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

The Internet Is for Porn

themargins.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 460 posts

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#451

Post by fnord77 »

jodrellblank wrote: post #264
fnord77 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if the transactional nature of the work has an impact on the workers' relationships with people. there's always a cost.

Do you ask the same thing about waitressing and front of house retail work? Forced to put on a smile, be submissive and obedient and make a pretend connection to the customer purely to ease a transaction and get a larger tip? Does that have an impact on relationships with people?

yeah, those professions probably have a negative impact on relationships, too.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#452

Post by Viliam1234 »

noobermin wrote: post #341
fullshark wrote: post #44

This guy seems to be operating on the assumption that MEN are to blame for pornography's status as a social pariah. As if mothers everywhere would be proud of their daughters producing pornography on Onlyfans if only their husbands weren't in their ear shaming them.

Men are a big part of it but patriarchy is promulgated by all of society, not just men.

Then perhaps "patriarchy" is a misleading name.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#453

Post by apta »

ankit219 wrote: post #65

NB: Writing from a perspective of someone who grew up in a conservative society (Tier 2-3 city in India), and may have a different take. Porn has become one of those buzzwords which triggers an emotional response and is used as a political tool by everyone. ("Taking away our culture and morally corrupting the young generation" is a common refrain heard around me by prominent people even today). I feel that anything w…

> Taking away our culture and morally corrupting the young generation

It's 100% correct.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#454

Post by mbrodersen »

mindslight wrote: post #433
mbrodersen wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure I understand your argument. Are you saying that it was actually journalists that were running around shooting the kids, and not kids wanting to take revenge with guns they had easy access to? And that without easy access to guns the kinds would have killed the same number of people with, say, a kitchen knife? Really?

It seems like you willfully misunderstood my argument, as talking about journalists shooting kids is some obvious caricature. Society is held together by people's values and individual adherence to shared rules - aka culture. Kids, like everyone else (eg cops), are acting out cultural norms, being mostly defined by mass media. Entertainment media mostly consists of easy-to-write fight scenes where the main characters…

Most rich western countries don’t have mass shootings in schools. Even though the media you describe is the same. So obviously the media is not the reason why. So what is the difference then? It’s simple: kids in the US have easy access to guns. Not so in other rich western countries. If kids in other rich countries had easy access to guns, there would be school shootings there as well.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#455

Post by mbrodersen »

lanternfish wrote: post #425
mbrodersen wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I understand it correctly, porn actors are adults, working under signed, legal contracts that specify, in extreme explicit details, exactly what they will be doing during a shoot. If they were actually forced to do it, then it would be a criminal act of rape, something that would very quickly bring down producers responsible for it. Do you have any evidence that porn actors in general are forced to work?

Check out Doe vs. Girlsdoporncom. The decision finds that the company used manipulation and intimidation to force young women into signing contracts they weren't supposed to understand which were contrary to spoken agreements. This company was big (maybe still is) and isn't an outlier in the space.

A single example is not evidence for it happening in general. There are plenty examples of factories dangerously mistreating their workers. That doesn’t mean that they all do it or that it is common practice.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#456

Post by mbrodersen »

cbozeman wrote: post #431
mbrodersen wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You clearly have very limited experience with woman. Claiming that all woman are or are not X (for any X) shows that your view of woman is simple enough to almost be a caricature. I am interested in what evidence you have for “we’re biologically programmed to understand ...” I have never heard or seen any evidence for that. So it would be interesting to see what evidence you have for such a strong broad statement?

