Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube • Hacker News Board

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#481

Post by tsol » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 4:40 PM UTC

kstenerud wrote: post #471

tsol wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The Muslim rules about women that the Taliban abide by are a lower level of civility. Full stop. And exactly what rules are those? If you're gonna call people less civilized at least have the decency to be specific. Muslims make up 25% of the world population and many Muslim women find modesty to be an empowering personal choice. I know many myself. The idea that they're brainwashed or uncivilized just echoes of the…

Those are the rules that emerge as a byproduct of history as it marches onward. When it comes to human rights, one can note that what is considered acceptable behavior towards a human changes in one direction only. We don't go back towards saying that slavery is acceptable. We don't go back towards saying that racism is acceptable. We don't go back towards saying that executions are acceptable. And we're also not goi…

So basically you skipped over everything I said and made a straw man of "modesty is equivocal to policing women and deciding they must have less opportunity to men". Like you literally cannot consider the subtleties of what some non western believe. Forcing women to believe what you do.. "for freedom" isn't feminist. This is just bigoted intolerant nonsense, and your righteous indignation doesn't make it okay. You would get kicked out of most western feminist groups for saying this stuff. Women aren't uncivilized because you think their views aren't worth discussing and because you cannot understand the difference between women valuing modesty and someone else mandating it. It's exactly the same type of paternalistic thinking that religious leaders use to tell women what to think and what they can't think

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#482

Post by tsol » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 4:51 PM UTC

igetspam wrote: post #475

tsol wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not ask then instead of paternalistically assuming you know why they think that way and how to fix them? If women feel a certain way it's still their right to. I disagree with this idea that if a woman agrees she's correct and if not she was just brainwashed by society. This feels like just another way for men to take away agency from women. I imagine they have a multitude of reasons they feel that way. Some may…

These aren't _my_ assumptions. There is a world of research on these topics. All people can and do have their own opinions but when we're talking about oppressed people (women are oppressed), we have to follow the path by asking "why?" * Why do little girls suddenly start to ask if "boys are better" when they get to school? * Why do we feel the need to tell people out opinions about how they look? * Why is a tattoo o…

>It's not about whether or not feelings or opinions are right though, it's about what you'd feel or think if you weren't subjected to it constantly

It's not about whether their opinions are right, it's about where they're valid. Women can have opinions that aren't correct, just like men are free to be wrong. When you say it's about what they would feel if they weren't subjected to it constantly is totally subjective. Some might say women would run around naked because it's more comfortable without societies pressure, some say they would cover up because taking off clothing is a societal pressure to appease the male gaze. But then again, the assumption that all women would think that same is just more simplifying them and their views.

In reality it'd probably be a mix, because women can dislike other women without it being because society brainwashed them to. Saying they wouldn't ever be rude to one another if not for society feels like that patriarchal idea that women are all innocent flowers that must be protected from bad influences, rather than they're normal people who are nice and mean and everything in between. If you're gonna go into the territory of "what if everything were different" you can't also declare you know exactly what would happen. And yes society has taken a lot of agency away from women, but the solution isn't to take agency away from them in service of feminism. This just leads to a different set of problems for women

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#483

Post by tsol » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 4:56 PM UTC

numpad0 wrote: post #470

tsol wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It shouldn't matter to whom? The key here is advertisers don't want to be associated with that. You cab very well respect and accept her, but if a private corporation funding or hosting her videos has an issue with it we can't force them on moral grounds. That's policing other folks as well

> The key here is advertisers don't want to be associated with that. Has this ever been substantiated or verified publicly? Which industry are those and why?

Not that I know of, but I doubt any company will ever want to come out and say "hey btw we don't like revealing images of women associated with our product". It'd be something they request of their ad partners, in this case Google, and I'd imagine it'd be something companies would want to keep under wraps. No need to expose themselves to unneeded controversy.

But we do know that many companies do feel that way, which is why many companies try to create a "family friendly" image. And as Google has said themselves, why many don't want to be associated with "non family friendly" images

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#484

Post by tsol » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 4:59 PM UTC

loup-vaillant wrote: post #472

tsol wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like everyone is just guessing at this point. She's in this thread right now, why not ask her? Everyone is fighting over one another for women's rights while ignoring the actual woman

> She's in this thread right now, why not ask her? Because this is Hacker News. We can't summon her with @SexyCyborg or /u/SexyCyborg like we can on Reddit. Heck, you won't even be notified of my reply, and will have to actively check out your threads. I understand how this policy may reduce heated arguments, but it makes it harder to connect with people, and I've never managed to have an actual conversation spanning…

Oh I actually wasn't aware of the. Yes I agree.. I can see how it avoids arguments a bit, but it'd be really useful in situations like this where one wants to single out certain voices. Seems otherwise they get drowned out by the masses of posts

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#485

Post by tdeck » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 5:06 PM UTC

nottorp wrote: post #244

solarmist wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me start with I completely support you and love your Twitter and videos. But this feels uncalled for. > Yelling at me that I have it coming because I'm a lying whore trying to cheat poor innocent simps out of their money isn't going to make it any easier to offer a complete backstory. No one’s said anything like that. From what I’ve seen, HN is generally pretty supportive and respectful of you, even if they disag…

> No one’s said anything like that. Seen lots of comments implying that.

