6 ms·

America has something like 330 million people in it. I assure you, there are a lot of us who see the basic logic around this and think we should stop worrying a

by r_smart 10y ago

America has something like 330 million people in it. I assure you, there are a lot of us who see the basic logic around this and think we should stop worrying about the occasional nipple. In this particular instance though, it's worse than your complaint. We're talking about censoring an iconic image captured from an important time in our history. I'd be willing to bet that even among the anti-nipple people, this image gets a pass, hands down. Clearly there are some who object, but the vast majority of people understand the message in this image isn't 'enjoy looking at a naked young girl'. *edit: spelling typo

fit2rule 10y ago
>I assure you, there are a lot of us who see the basic logic around this and think we should stop worrying about the occasional nipple. I think the basic problem here is not that there aren't Americans who don't have a problem with seeing a bit of nipple, but that a majority of Americans don't seem to understand that if you censor this kind of thing from people, it makes them a lot more reactive to it when they do in fact encounter it - that is to say, by removing from society any acceptance of sex as a positive thing, American society has become far more malleable and reactive to sex - and thus can be sold more things using sex - than it should be. Sex wouldn't be a billion-dollar industry if nobody was bothered by seeing it now and then. The same position, by the way, can be taken with regard to the way Americans view their wars. The average American has no clue what it actually means to let their military-industrial complex run rampant across the globe - because they don't see the images, the video, the very real facts of the matter, on the ground. And thus, those who profit from such acts, profit.
- r_smart 10y ago
  So far as I know, sex is used to sell the world over. Growing up, I remember there was a fascination with racy European commercials. Depictions of sex are more normalized there, so the ads just get sexier. Sorta like violence in the US. >with regard to the way Americans view their wars It's been a long time, but as I recall, the second invasion of Iraq was the most protested war in the history of our country -- before it even started. While we don't see the full brutal detail, we understand perfectly well what it means. I'd also add that the American military serves as a proxy not just for American interests, but Western interests. We just get to bear the cost and reputation hit for these things. I don't know where you're writing from obviously, but don't be surprised if your own nation / govt has been complicit in, and benefited from American intervention.
- new_hackers 10y ago
  Agree. And at the same time Americans have been inundated with "war" and the pro-Nationalist message that we should always, ALWAYS, 1) support our troops no matter what and 2) never forget. The fear-mongering is rampant and relentless. And everyone is afraid to question it.
  - r_smart 10y ago
    To be fair: 1) Leadership should be criticized, particularly political decisions leading to war, but I'd steer away from treating soldiers like shit. In a lot of ways this is punching down. It's mostly people from poorer families that join the military, as some of the benefits are a huge boon to getting out of poverty for them or their children. I don't know if you've ever talked to a recruiter, but...there's some powerful propaganda there for an 18 year old. Once you're signed up, you can't easily leave, and the punishments for disobedience can be severe. 2) Why should you forget? What possible good could that serve? Learn lessons from the past.
    - new_hackers 10y ago
      Yes the leadership should be criticized. My point it is a brainwashing tool. My comment probably did not properly convey the nuanced and subtle ways of mind control. It goes more like this when expanded: "You cannot ever criticize our troops, or our military, because they are heroes. If you do, you are not an American. You must never forget that our troops and our military protect you always." The tautology is that the actions of our military are always justified. And this supports the parent comment that the average American has no clue what it actually means to let their military-industrial complex run rampant across the globe, because to question it would be un-American.
      - r_smart 10y ago
        I would argue that what propaganda that is there is hardly nuanced or subtle, and certainly doesn't qualify as mind control. I also think a component of it comes from how poorly vets have been treated in the past by the culture at large as well as the government they served. A lot of us have friends and family members that were hard used by their service and more or less cast aside or forgotten about. For me, the propaganda, and double-think is more around the idea of drumming up support for our troops even though, frankly, we fall pretty short of that. Granted it also gets wrapped up in patriotism, etc., but I think it's a pretty blunt tool in that regard. If anything, you could call it a right-wing version of virtue signalling I guess.
