As a non-American, I endorse the argument myself.
The US has a quite particular culture, and yet most of its population (from all my experience) seems to consider it either (a) the pinnacle of human culture that others countries should/do aspire, or (b) the natural state of civilization (what things just "are", with everything else being inconceivable).
Add to that the geopolitical force and might of the country, and the fact that its companies control most of the internet infrastructure, and it gets troubling that a country with very specific interests that it pursuits globally, and where Janet Jackson showing some tit was considered a major cultural "thing" the media and people wrote about for weeks, gets to decide such policies.
>* there is no culture that could run a centralized global social network without these sorts of problems becoming ever-larger, the only difference is where the flash points would be.*
Well, the EU for one has a much broader range of cultures within nation member states, and a much broader cultural and historical and geopolitical perspective.
I've heard people who work in radio describe the Janet Jackson Superbowl incident as a watershed moment. Not only did weeks of meetings and memos about "standards and practices" follow, but to this day it remains a moment in their careers that sticks out as a clear "before/after" point, a "life will never be the same" event."
At first, I thought they were exaggerating and being facetious or joking, but it actually was a major event for everyone in their industry: before the Janet Jackson incident, every radio program at their station broadcast live. If a caller on the air started swearing or saying "obscene" things, they would chide the caller and apologize to the listeners. Now, every program broadcasts with a 20-second delay, and they have a board operator with a "dump button" in case anything "obscene" is said. (As one talk show personality sardonically remarked, "What, are they afraid we're going to start talking about Janet Jackson's nipple?")
A profanity delay has been used in radio for _much_ longer than that. The first tape delay was introduced by WKAP in 1952. The delay is usually more like 7 seconds, not 20 seconds.
The poor editor is sitting with their finger on the beep button, but a segment surprises them. "Those fuckers <long beep> ..." goes out over the air. It's 5:30 on the drivetime news, prime listening time. The host apologies to the audience and everyone tries to move on.
The general manager calls in, demanding to speak to the editor. Editor is terrified of losing their job. GM asks with as much fury and fire as possible, "Since you didn't have a problem with fucker, i have to know what the hell did they say after that that you decided was sooo much worse you had to beep it out?"
The editor turns bright red, everyone laughs and station pays a small fine. The story gets retold when there's a new audience or a retirement. Guys who tell their version of this story relish the details. even though you see it coming a mile away, almost all of fun comes from those great storytellers.
I would say that, exactly as you phrased it, that's multiple cultures. "The EU" can't run a "Facebook", it would be "The French" or "The Polish" or something like that. The EU is definitely in a place where increasing the amount that one of the dominant cultures imposes on the rest decreases the ability of the EU to function. (I'm talking first derivative here, which as you may recall eliminates the original value; I'll leave it to the reader to decide how far the EU is or is not already down that road.)
It would have a base country where its HQ are yes.
But it would still have employees from multiple EU countries, and operate within EU's laws, guidelines and cultural frameworks -- giving it a much wider perspective than 10.000 Americans (+ some wannabe Americans that came there to study/work) in a building in San Francisco.
10 years ago I would have disagreed with that statement. Now I can't. SV has gone nearly ideologically monolithic. It may be literally the greatest danger facing SV right now, not that anyone in SV sees it that way of course. I don't live in SV, and I am starting to see people in my real life (not just on the internet, where all kinds of crazy things get said that don't really mean anything) start naming it as a problem. I haven't had to reassure anyone that I work for 'an SV company, but not that kind of SV company' yet but it's probably less than a year away at this rate.
So, are you referring to ideology of neoliberal economics mixed with social justice in the form of minority rights, or right-libertarianism, or something else?
> Why can facebook ban completely legal nude images within of minutes, but don’t even respond to requests from the police or even courts to ban a post promoting the Nazi party and suggesting genocide?
Germany is a particularly sensitive case with respect to Nazis, but from experience and those of others, European countries in general also tend to be far more accepting of nudity.
So long as ideas "follow the narrative" (regardless on how grounded in evidence or just made up) nerd culture will accept you. Otherwise, it's probably the most toxic and politicized groups around.
There's some topics and environments where I feel safe speaking my mind before I figure out what the prevailing political winds are and what my boss believes. Emacs vs Vim is one of them, no matter how animated the debate is. Gender politics is not one of those contexts. There's a really significant difference there.
Yes, you're right. There is a really significant difference between discussing Emacs vs Vim, and discussing gender differences. Which is to say: one is meaningless, and one affects the lives and livelihoods of half the population of our planet.
