201–210 of 348 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...what is the distinction? Both are "actual" nudity. Nudity is nudity.
A theatrical work that showed a woman wearing one of those "naked lady" t-shirts wouldn't be treated the same as a theatrical work that showed a naked woman.
Americans are so bought into the idea that "explicit" images are bad that they can't see another viewpoint. Its become "natural". And, as the author pointed out, Americans are so blind to it that you don't even see the problem with censoring nipples but not beheadings. We literally cant see that noone should be injured by seeing a womans breast, but seeing a beheaded body - thats OK? Its interesting to see this story…
America has something like 330 million people in it. I assure you, there are a lot of us who see the basic logic around this and think we should stop worrying about the occasional nipple. In this particular instance though, it's worse than your complaint. We're talking about censoring an iconic image captured from an important time in our history. I'd be willing to bet that even among the anti-nipple people, this ima…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The way to have a fully naked woman in a PG-13 movie is to fill her with bullet holes." I don't know who said it, if anyone, but it's true.
PG-13 is a lot more restricted than it used to be. You can't have much blood or gore or say more than one bad word. So I don't think that really supports your point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet we make no distinction between theatrical nudity and actual nudity.
...what is the distinction? Both are "actual" nudity. Nudity is nudity.
Americans are so bought into the idea that "explicit" images are bad that they can't see another viewpoint. Its become "natural". And, as the author pointed out, Americans are so blind to it that you don't even see the problem with censoring nipples but not beheadings. We literally cant see that noone should be injured by seeing a womans breast, but seeing a beheaded body - thats OK? Its interesting to see this story…
Even in an advanced/industrialized nation like Japan, typical women don't even show cleavage, because it's considered indecent. Typical TV dramas hardly show kissing scenes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Much like the dichotomy between violence and obscenity which is the subject of the article, the public and private distinction on the ethics of censorship is extremely American. Consider, a "privately" owned company that opens its doors to the public is absolutely not allowed to refuse to serve someone on the basis of their skin color. The fact is that when you open your service to the general public then you are no…
Regulation is one solution with a lot of problems. A much better solution is switching to an open alternative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_3
And shortly before the internet really took off and started to standardize legal porn (meaning: harmonize to American rules), 16 and 17 year old topless girls were legal on page 3, with harder stuff elsewhere on the European continent. America effectively exported their legal standards here, mostly through credit card companies I expect. (Not saying commercializing topless schoolgirls is just fine, just that normal u…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook is not just a private company anymore. In what sense? Legally they are, they act like one so I am not sure in practice what makes that distinct. Perhaps you mean that user expectations makes them not "just a private company." In which case I see no reason why that doesn't also extend to pretty much any other much smaller platform in which users complain about moderation or opaque governance (reddit, twitter,…
> In what sense? Legally they are, they act like one so I am not sure in practice what makes that distinct. Facebook, Inc. is a publicly traded company. An example of a private company would be Dell Technologies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree. And at the same time Americans have been inundated with "war" and the pro-Nationalist message that we should always, ALWAYS, 1) support our troops no matter what and 2) never forget. The fear-mongering is rampant and relentless. And everyone is afraid to question it.
Nothing wrong with supporting the troops. Marion Le Pen was questioned on his regarding French military action a long time ago. Her correct response was to point out that the French soldiers did their job, did what they were supposed to. If apologies and shame are appropriate, it needs to be aimed at the leadership. The attitude towards Vietnam vets was disgusting, right? Drafted people forced into a pointless war. S…
That depends on what you mean by "supporting the troops." I actually have no definition or even a clear idea of what this means and I'm certain no one else does either. It's just a generic motto used for brainwashing. Does it mean that I support the individuals not dying? Because if so, then yes, I support the troops very much and I hope none of them die. Does it mean that I support what they do? Fuck no! It's atrocious and criminal. They are murdering and raping people. I would never support that. And of course, it also could mean every single nuance in between. So it's a meaningless saying that seems to exist for the solve purpose of controlling the people who refuse to question basic things. The mere fact that it can mean that I support the troops' actions (murder, rape, and even wasting trillions of dollars of our money) is reason enough for anyone to not "support the troops," and is certainly why I would never utter such an ambiguous and clearly manipulative phrase.