- tdkl 10y ago
  > if you censor this kind of thing from people, it makes them a lot more reactive to it when they do in fact encounter it - that is to say, by removing from society any acceptance of sex as a positive thing, American society has become far more malleable and reactive to sex - and thus can be sold more things using sex - than it should be. This is brilliant, I've never thought about it this way, but it makes huge sense. Control of the masses in Edward Bernays style.
weberc2 10y ago
We're not talking about censoring the image in any meaningful sense; FB told them it was cool if they blurred out the nudity. From FB's perspective, they want to draw a hard line against child nudity so they don't have to deal with the slippery slope between child porn and "art", even though no one thinks this is the former. Personally, I think blurring out the nudity is a pretty reasonable compromise.
- smokeyj 10y ago
  Today Zuck censors for America, tomorrow it's the royal saudi family. This isn't a reasonable compromise. Reasonable is having the offended disconnect their internet and resign from society so they can live in their curated bubble of an existence.
  - res0nat0r 10y ago
    Or the folks who don't like Facebook asking them to censor their images could just not use Facebook and post elsewhere...
    - RaleyField 10y ago
      Nobody seems to be thinking that they are forcing Facebook to be an arbiter deciding on when a picture that would be indecent by itself is culturally significant enough to allow showing it. What happens when they misjudge and courts disagree?
    - smokeyj 10y ago
      Agreed. Ideally a diary with a strong lock.
- r_smart 10y ago
  I think our definitions of meaningful are significantly different. I try to picture what the image would be like with a girls head atop a blurry body, and it seems to me a totally different thing. Her being naked is a key part of planting the disgust and horror in you that the photographer was aiming for. Granted, seeing it censored might prompt you to go and look up the original image, prompting you to leave Facebook. So maybe I've changed my mind on the issue :)
josu 10y ago
I recommend this article from NN Taleb: "The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dominance of the Stubborn Minority" http://fooledbyrandomness.com/minority.pdf http://fooledbyrandomness.com/minority.pdf
- r_smart 10y ago
  Not all the way through, but just wanted to say thanks for the link. Interesting, and a great summary of how something like the photo in question could get censored. The majority doesn't see it as child pornography, but who's going to fight against the person decrying this as lewd and harmful to children? Although in this case, the answer might be: Everybody.
rhino369 10y ago
This issue is beyond simple American prudish tendencies. Because America has always been a bit weird about sex, this reaction about sexualizing children is very new. Before the 80s or 90s nobody thought of child nudity as sexual. This exact photo was on the front page of the NYTimes when it was first taken. This issue is more about the hyper paranoia about child abuse and child porn. Then again something like 1/8 children are sexually abused. So maybe it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
- tdkl 10y ago
  This seems to be also something that got pushed into mainstream over the world with the widespread of the Internet and probably as a boogeyman term to police it. Also to stop millions of dollars of unpaid tax money in purchase of this merchandise online, which was fine before.
- rahkiin 10y ago
  Can you give a source on the 1/8? I am wondering what counts as 'sexual abuse'. Eg. If a mother or father kissing her or his kid on the mouth is sexual abuse, the number does not surprise me.
  - r_smart 10y ago
    Maybe depends on where you come from in the US. Where I come from I totally believe it. But then, I am fairly open about my childhood abuse, and it makes other people feel okay about opening up, so I could just hear about an inordinate amount of it.
- desdiv 10y ago
  >Because America has always been a bit weird about sex, this reaction about sexualizing children is very new. Before the 80s or 90s nobody thought of child nudity as sexual. Confusingly enough, child beauty pageants originates from the US, and are mostly still a US-only thing. This contradiction really boggles the mind.
  - rhino369 10y ago
RaleyField 10y ago
> censoring Is this really censure though? You'd think it's Facebook applying certain policy mechanically and not Facebook being very pro Vietnam war by trying to curtail others' speech which I would count as censure.
- r_smart 10y ago
  Sure it's censure. The motivation doesn't change the act, at least not in this case. I don't think anybody finds Facebook to be taking a stance on the Vietnam War here.

