Re: Incels? Porn? What do you think?
Posted: Thu May 19, 2022 10:22 pm
“Everything in moderation, including moderation.”
― Oscar Wilde
― Oscar Wilde
... for the explorer at heart!
https://milovana.com/forum/
Yeah, porn is a convenient target, but it's basically all anecdotal bro-science. People try to sound smart talking about "porn stimulates the brain chemicals, excessive dopamine cause desensitization!". So does everything these days. Our food is engineered to be far more tasty than can be found in the wild. Social media and everything online has algos figuring out the most effective way to stimulate you and draw you in. But it's only porn that is the problem? You basically can't isolate it to one thing any more because we are surrounded by this stuff.JakofClubs wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 11:47 pm Is porn bad for society? Every time an anti-porn groups tries to prove that porn causes rape or what-ever, they can't find any statistical significance.
I don't, really. But I can't just assume the opposite either; just because fashion mags had plenty and tried and succeeded selling it to teens, doesn't mean much about the general popularity of it. For historic times, the fashions were for the aristocrats; basically being set by the nobility, copied down from there; some people are great at imitating success, but it doesn't say much about the actual likes of the masses, or their lives for that matter.dalin55738 wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 4:02 pm Why would you assume a majority of people at the time didn't find that attractive?
I'm describing my tastes changing - changing Against a prominent marketing message. That look being quite prevalent in the content I consume - but it is Not improving my view of it. That's to point out, having intentional campaigns to change "people in general" isn't exactly easy; you may have some effect on some people, but no effect on most (I'm guessing of course).
Yes, people learn. Yes, some are trying to "teach" others whatever marketing message suits their goals. We can't stop marketers from doing it without massive regulations on speech; and thus we shouldn't. If we did, by the very wording of the restrictions, we'd end up forcing "an accepted message" instead - accepted by who? Why? To what end? Well, by corrupt politicians and bureaucrats, that's who. To their unspoken ends, usually their bank account, often their religious ideology, or just simply power for power's sake. None of that sounds great, so how about we just don't? Let's not give them the power?dalin55738 wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 4:02 pm Regardless if it's right, it's already being done. It's not just marketing, either, but everything we interact with is going to have some effect on our brain, whether it's listening to an advertisement on YouTube, seeing a neighbor's political sign, or the smell of the fried chicken restaurant across the street.
You might like me as a dictator of nutrition: a painful tax on carbohydrates(all), ban on aldehyde-containing oils. For a start And you might not; you do you, indeed.dalin55738 wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 4:02 pm I just find that most people who are "concerned about someone's health" care more about controlling them than actually helping the health, spending time insulting fat people instead of writing congress about the sugar content of peanut butter. (Seriously, peanut butter doesn't need sugar for any reason except that corn syrup is cheaper filler than actual peanut butter.)
Right, so my actual point was that we can't solely look at marketers. Everyone making a public or targeted message is trying to achieve a goal. I used to tutor communications classes and the textbook was called "Everything's an Argument", which points to how all messages are trying to convince someone of something, even if it's as mundane as a "No Parking" sign trying to convince people not to park there.spaisin wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 10:26 am Yes, people learn. Yes, some are trying to "teach" others whatever marketing message suits their goals. We can't stop marketers from doing it without massive regulations on speech; and thus we shouldn't. If we did, by the very wording of the restrictions, we'd end up forcing "an accepted message" instead - accepted by who? Why? To what end? Well, by corrupt politicians and bureaucrats, that's who. To their unspoken ends, usually their bank account, often their religious ideology, or just simply power for power's sake. None of that sounds great, so how about we just don't? Let's not give them the power?
So I agree that you don't need the government to regulate and oversee every aspect of every industry. But that doesn't mean there isn't a place for "institutions" in the sense of qualified third-parties whose sole purpose is to keep the people involved from getting hurt.spaisin wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 10:26 am Moderating porn problems, beyond the actual abuse of people involved in the production; I don't think there's much that should be done "institutionally". I'd prefer not have the WHO define my porn for me. Government programs to educate and such .. not entirely against, but more than little doubtful of the efficacy.
I honestly don't see groups lying that "fat people are all healthy, so you should never worry". I think the bigger issue, like I hinted at, is that you can't determine a person's health based solely on their physical appearance. And even if you could, why go out of your way to make them feel bad?
Actually, I wouldn't particularly like that because it doesn't fix the problem, which is that government subsidies are currently making processed foods in the US cheaper than produce. The reason high-fructose corn syrup and soy are in practically everything is because factories are paid by the US government to buy crops from farmers at a lower price. Therefore, they get put into everything when the alternative is more expensive (and it almost always is).
Yup, it's been interestingdalin55738 wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 8:14 pm First off, really enjoyed reading your responses and think we ultimately agree about ...