Please do not insinuate that I don't care about the lives and livelihoods of women. I do, and that's why I put as much effort as I do into thinking about and discussing community norms, discourse norms, and other meta-level stuff. I generally agree with the aims the social justice types want, disagree vehemently with the costs they're willing to impose on people to get them, and do not feel like I can safely participate non-anonymously to achieve either of those goals. Talking about discourse norms, at the very best, gets insinuations that I'm a Bad Person by misrepresenting me as being one of The Enemy. Working on object-level stuff enables some extraordinarily shitty behavior by The Good Guys. It's quite frustrating.
Do you think it's not?
And further: why do you need to participate? It isn't about you, it doesn't affect you. It's not your struggle, and it's not the kind of thing you can get anywhere deducing from first principles. If you don't feel safe contributing to the discussion, then don't contribute to the discussion. If there's a thread talking about some issue in C++ programming, I might read, but I don't contribute. I have plenty of opinions about C++, but no real experience, so I've got no place to participate in the discussion. And that's okay! I don't have to be involved in every discussion.
> It's quite frustrating.
You think you're frustrated, imagine how other people feel! "My opinion isn't valid or wanted" is a new feeling for you, but not a new feeling with to the women in your life. Maybe ask them how they handle it?
Observing that there is such a thing as nerd culture does not really qualify. It typifies a particular set of practices and norms that set it apart from more mainstream sensibilities.
There's a line I like "Hegemony means never having to admit you have an agenda."
I was pretty entertained by the cultural differences and thought immediately how none of these things would ever happen in the US.
Googled it a bit. Now that I read up about it more it seems they were meant as spittoons for tobacco spit/juice but were often used as urinals too.
I'd caution against using a single situational anecdote and drawing conclusions about an entire culture. For one, it's highly likely that many maids in the U.S. (especially at a dedicated guesthouse or bathhouse) would also have a more minimized reaction to guest nudity and privacy. The experienced ones have seen some shit.
For the women's washroom the cleaners are required to shout Facilities! a few times before entering. It's odd though because women are in stalls and men are skin to the wind at urinals. But I do find US and Canada are becoming incredibly prudish. I've read even gyms are installing individual showers/rooms since the new generation don't like to be seen naked.
Even scents are illegal or not PC "this is a scent free workplace" signs are ubiquitous. But people in other countries laugh at how ridiculous that is.
I don't think wanting some modicum of privacy is "prudish". I don't want to use a communal shower. I've always found that creepy.
I remember my middle school was built right before I started. They built separated showers in the gym for the girls and a communal shower for the boys. I remember thinking that was so bizarre. I also remember literally no boys ever using that shower.
To think being around other naked people is creepy seems to fit the bill (not faulting you, but true).
Trying to equate taking a dump in public with using a common shower is very much considered prude. Of course the stigma attached to the term plus the subjectivity involved makes it fuzzy.
There's also nothing about unsanitary about public defecation. On the street, yes. But a toilet or latrine is no less sanitary when you take the walls down. It's just not private any more.
But some of those generations would be creeped out by women wearing pants and short skirts, men wearing jeans everywhere, and people talking openly about sex and menstruation.
That mindset of I don't like X so nobody else should either. And in a similar way for gym locker rooms some people are uncomfortable so the gym must remodel the entire locker room!
But I'd take it one step further: I don't find all global cultures equally OK. I find some backwards in some areas, and I think Japan's idea of what's OK is superior here. Like I find e.g. nordic ideas about prison and EU ideas about the death penalty superior as well, but US ideas about free speech better.
The article, however, is written in defense of distributed platforms like Mastodon as a way to enable free expression, as well as an attempt to raise the question of how to increase mainstream adoption of tools like it when those tools are primarily known for hosting controversial content. I don't believe the author or the article are as Puritanical as you make them out to be.
I've a very vocal opponent online about legislation against drawings that people find distasteful. I do not enjoy the material myself, but I think it is absurd and indeed without rational jutsification that countries such as Canada, the UK, Australia, NZ and some states in the US have legislation banning such material. I see no reason for the material to be illegalised. In the countries I have listed, the material is illegal to possess, nevermind sell or trade or upload online.
Is it a symbol of puritanical values? I don't know, but it certainly seems an infringement of the liberal values expounded by J.S Mill which I would rather adhere to (with small exceptions).
