3 ms·

> The people complaining about it seem to have their own discomfort that they project onto a phantom pedophile Ah yes, the old “people who have a problem with

> The people complaining about it seem to have their own discomfort that they project onto a phantom pedophile Ah yes, the old “people who have a problem with pedophilia are the real pedophiles”

vmception 6y ago
Stranger things have happened Everyone could just ignore the movie because it’s not that interesting
- EricE 6y ago
  Or we can condemn it for the filth it is and the blatant attempt to normalize absolutely disgusting behavior. People love to dismiss slippery slope arguments, but we see time and time again "oh, we only want X" soon turns into Y, Z and infinity and beyond. People are amazed that Harvey Weinstein got away with what he did for so long. Matt Lauer - the lists go on. Hell do we even need to talk about Roman Polanski or indeed the co-founder of Sundance (where the award that Netflix points out they won) was CONVICTED of child pornography? How does this keep happening? It's because there were people like you willing to make the argument you are making - "oh, it's just a little bit - it's not that bad". Nope. There is NO QUARTER. Not one more square inch. This movie is flat out unacceptable in and of itself and that is more than enough. You can defend kiddie diddlers if that's really the legacy you want to leave here but I have zero problem being unequivocal on where I stand on this issue. I wish that having people willing to compromise even the slightest on the exploitation of children could shock me - that's what's even more disgusting to me about this thread.
  - vmception 6y ago
    Its a dumb movie We're at the bottom of the slope, there is nothing "being" normalized we're way past that point by the standard of whatever is triggering you
Igelau 6y ago
That's not quite it. It's that there are some people crying wolf who see something as erotic material when it's not. Do you see the difference there? Getting to the heart of why they see it this way when others don't is an interesting question. There's an ugly implication of the "I know it when I see it" standard -- something in the individual's brain has realized that what it's getting from the eyes is supposed to be exciting. How could they otherwise make the claim? That's got to be an unsettling experience for a lot of people. The self-disgust this causes is likely to be so visceral and panic-inducing that it will be hard for someone experiencing it to understand that the reaction is not universal.
- cutitout 6y ago
  > something in the individual's brain has realized that what it's getting from the eyes is supposed to be exciting. If you motion captured someone dancing sexually I would recognize what it's supposed to be even if you applied that animation to a wireframe of bones. I could even do that even if I didn't find grown women (or men) dancing sexually attractive myself, just by osmosis, just like I know an ad for a car is supposed to elicit this or that association, while not caring much for cars myself. > The self-disgust this causes is an assumption of yours, and you might as well ask what makes you engage in these mental gymnastics. I don't find children dancing sexually arousing in the least, yet still recognize it as dancing sexually, which isn't weird or interesting at all, much less "ugly".
  - Igelau 6y ago
    Except for the fact that I never said "arousing", I don't think we disagree. You're just not mortified by the recognition of what you see.
    - cutitout 6y ago
      I do disagree with you say. You say there is "something in the brain" of someone who recognizes this for sexual dancing, as something that is supposed to be exciting (which to me in this context is just an euphemism for arousing) -- but you don't say what that is, just call it an "ugly implication". I say that all that's required in the brain is a passing familiarity with general society, and the same behavior/dancing in adults. That's neither ugly nor interesting nor an insight. The only interesting thing is how you first assume some sort of denial in anyone criticizing the movie, then turn around and can't even handle that I do, in fact, disagree with you, because you're wrong.

> The people complaining about it seem to have their own discomfort that they project onto a phantom pedophile Ah yes, the old “people who have a problem with pedophilia are the real pedophiles”

vmception 6y ago

Stranger things have happened Everyone could just ignore the movie because it’s not that interesting

EricE 6y ago
Or we can condemn it for the filth it is and the blatant attempt to normalize absolutely disgusting behavior. People love to dismiss slippery slope arguments, but we see time and time again "oh, we only want X" soon turns into Y, Z and infinity and beyond. People are amazed that Harvey Weinstein got away with what he did for so long. Matt Lauer - the lists go on. Hell do we even need to talk about Roman Polanski or indeed the co-founder of Sundance (where the award that Netflix points out they won) was CONVICTED of child pornography? How does this keep happening? It's because there were people like you willing to make the argument you are making - "oh, it's just a little bit - it's not that bad". Nope. There is NO QUARTER. Not one more square inch. This movie is flat out unacceptable in and of itself and that is more than enough. You can defend kiddie diddlers if that's really the legacy you want to leave here but I have zero problem being unequivocal on where I stand on this issue. I wish that having people willing to compromise even the slightest on the exploitation of children could shock me - that's what's even more disgusting to me about this thread.
- vmception 6y ago
  Its a dumb movie We're at the bottom of the slope, there is nothing "being" normalized we're way past that point by the standard of whatever is triggering you

Igelau 6y ago

That's not quite it. It's that there are some people crying wolf who see something as erotic material when it's not. Do you see the difference there? Getting to the heart of why they see it this way when others don't is an interesting question. There's an ugly implication of the "I know it when I see it" standard -- something in the individual's brain has realized that what it's getting from the eyes is supposed to be exciting. How could they otherwise make the claim? That's got to be an unsettling experience for a lot of people. The self-disgust this causes is likely to be so visceral and panic-inducing that it will be hard for someone experiencing it to understand that the reaction is not universal.

cutitout 6y ago
> something in the individual's brain has realized that what it's getting from the eyes is supposed to be exciting. If you motion captured someone dancing sexually I would recognize what it's supposed to be even if you applied that animation to a wireframe of bones. I could even do that even if I didn't find grown women (or men) dancing sexually attractive myself, just by osmosis, just like I know an ad for a car is supposed to elicit this or that association, while not caring much for cars myself. > The self-disgust this causes is an assumption of yours, and you might as well ask what makes you engage in these mental gymnastics. I don't find children dancing sexually arousing in the least, yet still recognize it as dancing sexually, which isn't weird or interesting at all, much less "ugly".
- Igelau 6y ago
  Except for the fact that I never said "arousing", I don't think we disagree. You're just not mortified by the recognition of what you see.
  - cutitout 6y ago
    I do disagree with you say. You say there is "something in the brain" of someone who recognizes this for sexual dancing, as something that is supposed to be exciting (which to me in this context is just an euphemism for arousing) -- but you don't say what that is, just call it an "ugly implication". I say that all that's required in the brain is a passing familiarity with general society, and the same behavior/dancing in adults. That's neither ugly nor interesting nor an insight. The only interesting thing is how you first assume some sort of denial in anyone criticizing the movie, then turn around and can't even handle that I do, in fact, disagree with you, because you're wrong.