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

Under the skin of OnlyFans

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 615 posts

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#531

Post by dragonwriter »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #525
edmundsauto wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP was explicitly making a utilitarian argument, one that did not present relative weights or other assumptions about population size. On that, it failed to make its point, which is what my comment was about. If you wish to say that most philosophical arguments are people reinforcing their previously held beliefs, I would not argue with you.

> OP was explicitly making a utilitarian argument No I wasn't. I was making an HN comment, not engaging in moral philosophy, which I find boring and arbitrary. It's no coincidence that the preferred moral philosophy under any regime is one that is favorable to that regime. Thus the Greeks had virtue ethics, Nazis a bastardized Nietzscheanism, and our contemporary society Rawlsianism. I actually agree with your critic…

> and our contemporary society Rawlsianism.

Uh, what?

Since when is that the preferred moral philosophy in contemporary (presumably American?) society?

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#532

Post by leppr »

FabHK wrote: post #527
sudosysgen wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most work in the world is closer to Coal Mining I'm afraid. Losing your health by working 40+ hours a week is much worse than the baseline. As far as the extraction of value not being exploitative, this argument simply applies to literally every condition of exploitation, and it is very possible to be employed without having a dominant superior. It would be good for you to arrive to a better definition of exploitatio…

> plainly most relationships of employment do involve some sort of exploitation Well, that's already a much more defensible statement than "All work under capitalism is exploitative". But I'd want to add that not all relationships (and that includes work relationships) fall neatly into a oppressor vs. oppressed or exploitative "dominant superior" vs. exploited worker scheme. (Who'd have thought that you find me decon…

> All work under capitalism is exploitative and all work that involves emotional labor (e.g. all service work) can be particularly damaging, but sex work is its own separate beast [...].

Instead of reading the first part of the sentence as a statement of some kind of general truth, I read it as an axiom to the rest of the sentence in which it relatively made very good common sense.

I guess this difference in reading might explain the downvotes I was wondering about.

There are good reasons for this HN guideline: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."

After watching the first linked video (and finding it to be mostly unsubstantiated meta-rambling and call to arms), I'm assuming hnbad might actually consider the "all work under capitalism is exploitative" as some truth they rally behind. That's something I disagree strongly against, and thus would be tempted to blindly downvote. Yet, by taking a "favorable" (for me) interpretation of the post, instead of trying to guess what side the poster aligns on, the point of the argumentation remains and I'm enriched from having read it.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#533

Post by ipaddr »

aniforprez wrote: post #78
ipaddr wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's like you see a girl you think is hot and you ask people about her and follow her home. Great you know where she lives. You have seen her naked and paid for her pictures. You are worried someone is going be as smart as you but take it a bit too far and go knock on her door? And what.. Ask her for a date? Kill her? I would think if you go to the same school you could follow home anyone. And you have the opportunit…

Uh stalkers? Sex pests? Rapists? How does being a "low level star" not mean there is still risk? So callous...

Aren't those the same risks for anyone famous from a news reporter to mega pop star? This is just on a much lower level.

Are you against women using their looks and charm to get famous?

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#534

Post by jeffreyrogers »

dragonwriter wrote: post #531
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> OP was explicitly making a utilitarian argument No I wasn't. I was making an HN comment, not engaging in moral philosophy, which I find boring and arbitrary. It's no coincidence that the preferred moral philosophy under any regime is one that is favorable to that regime. Thus the Greeks had virtue ethics, Nazis a bastardized Nietzscheanism, and our contemporary society Rawlsianism. I actually agree with your critic…

> and our contemporary society Rawlsianism. Uh, what? Since when is that the preferred moral philosophy in contemporary (presumably American?) society?

It's shorthand. Rawls is certainly compatible with whatever moral philosophy is prevalent throughout American media/legal discourse.

Edit: The reason I chose Rawls is because no one will agree on what moral framework modern society operates under but Rawls is compatible with most such proposals.

Edit 2: I am interested in what you would propose as an alternative, however.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#535

Post by sudosysgen »

FabHK wrote: post #527
sudosysgen wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most work in the world is closer to Coal Mining I'm afraid. Losing your health by working 40+ hours a week is much worse than the baseline. As far as the extraction of value not being exploitative, this argument simply applies to literally every condition of exploitation, and it is very possible to be employed without having a dominant superior. It would be good for you to arrive to a better definition of exploitatio…

> plainly most relationships of employment do involve some sort of exploitation Well, that's already a much more defensible statement than "All work under capitalism is exploitative". But I'd want to add that not all relationships (and that includes work relationships) fall neatly into a oppressor vs. oppressed or exploitative "dominant superior" vs. exploited worker scheme. (Who'd have thought that you find me decon…

All work relationships of employement fit into a relationship of subordination. Actually, where I live here they are legally recognized in the framework of a relationship of subordination. They're fundamentally a relationship where the worker is subservient to the employer.