At the time the parent wrote this those comments hadn't yet been posted.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#486

Post by bradlys » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 5:26 PM UTC

igetspam wrote: post #448

dfxm12 wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

generally we spend a lot of time policing other folk's bodies and attire, and for what? I'd guess it stems from some feelings of insecurity.

Speak to feminist scholars. It's far more entrenched than that. We have numerous systems deeply entrenched in our model for society that encourage this, specifically against women. We create incentives for insecurity and then prey on it. Keeping women under a microscope, consciously or not, maintains the status quo in business, government, public spaces, etc and as you follow the path back, it almost always has roots…

Depends on your position as a male. Barack Obama got made fun of for a tan/beige suit he wore once.

Men get made fun of for what they wear all the time. So, I don’t get this argument that no one cares what men wear because we all certainly do. See mens wardrobe options vs womens. Compare the two - look at what is normal for one and normal for another. You’ll see one has far more selection than the other.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#487

Post by colechristensen » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 5:37 PM UTC

Seattle3503 wrote: post #217

pjc50 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> puritans or religious nutjobs They absolutely are still active and doing write-in campaigns about this; that's where FOSTA/SESTA came from. The ability of evangelicals to sway elections by having a large number of people in a pulpit filter bubble is greater than that of tech in the US.

A Christian group Exodus Cry got Pornhub's payment processing capabilities revoked over involuntary porn hysteria.

The involuntary porn thing seemed pretty real and the not so fringe group… er the New York Times certainly helped.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#488

Post by themaninthedark » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 5:39 PM UTC

tsol wrote: post #456

WesternWind wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have the skills, it generally shouldn't matter what clothes you wear. Even if you don't have the skills, it generally shouldn't matter what clothes you wear. Like don't strap knives to your arms, and do wear a good mask, but generally we spend a lot of time policing other folk's bodies and attire, and for what?

It shouldn't matter to whom? The key here is advertisers don't want to be associated with that. You cab very well respect and accept her, but if a private corporation funding or hosting her videos has an issue with it we can't force them on moral grounds. That's policing other folks as well

>The key here is advertisers don't want to be associated with that.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/social_issues-july-dec13...

Advertising itself is that. Sex sells, or at least everyone believes sex sells.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#489

Post by colechristensen » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 5:45 PM UTC

4gotunameagain wrote: post #204

colechristensen wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you think a Roman temple or senator weren’t commissioning statues of beautiful naked women for effectively marketing purposes? Like people who think anything Mozart or Shakespeare is high art but fail to realize both are full of dirty jokes.

Past achievements should be considered within their timescale. If I build a water clock now, it would be cool. But Ctesibius building a water clock in 250 BC, now that's fucking impressive. 3D printing a human bust is cool. Sculpting a human bust three thousand years ago? That's incredible. Will those videos or that dressmaker's dummy have any artistic value in the future ? Please.

A modern day engineer designing and building 3d printers then scanning themselves in to building a physical model of themselves is I think roughly equivalent to a 2000 year old sculptor learning the by then commodity trade of stonecarving.

Both skilled artisans doing things which did require a lot of training but also not uncommon in their own age. Let’s not infantilize the past and pretend everything they did was mindblowing.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#490

Post by 3np » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 6:02 PM UTC

tsol wrote: post #465

3np wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just want to point out that many Western countries and cultures don't share this hysteria and shaming around nakedness or female empowerment. Which doesn't mean that gendered power structures don't exist or that you see naked boobs everywhere in the summer city. Showing naked bodies in various contexts on public television is not controversial in many Western countries.

And not all countries share then same culture of embracing nakedness. It's odd how they never get mentioned. Their views are valid as well, whether you agree or not. It's differing social mores. Defining what social rules are acceptable and what aren't (and hint hint it's our rules that are the good ones) seems like another way of dismissing foreign cultures, which unfortunately feels like an an age old coming from t…

Of course. I'd argue that even expressions not embraced should still by default tolerated, as opposed to banned, censored, or demonetized.

I can't say I know of a "perfect" nation in this sense, but there's absolutely varying degrees of range between "embraced ideas" and "accepted expressions". Both the USA and Afghanistan rank particularly low in an international context, there.

My main point with the comment you're replying to is that either way, the idiosyncrasies presented by GP as "Western" are more American, or at least anglo-christian (in lack of a better fuzzy word).