Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 222 posts

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#151

Post by sanderjd »

ar-jan wrote: post #121
sanderjd wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing that confuses me about this explanation: we already do that. So it doesn't make much sense as a proposed solution to a supposedly new problem.

It seems plausible to me that the new problem (men without partners) is in part due to weakened social as well as legal norms around marriage, but via divorce rather than polygamy. In my opinion that doesn't mean we should go back to the old ways, but it's worth being aware of the connection.

> it's worth being aware of the connection

Reading charitably, I think you mean "being aware of the possible connection". The connection with marriage still seems speculative.

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#152

Post by deno »

ovao wrote: post #74
Sharlin wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything in moderation is fine basically by definition, including injecting sulfuric acid. Botulinum toxin, the most potent poison known to mankind and lethal at concentrations of a few ng/kg, is used by celebrities to smooth wrinkles. It's all about dosage.

Perhaps it’s not the best example. Replace it with something more specific if you wish, like “placing live fragmentation grenades in one’s mouth in moderation”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_Rocks

“Moderate use of porn” doesn’t have to mean hardcore pornography. Playboy and erotic novels are probably not equivalent to Anal Whores 3.

Similarly, I’ve also heard the argument that high-speed internet pornography and “tube” sites in particular are the problem, because of how they present to the user a never-ending stream of novelty, and not necessarily because of the particular type of content.

If that’s the case then obviously the argument about moderation would have its merits.

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#153

Post by undercover123 »

grondilu wrote: post #104
temp-dude-87844 wrote: post #52

The widespread availability of pornography probably does drive home several extra layers of resentment in someone whose personal track record with courting, dating, and sex has been unsatisfying. At a surface level, it seems to demonstrate that sex -- and not just fruits of performances thereof -- is a transaction, and that the attributes that they bring to the marketplace (appearance, aesthetic, attitude, interests,…

> The widespread availability of pornography probably does drive home several extra layers of resentment in someone whose personal track record with courting, dating, and sex has been unsatisfying. IMHO, much worse is the prohibition of prostitution. In my country, pornography can be found for free on internet but prostitution has recently been completely banned. That puts a young man who watches pornography but has,…

Europe? Don't worry. Become a Muslim. Rape is expected in their culture and nothing won't happen in a court if you got this card blanc.

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#154

Post by dahdum »

enimodas wrote: post #109
dahdum wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Peterson is fervently pro free speech and against politically correct culture, so unsurprising 4chan is smitten. He’s not right wing himself though, he’s a classical liberal with libertarian leanings. I think of him more like Bill Maher without the comedy.

You misunderstand, 4chan doesn't like him. Maybe also see https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-pete... for how his pro free speech is only on a case by case basis.

I read that and don’t see the inconsistency with regards to free speech. If he did call for budget reductions on universities that do not protect it, that’s logically consistent with supporting free speech even if the budget reduction caused less (in his view) non-free speech.

As an American I can’t wrap my head around the Canadian acceptance of criminal penalties to compel speech, based on the evolving views of an extrajudicial tribunal.

It’s terrifying to have that power in the hands of the far right or far left.

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#155

Post by mjfl »

jhardy54 wrote: post #49
hh3k0 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are referring to Jordan Peterson. He said something along those lines in a recent interview. I haven't read the interview, though, so I don't know the context.

Jordan Peterson is a blowhard conservative who's had more success wooing impressionable edgy teenagers than any actual academic pursuits. I don't understand how anyone takes him or his ideas seriously.

actually, he's a tenured professor at UToronto, has 9600 citations, and ran a clinical psychiatry practice for 20 years - including some time at Harvard. So, he's had more success at academic pursuits than like 99.99% of people. The fact that the opposite of what you just said is true, and the truth could have been found a keystroke away on Wikipedia tells me that you consume information from very biased sources and don't question it at all.

