181–190 of 511 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope. This confirms it. "Sex" as fine as long as it's not too explicit and mostly not actually about sex, but about keeping you insecure to buy stuff.
Everything in the world is ultimately about sex. Except sex. Sex is about power. - Oscar Wilde
[0] https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/24106 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Michels
There's a libertarian ethos that says anything between two consenting adults is the their business. I'm more and more skeptical not just of that principle but the self awareness of the people who purport to support it. I know that the choices I think are correct may not be - either for myself, for everyone or for any particular person. For that reason I don't think that anyone should run my life or that I should be t…
The issue at hand is not a law. They have issues too, i.e. abortion debacle in US, but at least they are subject to democratic scrutiny,
It's the fact that an arbitrary and capricious decision by two private corporations or perhaps moralistic CEO gets to dictate cultural norms for entire society.
If visa and mastercard decide to block you, your business / income is dead.
Sometimes they will do it at a loss to themselves - like what happened with Tumbler - it was sold and new owners removed porn, started shadowbanning, etc. It is now mostly dead and was sold mutiple times at lower and lower value. Hundreds of millions were wiped out for the sake of marality police.
This while thing reeks of Feudalism.
"It also establishes a precedent, allowing private companies to set opaque, moralizing, and arbitrary censorship terms without oversight." Yes, this is done with other things as well. On one hand, I think that the free market would create payment processors willing to work with the groups rejected by others. On the other hand, it seems that many financial things are set by international organizations, which the proce…
Not organizations, governments. Financial rules set by governments to cut down on money laundering, terrorist funding and other "financial crimes" are why payment processing is rife with liabilities and why Visa and banks have such strict rules. Without these rules banks would happily work with anyone that has money.
"It also establishes a precedent, allowing private companies to set opaque, moralizing, and arbitrary censorship terms without oversight." Yes, this is done with other things as well. On one hand, I think that the free market would create payment processors willing to work with the groups rejected by others. On the other hand, it seems that many financial things are set by international organizations, which the proce…
> Yes, this is done with other things as well.
Politics makes strange bedfellows.
Complain that twitter or facebook is censoring things and you'll get told that the government should not be able to dictate to private companies who can or cannot be excluded.
Allow private companies to exclude a significant chunk of the population, and those same groups will complain of censorship.
Both the Right and the Left have a common interest in forcing private companies to not exclude certain people.
Too bad that too few people see the value in regulating de-facto monopolies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you've missed the point here. The poster is saying that sex work is vulnerable to psychological damage, but isn't considered as legitimate as military-related careers which are also vulnerable to psychological damage. The poster is questioning society which determines sex work to be less legitimate as a career than military work or any other career.
Yes, I am agreeing with this position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You forgot the /s tag.
Hah, except that you get more of what you subsidize. Besides being immoral, it’s destructive to society.
(Actually criminalizing the exchange of valuable consideration for sex hits the problem that things that look suspiciously like it are endemic in hetero dating and "giving money to your tinder date for a taxi" becomes an offence)
"It also establishes a precedent, allowing private companies to set opaque, moralizing, and arbitrary censorship terms without oversight." Yes, this is done with other things as well. On one hand, I think that the free market would create payment processors willing to work with the groups rejected by others. On the other hand, it seems that many financial things are set by international organizations, which the proce…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having built a neobank. It’s fact that pornography is intertwined with sex trafficking, organized crime, revenge porn and other illegal activities. Regulators crack down on financial institutions if they are caught providing services for illegal activities.
Yeah, and it is a fact that cartel and authoritarian statist money laundering is intertwined with banking. See just about any story about Deutsche in the last decade. I've worked with sex-related sites before. And you're right that there are sleazy people in that industry. But it really isn't hard to distinguish, especially when you can see their payment stream. Without moralist obsessions with sex, nobody would care…
That is an observably incoherent claim. Sex is a subject that virtually everyone obsesses over and cares about to a greater or lesser extent and literally everyone that does is moralist about it. You, for example, evidently hold the moral position that prostitution, pornography, and other sex-related commercial activity is either good or at least not bad.
I investigated this a few years ago in Australia. Sex work is legal in Australia, kinda. It is legal to exchange sexual services for money, but supporting and assisting such a transaction is illegal. So a landlord who rents a property to a sex worker is breaking the law. A payment processor who processes the card transaction is breaking the law, and so on. There are some clauses around managing establishments that ba…
I’m confused — why can’t the sex workers just claim to be independent masseuses or something else innocuous like that?
Ask all those CBDs sellers that pretended they were selling "supplements", takes a while but eventually.. all shut down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but there are no shortage of people who also end up with psychological damage from their jobs outside of sex work Not to labour the point but: cf Soldiers. Men can take the emotional and physical toll but women can't? edit: just to expand on this, talk to people who have been on military tours about the horrors of draging dead bodies (that they might have killed) from the road side, the pain of loosing friends, bei…
Not sure if you're intentionally stopping before the obvious elephant in the room. The army has always been glorified as a country without soldiers is free pickings. It's practically a necessity, as current day tensions show. Sex work isn't a necessity. Worse, regarding prostitution and porn, most of it's clientele remains secretive to avoid shame. Even if sex was considered a necessity, the stigma alone would preven…
That is your own conlcusion. Historically armies were "staffed" by nobles. You couldn't be a soldier if you didn't have land or title, so it started out as something of prestigious and exclusive (as an alternative explanation why it was/is glorified).
My point isn't that we should see sex work as important as being a soldier (though this is still somewhat subjective). My point is that people do things _as jobs_ that can have psycological impacts. Soldiers are not treated in some different class to other jobs. They are treated essentially the same: people have contracts, insurance, pensions, etc.
why is sex work different?
> The fact you specifically discriminate between men and women gives it away
Thank you for pointing this out.
> We consider both the purity of women and the willingness for men to sacrifice themselves and be assertive as virtues.
Who is we?
> Now turn it around and you have your answer as to the status quo for almost our entire existence across the entire globe.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.