It fills the void of moral panic previously occupied by transvestites, homosexuals, adulterers, divorcees and witches (in that order). Give it enough time and the society will find the next deviant behavior to raise their collective pitchfork.
But, when you normalize something that in reality is always illigal, there's a big problem. I'm talking about normalizing as in, commonly broadcasted shows have no problem with sexualization of children and making it seem romantic realtionships with middle schoolers and adults is 'cute' and normal.
There's a really NSFW talk about this from demolitionD that I mostly agree with: https://youtu.be/Owa5KcQ9Mxc
Now, I don't agree with this video on that an innate attraction makes you a bad person, or a pedophile, I do agree that normalization of such things into the mainstream inevitably leads to real-life action and lack of enforcement when said terrible actions happen.
I agree! It's despicible how commonplace murder and torture have become in mainstream media. I mean, come on. I've watched PG13 shows that display the main characters wantonly destroying buildings in the name of "good". Another time, they killed off the population of an entire city, again in the name of good.
And we give our children books that depict distopian scenes where children are forced to fight each other to death to appease the masses, or where they're forced to kill some "evil" queen in a twisted representation of Christian ideals.
Despicable, all of it!
/s
Yeah, we as Americans or Europeans have no room to condemn Japan with this reasoning.
Except, those things are purposely portrayed as bad. In this case, lolicon is portrayed as a normal and good thing. And, you're making a false comparison because torture and murder are nowhere near as common and lustful as sexual and emotional abuse of individuals, young or not.
Normalization in causation to action requires that the actions already be happening and already be acceptable to some extent, and from there it becomes more wide-spread. There are such slipperly slopes in life when we feel the need to do things that cannot be allowed.
>And we give our children books that depict distopian scenes where children are forced to fight each other to death to appease the masses
Again, distopian, which is very differnt from your own culture or beliefs. You know its supposed to be wrong.
No, they're not. The children were heralded for doing a "good" thing when they lead the forces against the White Queen. Aslan died and was born again just to kill her.
Killing and torture is almost always glorified or glossed over in our modern media: Taken. Star Wars. Hannibal. Mulan. Wonder Woman. Man of Steel. Game of Thrones. Dexter. Terminator. Riddick. Logan. NCIS. Rambo. Kill Bill.
As for the setting - no, distopian universes are not that different from our own cultures or beliefs. Typically, they're our exact culture and beliefs, thrown into a situation where those cultures and beliefs can not survive. Our kids don't glorify Katniss for her personality, or for leading a revolution (killing how many in the process?); they glorify her for surviving three hunger games. Ask around.
> torture and murder are nowhere near as common and lustful as sexual and emotional abuse of individuals
That's going to need a citation.
Since we're talking about lolicon here: Children make up around 25% of the population. 9% of children are victimized. 9% of those are sexually abused. So, approximately .2% of the US population. [0]
Murders, in comparison, come in at .3%
So, yeah, just about as common. I'm guessing that, just as most studies have shown, that things in media are properly realized to be fantasy, and have no practical effect on people's behavior in real life. Video games don't make people murderers, lolicon doesn't make people molest children.
[0] http://www.ncdsv.org/images/HHS-Children'sBureau_ChildMaltre...
Not in the least. The heroes do those things as often as the bad guys, revel in them, and enjoy them.
From Death Wish and Dirty Harry to Tarantino, and to today's overtly gore landscape.
They're frequently, especially in US TV and film, portrayed as good things done by the good guys.
or even plea bargains. it's completely normalised to set up the bad guy (who is up against having their life ruined in a US prison), trick them using that plea bargain plot device, and pretend justice has been done, because it was the good guy cops setting up the trap.
pay attention, too often those plea bargainings can only be called "just" if you assume the good guys can do no wrong, make no deduction errors, and the bad guy was basically known to be guilty except for the "law".
Many lolicon manga do the same. Why is whether or not it is portrayed as bad the problem? Many are actually made interesting by portraying the siuation as morally ambiguous, such as in popular television shows.
>nowhere near as common and lustful as sexual and emotional abuse of individuals, young or not.
Why is that relevant?
>Normalization in causation to action requires that the actions already be happening and already be acceptable to some extent
Murder, violence, and war already happen, and war is acceptable (to most, though not I) - yet we have people who complain that violent videogames "normalise" violent beahviour. You haven't really provided evidence that (i) this "normalisation" is bad (beacuse this would be implying that it's bad for people to think or have opinions in a certain way) (ii) this "normalisation" has any effect upon the incidence of violent crimes, sexual or not.