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#156

Post by gtowey »

arximboldi wrote: post #134
gtowey wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This skirts a taboo that you can barely talk about: that personal preferences in dating are not judged to the same standard, and that movements of empowerment and positivity are clashing with everyone's free will in pursuing -- and especially articulating -- what they do and don't like. Declining to date someone because they're fat is now firmly seen as a bullying tactic, but not dating someone because they're shor…

While I agree that the message sounds a bit like that, I think he is right about that point. For me an eye opener was Tinder. Where I live it seems like half of the women have something like "Don't even try if you are less than 1.80cm" or something like that in their profile. I am actually relatively tall and happy with my sex life, so I don't take the offense personally, yet I can't help but wonder what would happen…

> yet I can't help but wonder what would happen if a guy wrote something like that about weight or boob size, for example?

Have you browsed men's profiles on Tinder? You're comparing 50% of the actual data to your imagination here.

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#157

Post by te_chris »

natalyarostova wrote: post #148
te_chris wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At a surface level, it seems to demonstrate that sex -- and not just fruits of performances thereof -- is a transaction, and that the attributes that they bring to the marketplace (appearance, aesthetic, attitude, interests, personality, attainment) are unpopular among the potential pool. Amateur pornography exacerbates this, because it appears to suggest that sex, and the mood of sexual adventurousness required to…

Political and social institutions are systems that require system level solutions. A call for individual impetus or responsibility to fix system issues isn't necessarily wrong, but it's usually futile. Consider: some set of features that identify an individual, over time, begin to predict a worse or less ideal state. Is the cause and solution most likely to be a collective individual moral failure, requiring a collec…

I really appreciate this comment.

I agree and this has made me rethink my comment and the angle I took.

The suicide of famous artists such as Chris Cornell and Scott Hutchison - particularly Hutchison - has really shocked me and made me think more widely about what it means to live happily as a man these days. I think we need more people thinking about it positively. And more people need to embrace and encourage civility as you've done.

It's so easy to fling rocks in the culture wars, and satisfying too, but in a junk food way.

As you say, there's a bigger picture.

Thank you.

I like the war and peace reference too ;)

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#158

Post by EdiX »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #78
ar-jan wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False. That's how how was (deliberately?) misinterpreted. But "enforced monogamy" is a term used in e.g. evolutionary biology to describe, basically, just a societal norm of monogamy, maybe enforced by law (polygamy is illegal in most places). No-one's suggesting forcing women to marry someone.

> No-one's suggesting forcing women to marry someone. The "incel" community frequently calls for the state to provide partners to incels. They point to how in the Netherlands, the disabled have access to sex worker services, subsidized by the state. They claim that their inability to find sexual partners is comparable to a disability, and therefore the state should help. Then, some portion of those incels believe tha…

By definition sex workers are the opposite of monogamy.

Also what are you objecting to here? Prostitution in general? Having it subsidized by the state?

This argument:

> They point to how in the Netherlands, the disabled have access to sex worker services, subsidized by the state. They claim that their inability to find sexual partners is comparable to a disability, and therefore the state should help.

This is not absurd. In the Netherlands prostitution is legal, anyone can buy the services of a sex worker. I don't know if it's true that the state subsidizes it for disabled people. If they do I imagine the idea is that having sex is an right and if you can't get it on your own (by either for free or by paying it) the state should supply it. Extending it to incels is not a huge leap.

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#159

Post by sanderjd »

dahdum wrote: post #87
sanderjd wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a transcript or other textual artifact of his explanation for what he meant? I'm pretty tired of slogging through these tedious videos of these people pontificating at us while talking to each other.

He responded to the NYT article. https://jordanbpeterson.com/media/on-the-new-york-times-and-...

Thanks for the link!

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#160

Post by Sharlin »

ovao wrote: post #74
Sharlin wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything in moderation is fine basically by definition, including injecting sulfuric acid. Botulinum toxin, the most potent poison known to mankind and lethal at concentrations of a few ng/kg, is used by celebrities to smooth wrinkles. It's all about dosage.

Perhaps it’s not the best example. Replace it with something more specific if you wish, like “placing live fragmentation grenades in one’s mouth in moderation”.

Eh, live grenades are dangerous because their dosage is discrete. There's a qualitative difference. And if you argue that any amount of porn is harmful, well, that's a really strong claim and requires better arguments than silly analogues.
Post reply on HN