There are exceptions, yes. But they are the exceptions that proves the rule.

Of course if you work for yourself or if you work as the owner of a company then you're not oppressing yourself, but that's not what people mean when they say "work under capitalism".

All in all I think it is a fine starting point for the argument they made, and it can be "repaired" even if you precise a lot more.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#536

Post by ipaddr »

tsimionescu wrote: post #105
ipaddr wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's like you see a girl you think is hot and you ask people about her and follow her home. Great you know where she lives. You have seen her naked and paid for her pictures. You are worried someone is going be as smart as you but take it a bit too far and go knock on her door? And what.. Ask her for a date? Kill her? I would think if you go to the same school you could follow home anyone. And you have the opportunit…

Or, some stalker might try to blackmail her with making this information public. Some professor might lower her grades because he is outraged by her behavior. Some colleagues might distance themselves from her because they view this as immoral. Given the status of sex work, there are many reasons why many who do it do not want to associate their private identity with it.

You can't live in fear of other people's prejudices. Sex work is nothing to be ashamed about.

You can't blackmail someone making a few bucks on fansonly. If you tried to do it to someone at the top who had money the platform, police and dmca notices would come flying your way.

Professors marking you low because of fansonly seems like a stretch. They can mark you low because you sleep in their class and are more likely to.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#537

Post by jeffreyrogers »

edmundsauto wrote: post #529
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> OP was explicitly making a utilitarian argument No I wasn't. I was making an HN comment, not engaging in moral philosophy, which I find boring and arbitrary. It's no coincidence that the preferred moral philosophy under any regime is one that is favorable to that regime. Thus the Greeks had virtue ethics, Nazis a bastardized Nietzscheanism, and our contemporary society Rawlsianism. I actually agree with your critic…

You may find the formalization boring and arbitrary, but independent of that, your argument was one of utility. An alternative argument, if you wanted to avoid such droll dry topics, would have been to say "I don't want OnlyFans to be a thing." Instead, you made an argument based on moral philosophy to support your opinion. That's totally fine! It also doesn't change the fact that your comment evaluated the moral uti…

You could make this type of criticism of literally any moral argument (swapping out utility for whatever the underlying criteria is in alternative moral frameworks). This is why post-modernist philosophy has become dominant in the modern world. There is no successful response to it other than to ignore it and and realize that it is all, "boring and arbitrary" as I said earlier.

Edit: Also, as I learned from a post-modern adjacent philosopher, Richard Rorty, there is sometimes benefit in making arguments in different moral frameworks even if you believe they are all ultimately arbitrary: different people are convinced by different lines of reasoning. But ultimately, I post on HN because it is fun.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#538

Post by mmdoda »

theshrike79 wrote: post #479
chrisjarvis wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is low quality comparison. Whether or not you agree with the high goals of the (US?) military; for a great many people it is a solid career, a role model they never had, and possibly a stepping stone out of an awful life. Also a very small percentage of these are actually fighting in infantry risking their lives. This is much different than saying "Ooh youre 18 now, look how much money these 3 people make sellin…

Getting naked on camera vs killing people in foreign countries - I know which one I'd like my children to pick.

Getting abused by pimps vs protecting their mother country - I know which one I'd like my children to pick.

Choosing the extreme version of one and the benign version of the other seems pretty handy.

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#539

Post by thinkingemote »

golergka wrote: post #204
thinkingemote wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>people are free to do what they'd like Your post seems to suggest you would not be happy for your kids to do what they like when they get older. Often people seem to be happy for other peoples children to do what they like but not theirs. To me this seems like the wrong attitude towards ones neighbours. There's 2 options therefore, for me, if I am honest with my family: disapprove of porn as a life choice or approve…

> Often people seem to be happy for other peoples children to do what they like but not theirs. To me this seems like the wrong attitude towards ones neighbours. That strikes me as odd. There are some areas of life that have competition on them. I accept the fact that there are "losers" in life, but I want my kids to be "winners". I love my kids more than I love others, and want better things for them — who wouldn't?…

Do you want your neighbors to be winners too?

Re: Under the skin of OnlyFans

#540

Post by dalbasal »

standardUser wrote: post #516
dalbasal wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well... we get to some sort of "then" regardless. I'm all for challenging norms and striving forward, sexual liberation and such. I just don't think only fans represents that better, more accepting world. Do you? Seems perfectly reasonable that OP doesn't want his kids engaged in it.

I strongly disagree and would argue that we usually only get to "then" by active struggle, not just by waiting around. And yes, I absolutely do think that normalization of sex, both for profit and otherwise, is an indispensable part of a more accepting world. OnlyFans has already helped move that needle considerably.

Active struggle to get more people onto OF?
Post reply on HN