> So it would be interesting to see what evidence you have for such a strong broad statement? The entirety of the field of evolutionary psychology. I had a huge post typed up, but I realize that because you immediately went on the attack: > You clearly have very limited experience with woman. You're not interested in actually learning anything. You think you already know. You think you've read all the literature. You…

Here is a different way to put it: I don’t recognise woman that I have known, loved, made love to etc. in your description of woman. Which makes me believe that your arguments are not correct for woman in general. Unless of course the woman in my life (by some extraordinary coincidence) happens to be the only woman on the planet not fitting into your description. Highly unlikely but of course possible. I by the way recommend reading the papers showing that most “evidence” in Psychology is not reproducible i.e. not scientific. I would caution against basing your conclusions on them.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#457

Post by notsureaboutpg »

tacommonsense wrote: post #246
seibelj wrote: post #16

This is a super good read, if you have 10 minutes I highly recommend. I have absolutely no problems with pornography and if my own daughter decided this was the industry she wanted to enter I would help jumpstart her career anyway I could just as I would any career she chose. My wife and I are very free spirits and the previous HN discussions on Pornhub / NYT article made me feel like I was taking crazy pills and liv…

> I have absolutely no problems with pornography and if my own daughter decided this was the industry she wanted to enter I would help jumpstart her career anyway I could just as I would any career she chose. > My wife and I are very free spirits and the previous HN discussions on Pornhub / NYT article made me feel like I was taking crazy pills and living in 1850’s Victorian England. The pearl clutching was so intens…

Yes these people are absolutely disgusting and when pressed they say "Woah, are youjudging people for being comfortable with their sexual expression???"

Yes, yes we are. The most comfortable life isn't the most worthy life to live. We don't value people for making money off sex because that's degenerate.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#458

Post by memling »

bsanr2 wrote: post #295
dragonwriter wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm curious about this: is there any record of actual Puritans persecuting someone explicitly for having a facial tattoo? Like “fundamentalism”, “Puritanism” is probably more commonly (outside of specific technical discussions of sectarian history or theology) used in a sense which does not refer specifically to the theological group the term technically denotes but a broader (but overlapping, not a superset) group…

Correct, as to my intent (I probably should not have capitalized the P). The taboo nature of facial tattoos is simply the evolution of a revulsion towards tattoos in general among "polite" American society. Until very recently, visible tattoos (and before that, tattoos of any kind) could be disqualifying for public-facing positions.

> Correct, as to my intent (I probably should not have capitalized the P). The taboo nature of facial tattoos is simply the evolution of a revulsion towards tattoos in general among "polite" American society. Until very recently, visible tattoos (and before that, tattoos of any kind) could be disqualifying for public-facing positions.

Thanks for clarifying; appreciated!

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#459

Post by pksebben »

fuzxi wrote: post #401
pksebben wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps there's a good reason for that. Not all ideas are created equal, and the proliferation of mass shootings in the states should serve as a strong signal that our gun laws are dumb. Somehow, the conversation has stalled here because some people actually believe they're going to protect their freedoms with violence. You know, by fighting against a government equipped with stealth bombers and death drones and navy…

Interesting that a soldier is ignoring both A) the incredible power of guerilla warfare (see: Vietnam War), and B) the horrifyingly bad optics, and possible sanctions, that would result from the US actually utilizing unrestrained military might against their own citizens.

A) We are engaging, currently, in a number of asymmetric (read: guerilla) wars right now, with an unfathomable level of success - see Afghanistan, Iraq et al. We have learned a lot and gotten a lot better at things since Vietnam (not to mention, we train on American soil, so the guerilla advantage is more or less lost, there).

B) That's exactly what I'm saying! It's the optics and the structure of political ownership that prevents such a civil war, not deterrence, as the second amendment was designed to implement.

Re: The Internet Is for Porn

#460

Post by pksebben »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #442
pksebben wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps there's a good reason for that. Not all ideas are created equal, and the proliferation of mass shootings in the states should serve as a strong signal that our gun laws are dumb. Somehow, the conversation has stalled here because some people actually believe they're going to protect their freedoms with violence. You know, by fighting against a government equipped with stealth bombers and death drones and navy…

You basically say that rebellion can never be successful.

That is precisely what I am saying.
Post reply on HN