Those two aren't horrible, but points like "Without a rating, they can't be sold in most stores because the stores have to agree to ESRB rules for distribution." make me pretty uneasy. One thing to provide the service of a rating, another to ban commerce of an item.dalin55738 wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 8:14 pm I think the MPAA and the ESRB represent overall positive aspects of how an industry can create a board that regulates their own industry.
"Everything is a message", said some relatively sane person. So, I'd say this is too:dalin55738 wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 8:14 pm I honestly don't see groups lying that "fat people are all healthy, so you should never worry".
Where did I imply this, and did I say something about "cheap misdirects"? (No worries, just don't do it again )dalin55738 wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 8:14 pm And even if you could, why go out of your way to make them feel bad?
That may well be the case; I doubt they're trying to appease an -ism, they should know that's not possible. But I kinda suspect it's a bit grimmer than that; they're just trying to gain a point on their ESG-score.dalin55738 wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 8:14 pm I'd even go so far as to argue that these sorts of publicity stunts are a cynical attempt to prevent that sort of negative controversy by making it appear as if they're doing something essentially pro-feminist.
Well, I phrased it as "adding" taxes to carbs & seed oils to keep the idea country neutral; if some silly little nation somewhere is granting negative taxes to the crap, adding some will first make it even and then start the actual taxation. And I wouldn't mind adding soy protein (or just soy as a whole) to the list either. So, no major disagreements in my opiniondalin55738 wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 8:14 pm Actually, I wouldn't particularly like that because it doesn't fix the problem, which is that government subsidies are currently making processed foods in the US cheaper than produce.
It's always the customer paying the tax bill in any case; removing a subsidy has the exact effect as adding a tax. The price will rise, and I'm fine with it. That's the point. We can pay a higher price to pay for the blood pressure meds in the long run, or subsidize quality meat production. Or people can move to healthier foods.dalin55738 wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 8:14 pm So if you start taxing carbohydrates, regular people will just have to start allocating more of their funds to groceries than other things in their life.
Agreed
Right, so the "groups" I'm talking about are actual advocacy organizations, not media companies. Again, I'm too cynical about the intentions of corporations to assume they would ever put social issues above profit. If anything, that giant headline on the cover is designed to cause outrage amongst anti-HAES communities because "there's no such thing as bad publicity", right?spaisin wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 11:08 pm"Everything is a message", said some relatively sane person. So, I'd say this is too:dalin55738 wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 8:14 pm I honestly don't see groups lying that "fat people are all healthy, so you should never worry".
The language could've been selected better, but I wasn't saying you specifically but people who promote fat-shaming. After all, that aspect of the convo stemmed from this comment I had made earlier:
So my use of "you" was the general "you", i.e. "one", referring to those hypothetical people I'd mentioned earlier. Granted, I should've clarified, so sorry for the offense and I'll be more careful with my word choice next timedalin55738 wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 4:02 pm I just find that most people who are "concerned about someone's health" care more about controlling them than actually helping the health, spending time insulting fat people instead of writing congress about the sugar content of peanut butter.
Yup, I know. I did recognize it as a passive, but it was also perfectly viable to be read as a cheap misdirect.. so, I myself went with a cheap misdirect just to drive the point home.. you monsterdalin55738 wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 4:03 pm The language could've been selected better, but I wasn't saying you specifically
I still haven't seen any; next time you spot one, send me a link.
So you seem; and I don't really know why. I haven't.dalin55738 wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 4:03 pm Right, so the "groups" I'm talking about are actual advocacy organizations, not media companies.
Well, that sounds rather ominous. I'd like to assess the threat, so: What is the website for the largest anti-HAES community? I've never heard of one, let alone plural.
.·´¯`(>▂<)´¯`·.
My dad was a huge proponent of publicly shaming people for things he thought they shouldn't do, specifically smoking and being fat. I honestly heard him argue that it was okay to do this (i.e. "promoting it") more than I heard him actually fat-shaming people.spaisin wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 10:05 pmI still haven't seen any; next time you spot one, send me a link.
Note: I do see some dickheads DOING it. It's the cheapest form of insult to hurl at anyone, so if you just want to insult someone, it's a staple go-to and always will be. I don't see anyone PROMOTING it.
I mean, yeah: it does matter. If we're going to get nitpicky over the specific meanings of words, then we should also get specifc with who is using them.
Aside from the aforementioned subreddits, there are plenty of communities on TikTok, of all places. Here's an article from a couple years ago.
Oh, I agree 100%. I have a Bachelor's degree in Linguistics, so this is an endlessly interesting subject to me, which is why I nerd out over these responses.
ding ding ding ding!figroll wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 3:42 pm Personally, I find it very hard to separate Incels from their misogyny as you don't need to read very much into it to realise there is a lot more going on than just young men who cannot get laid.
Contrapoints has an excellent video on them here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD2briZ6fB0