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

Sex censorship killed the internet we love

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 520 posts

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#241

Post by travisoneill1 »

bambax wrote: post #172

In general, superstitious behavior tends to win over non-superstitious behavior, even if it is a small minority . For example, say there are two communities in a given town; one of the community has decided that black doors were evil, and won't go through them. The other community doesn't care. Shops that have black doors lose the business of the superstitious community; even if that community is small, it simply mak…

Yeah the logic checks out, but is fighting it any better? In this case there are basically 2 options. Create a competing superstition that says black doors are good, or make laws requiring doors to be painted black. So now you either have 2 superstitions or something a whole lot worse than a superstition. In this case it's probably better to just live with not having black doors.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#242

Post by faissaloo »

scarejunba wrote: post #189
faissaloo wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People use this explanation as a copout, have you considered why a religion would have such an attitude?

It's superstitious nonsense. Presumably it's historical and a means to control people.

Lets assume so, why specifically would these these rules be useful in controlling people?

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#243

Post by peterwwillis »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #127

I find the US prudishness thing so fascinating. I'm travelling at the moment, and meeting lots of Americans (and Europeans for contrast). There's definitely a huge difference in tolerance for swearing and blasphemy. Also several well-educated and seemingly intelligent Americans who hold strong racist opinions. But that's another subject. I guess it all comes down to the religion. Americans do seem to be more religiou…

Americans always were, and continue to be, Puritanical.

Since the late 60's we split into Puritans and Puritanically anti-Puritans. There's not much middle ground.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#244

Post by harimau777 »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #196
dancek wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, no major Christian church teaches that enjoying sex is a sin. The Roman Catholic Church does teach that contraception is sinful. No major Protestant church does.

Lust is considered one of the deadly sins. I'm not sure where the line between "lust" and "acceptable desire" is, and I suspect most Christians aren't either - although marriage and procreation usually seem to be involved somewhere. There are far more unconditionally sex-positive religions.

From a theological perspective (which may be different from the social norms that a given church teaches) I think the answer would be that it is bad if it is outside of marriage, not done in love (e.g. objectifying someone), or if it becomes more important to someone than God (which would be considered idolatry).

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#245

Post by faissaloo »

Tsubasachan wrote: post #160
faissaloo wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is thst no one's actually saying 'sex bad', it's just that sex is a private endevour while violence is more universal.

In America maybe? I don't live in a violent society, you can spend decades not getting involved in violence but every spring there is sex in the air.

I live in Britain actually.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#246

Post by megous »

beobab wrote: post #205
marcus_holmes wrote: post #127

I find the US prudishness thing so fascinating. I'm travelling at the moment, and meeting lots of Americans (and Europeans for contrast). There's definitely a huge difference in tolerance for swearing and blasphemy. Also several well-educated and seemingly intelligent Americans who hold strong racist opinions. But that's another subject. I guess it all comes down to the religion. Americans do seem to be more religiou…

Enjoying sex isn’t a sin. Sex is supposed to be held in the highest regard. It’s a wonderful and joyous thing. The point is, I believe, to avoid cheapening it, making it less than the truly awesome thing it is. It’s supposed to be a priceless gift shared with your true love. Packaging it and selling it makes it less valuable. I believe that if you approach the subject with that mindset, a lot of the decisions that so…

You can have both. Same as there are high end restaurants and drivethroughs.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#247

Post by mirimir »

jdietrich wrote: post #232
Hendrikto wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just read a plot summary of Visitor Q… seems completely and utterly ridiculous. Who even comes up with such grotesque stuff?

>Who even comes up with such grotesque stuff? An internationally-renowned and highly influential director.

Takashi Miike reminds me a lot (in various ways) of Luis Buñuel, David Cronenberg, Jean-Luc Godard, David Lynch, Sam Peckinpah, and Quentin Tarantino. And (yes) Akira Kurosawa.

His 2010 "13 Assassins" is a true classic of the samurai genre. Clearly "Seven Samurai" level.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#248

Post by faissaloo »

JBiserkov wrote: post #159
faissaloo wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is thst no one's actually saying 'sex bad', it's just that sex is a private endevour while violence is more universal.

The Church is definitely saying sex is bad, sex is a sin, must only be used for making children, not for pleasure, even in married couples. It's insane.

Sex clearly isn't a sin unto itself because it's needed for making children, so it's not that. If this was it why wouldn't pornography of married couples be a-ok?

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#249

Post by darkerside »

bambax wrote: post #172

In general, superstitious behavior tends to win over non-superstitious behavior, even if it is a small minority . For example, say there are two communities in a given town; one of the community has decided that black doors were evil, and won't go through them. The other community doesn't care. Shops that have black doors lose the business of the superstitious community; even if that community is small, it simply mak…

It's not superstitious, it's a measure of caring. The superstitious in this case care very strongly about not having black doors, and they vote with their wallets. The other folks do not give a damn either way, and so shops stop painting doors black.

Imagine a small subgroup decides they really, really love black doors. They will pay double price for a black door because they are so hard to find. Shop owner will satisfy that demand or lose that market to a competitor who's willing to step over that line.

Capitalism is an elegant system for resource allocation, really. I wish more people understood it.

Re: Sex censorship killed the internet we love

#250

Post by saalweachter »

renholder wrote: post #227
jacobush wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only on the back burner, but as some kind of weird, separate thing. No one is connecting the dots to the puritans. History is taught like the news is reported, disconnected incidents. I am reminded of the children in Mad Max reciting how they crashed on their airplane.

>Not only on the back burner, but as some kind of weird, separate thing. No one is connecting the dots to the puritans. True. It's why they repeated the very same prosecution complex trap during McCarthyism. Same finger-pointing scenario, it was just a different boogeyman to be afraid of - so it wasn't "the same".

Hate to break it to you, but witch hunts were a European thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt#Early_Modern_Europe

The Salem affair is notable as "that one time we did the thing"; also, we hung our witches, we didn't burn them.

Post reply on HN