by r_smart 10y ago

fit2rule 10y ago

>I assure you, there are a lot of us who see the basic logic around this and think we should stop worrying about the occasional nipple. I think the basic problem here is not that there aren't Americans who don't have a problem with seeing a bit of nipple, but that a majority of Americans don't seem to understand that if you censor this kind of thing from people, it makes them a lot more reactive to it when they do in fact encounter it - that is to say, by removing from society any acceptance of sex as a positive thing, American society has become far more malleable and reactive to sex - and thus can be sold more things using sex - than it should be. Sex wouldn't be a billion-dollar industry if nobody was bothered by seeing it now and then. The same position, by the way, can be taken with regard to the way Americans view their wars. The average American has no clue what it actually means to let their military-industrial complex run rampant across the globe - because they don't see the images, the video, the very real facts of the matter, on the ground. And thus, those who profit from such acts, profit.

r_smart 10y ago
So far as I know, sex is used to sell the world over. Growing up, I remember there was a fascination with racy European commercials. Depictions of sex are more normalized there, so the ads just get sexier. Sorta like violence in the US. >with regard to the way Americans view their wars It's been a long time, but as I recall, the second invasion of Iraq was the most protested war in the history of our country -- before it even started. While we don't see the full brutal detail, we understand perfectly well what it means. I'd also add that the American military serves as a proxy not just for American interests, but Western interests. We just get to bear the cost and reputation hit for these things. I don't know where you're writing from obviously, but don't be surprised if your own nation / govt has been complicit in, and benefited from American intervention.
new_hackers 10y ago
Agree. And at the same time Americans have been inundated with "war" and the pro-Nationalist message that we should always, ALWAYS, 1) support our troops no matter what and 2) never forget. The fear-mongering is rampant and relentless. And everyone is afraid to question it.
- r_smart 10y ago
  To be fair: 1) Leadership should be criticized, particularly political decisions leading to war, but I'd steer away from treating soldiers like shit. In a lot of ways this is punching down. It's mostly people from poorer families that join the military, as some of the benefits are a huge boon to getting out of poverty for them or their children. I don't know if you've ever talked to a recruiter, but...there's some powerful propaganda there for an 18 year old. Once you're signed up, you can't easily leave, and the punishments for disobedience can be severe. 2) Why should you forget? What possible good could that serve? Learn lessons from the past.
  - new_hackers 10y ago
    Yes the leadership should be criticized. My point it is a brainwashing tool. My comment probably did not properly convey the nuanced and subtle ways of mind control. It goes more like this when expanded: "You cannot ever criticize our troops, or our military, because they are heroes. If you do, you are not an American. You must never forget that our troops and our military protect you always." The tautology is that the actions of our military are always justified. And this supports the parent comment that the average American has no clue what it actually means to let their military-industrial complex run rampant across the globe, because to question it would be un-American.
    - r_smart 10y ago
      I would argue that what propaganda that is there is hardly nuanced or subtle, and certainly doesn't qualify as mind control. I also think a component of it comes from how poorly vets have been treated in the past by the culture at large as well as the government they served. A lot of us have friends and family members that were hard used by their service and more or less cast aside or forgotten about. For me, the propaganda, and double-think is more around the idea of drumming up support for our troops even though, frankly, we fall pretty short of that. Granted it also gets wrapped up in patriotism, etc., but I think it's a pretty blunt tool in that regard. If anything, you could call it a right-wing version of virtue signalling I guess.
tdkl 10y ago
> if you censor this kind of thing from people, it makes them a lot more reactive to it when they do in fact encounter it - that is to say, by removing from society any acceptance of sex as a positive thing, American society has become far more malleable and reactive to sex - and thus can be sold more things using sex - than it should be. This is brilliant, I've never thought about it this way, but it makes huge sense. Control of the masses in Edward Bernays style.