>Again, distopian, which is very differnt from your own culture or beliefs.
Sherlock and House probably "normalises" drug use, even though it's set in present conditions. There are probably other examples of people doing bad things that are portrayed in media, but I'm not well versed enough in popular culture to give examples. I'm still not so sure why being dystopic has any effect or not. Would it follow that if lolicon TV/manga/art was set in a dystopic universe like the Hunger Games, it would be fine for you?
Or if the argument is based on being realistic, what is there to say of the many non-realistic things that happen in lolicon TV/manga/art, and indeed the unrealistic body proportions? Many, many anime are set with large towering robots controlled by little girls, for example.
Finally, many lolicon manga portray what is happening in a sad or twisted light, similar to how Breaking Bad shows Walt's activity, for example. There is one manga in which a girl is violently raped by a man claiming to check radiation levels in her house, for example. And this is of course ignoring the fact that many people are attracted to the material beacuse it is taboo in the first place, which is what's behind many kinks you or I would consider normal. As such, they don't want to make it real.
It wasn't always illegal. It's not that children in Japan have been, or are being, sexualized. It's that children in American culture have been desexualized. I remember what I wanted when I was twelve, after all ;)
I don't remember the term for it, but some cultural critics have described a more general pattern of certain populations being set aside as "innocents". These people are then to be protected from being "corrupted" by the harsh realities of the sinful world. The flip side of this special status is that they're treated as intrinsically naive and not capable of having meaningful opinions, possibly even on the subject of their own needs and desires.
That's certainly how it occurred for me, as a child. And indeed, adults are now treated similarly, in some ways.
I've found Lloyd DeMause's work to be enlightening.
Is "Japan" obsessed with it, or just a subculture native to that country (i.e otaku)?
>The argument usually is that its not real, which, is true, and I'd argue that if its not real, to leave it in a gray area.
Why? Films/books/comics/stories/etc. depicting drug use, murder, rape etc. are indeed "not real", yet few would have a problem with this. It seems to me that we are returning to the age when violent video games are considered "gray area", which is how the stone starts rolling towards their unreasonable and evidence-lacking censorship.
>But, when you normalize something that in reality is always illigal, there's a big problem.
Is there any evidence that this is a big problem in this instance? And further, what of other instances such as the ones I have outlined?
>making it seem romantic realtionships with middle schoolers and adults is 'cute' and normal.
Many people do find them cute. Not I, but people do. This does not mean that they are persuaded to act upon that cuteness. Being portrayed as normal in fiction makes no reference to how normal it is considered in real life. I can assure you that most Japanese know that such relationships are not normal, just as I know that what happens in the Simpsons isn't normal. Where's your evidence for this?
I watched this video a while ago. It mainly applies to TV and media which is widely circulated. However it is possible to have the material legal for purposes aside from distribution such as on TV. Currently in the UK and other countries, especially Canada, we are at the situation where mere possession is illegal.
>nevitably leads to real-life action and lack of enforcement when said terrible actions happen.
Does it? There is evidence I have seen that is contrary to this hypothesis, here's one: http://openjournals.maastrichtuniversity.nl/Marble/article/v...
There are others, but my current Google-fu is failing me, so my apologies.
I too wish it wasn't so prude. But we live in a litigation society. I'm sure someone would be happy to sue for emotional distress finding a female janitor in their public bathroom. But somehow LBGTQIA equality trumps all that for the time being. Maybe the litigious feel too awkward?
But there are cultures where bombing is partiotic, killing yourself to avoid shame is accepted as a part of the social order, and thinking about molestation is whatever.
I'd venture a guess that OP is not a prude at heart, just cautious enough to hedge heavily against being perceived to condone Lolicon.
For example, a country where gay people are thrown from rooftops and mountains, is easy to judge. The people performing the practice are aware that they're doing something cruel to a specific person, and the supposed crime they are punishing has two or more beneficiaries, rather than victims.
"Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature". George Bernard Shaw, "Ceasar and Cleopatra".
(Slightly off topic: Feynman had a nice story in one of his books about how the main in a Japanese guesthouse he stayed walked in while he was naked and having a bath. She didn't flinch and just went on about her business like nothing had happened, and he was thinking what a fuss/embarrassment etc that would have caused if it happened in a hotel in the US -- when it's just an adult being naked with another adult present. It's not like everybody hasn't seen genitals before or it's a big deal.)