be monitored by their local police? Should they be marked with a tattoo (for everyone's safety)? Required to wear a tracking device?

> It's a fine line to walk but I take issue with the idea that it's either all or nothing. It isn't, responsible measures can be taken without silencing dissent or isolating the vulnerable.

Can you point to any past successes of censorship? Successful at either, preventing crime, or successful at not censoring unrelated content?

>It's not exclusive to the Internet, but it's the diversity and complete freedom on the Internet which permits these echo chambers to form.

> the danger is when an echo chamber is formed and no dissenting voice exists.

Looking at the last two decades, I am willing to bet the freedom and diversity of the Internet is responsible for crushing far more dangerous "echo chambers." I am not sure how making a system less diverse or less free (as in speech) is a good thing. It is through diverse, open and free speech that echo chambers are canceled out. People searching out an "echo chamber" on the internet is no different than finding a church group or political group that exclusively prescribes to your views. History is filled with the negative effects of those social structures as well. The real "echo chamber" is a society that feels they know what is normal, appropriate and decent for everyone. It wasn't long ago that women were diagnosed with "female hysteria" and a bit longer since it was thought that whites and blacks couldn't interbreed.

"We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still." - John Stuart Mill

>The danger is not to 'previously ordinary people'. The danger is that people with predispositions can be convinced that they are right in their beliefs or feelings.

This goes both ways. Someone predisposed to enjoy sex can be convinced that it is disgusting and wrong and there is something wrong with them. Someone with a predisposition to be open and trusting can be convinced that the whole of humanity is out to rape and murder them.

Did you ever hear anyone say, "That work had better be banned because I might read it and it might be very damaging to me?" - Joseph Henry Jackson

>Not at all, if there existed such a place where people with rape fantasies could go to discuss them together I would support its closure and perhaps even the monitoring of its participants.

You mean a couple's bedroom?

Romance novels are full of depictions of rape. The "unwilling woman in an arranged marriage/kidnapped by the male love interest is convinced that said marriage/kidnapping is totally okay via amazing sex" is an extremely common trope in historical/fantasy romance novels (the trashy kind with Fabio on the cover).