weberc2 10y ago

We're not talking about censoring the image in any meaningful sense; FB told them it was cool if they blurred out the nudity. From FB's perspective, they want to draw a hard line against child nudity so they don't have to deal with the slippery slope between child porn and "art", even though no one thinks this is the former. Personally, I think blurring out the nudity is a pretty reasonable compromise.

smokeyj 10y ago
Today Zuck censors for America, tomorrow it's the royal saudi family. This isn't a reasonable compromise. Reasonable is having the offended disconnect their internet and resign from society so they can live in their curated bubble of an existence.
- res0nat0r 10y ago
  Or the folks who don't like Facebook asking them to censor their images could just not use Facebook and post elsewhere...
  - RaleyField 10y ago
    Nobody seems to be thinking that they are forcing Facebook to be an arbiter deciding on when a picture that would be indecent by itself is culturally significant enough to allow showing it. What happens when they misjudge and courts disagree?
  - smokeyj 10y ago
    Agreed. Ideally a diary with a strong lock.
r_smart 10y ago
I think our definitions of meaningful are significantly different. I try to picture what the image would be like with a girls head atop a blurry body, and it seems to me a totally different thing. Her being naked is a key part of planting the disgust and horror in you that the photographer was aiming for. Granted, seeing it censored might prompt you to go and look up the original image, prompting you to leave Facebook. So maybe I've changed my mind on the issue :)

josu 10y ago

I recommend this article from NN Taleb: "The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dominance of the Stubborn Minority" http://fooledbyrandomness.com/minority.pdf http://fooledbyrandomness.com/minority.pdf

r_smart 10y ago
Not all the way through, but just wanted to say thanks for the link. Interesting, and a great summary of how something like the photo in question could get censored. The majority doesn't see it as child pornography, but who's going to fight against the person decrying this as lewd and harmful to children? Although in this case, the answer might be: Everybody.

rhino369 10y ago

This issue is beyond simple American prudish tendencies. Because America has always been a bit weird about sex, this reaction about sexualizing children is very new. Before the 80s or 90s nobody thought of child nudity as sexual. This exact photo was on the front page of the NYTimes when it was first taken. This issue is more about the hyper paranoia about child abuse and child porn. Then again something like 1/8 children are sexually abused. So maybe it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

tdkl 10y ago
This seems to be also something that got pushed into mainstream over the world with the widespread of the Internet and probably as a boogeyman term to police it. Also to stop millions of dollars of unpaid tax money in purchase of this merchandise online, which was fine before.
rahkiin 10y ago
Can you give a source on the 1/8? I am wondering what counts as 'sexual abuse'. Eg. If a mother or father kissing her or his kid on the mouth is sexual abuse, the number does not surprise me.
- r_smart 10y ago
  Maybe depends on where you come from in the US. Where I come from I totally believe it. But then, I am fairly open about my childhood abuse, and it makes other people feel okay about opening up, so I could just hear about an inordinate amount of it.
desdiv 10y ago
>Because America has always been a bit weird about sex, this reaction about sexualizing children is very new. Before the 80s or 90s nobody thought of child nudity as sexual. Confusingly enough, child beauty pageants originates from the US, and are mostly still a US-only thing. This contradiction really boggles the mind.
- rhino369 10y ago

RaleyField 10y ago

> censoring Is this really censure though? You'd think it's Facebook applying certain policy mechanically and not Facebook being very pro Vietnam war by trying to curtail others' speech which I would count as censure.

r_smart 10y ago
Sure it's censure. The motivation doesn't change the act, at least not in this case. I don't think anybody finds Facebook to be taking a stance on the Vietnam War here.