4 ms·

So these people shouldn't have a voice (be able to participate in any way in the commercial system the rest of us created), because we find their economic engag

So these people shouldn't have a voice (be able to participate in any way in the commercial system the rest of us created), because we find their economic engagements to be "morally repugnant"? And yet the only "voice" they should have, should be permitted to have, is relegated to playing their accepted parts in the sex/vice industry their only "moral crime" is to talk about? Basically we want to mediate their economics and not allow them to speak up outside of the roles we want to put them in to. And we're going to pretend to justify we're doing that, in "their best interest", tacitly projecting the lies that: "we know what's best for them", and we get to decide their autonomy, not them. So, on the one hand, we decry the fact that they seem to lack power and agency, while willingly with the other hand we strip them of what agency and power they do have by saying, "shut up, don't spend your money on that, this is for your own good." Sounds fucked up and abusive to me. The people should talk if they want to. We shouldn't pretend that we know how to mediate that for them. If they want to expand the way they engage economically, and narratively, in society, then I'm not going to step in their way. I think it's good for them, if they want to do it. I think it's good to have their story told. Maybe we're just unhappy their voices reveal our hypocrisy? Maybe should you think it through before you find a way to condemn-label something that perhaps you're just a little uncomfortable with. Examine yourself first, rather than projecting onto them, trying to further limit their access, is my unsolicited advice. Thanks

socialismisok 4y ago
I think the parent is suggesting they should be paid more.
- graderjs 4y ago
  Hmm, maybe. But I'm sure there's current of attitude, that some people have, where people think, any payment in exchange for narrative from the classes of the "downtrodden" is simply exploitation but I think that is both a disempowering perpetuation of an incorrect stereotype that tries to rob people of agency, plus a tactic of the upper classes to keep people down. But then again even giving voice to class itself may be an incorrect stereotype that's disempowering. Uuhh...It's difficult to find the right language but I think we should just see people as people. And that's what I'm really speaking to here even if I'm not replying to the intention of the parent comment, it doesn't matter: what I'm saying is still valuable and important.
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    It's a fine line. It depends a lot on who is producing the content and why. What's their objective. There's definitely folks who will create films and documentaries to exploit the subject, and folks who do it to highlight the subject. No silver bullet, unfortunately.
    - graderjs 4y ago
      Yeah, but what I'm saying is still valuable and important: I mean, who are we to judge? We don't know it's exploitation. From the outside it's pretty hard to see that, the people involved have to decide for themselves. And if they have decided we have to respect that, I think. Unless you see the full picture, how it's all made, all the connections between the people: as an audience member, consuming the content, I mean, you can't tell, no way. Maybe even being an audience member is exploitative...anyway. So I think you got to err on the side of caution as an outsider who has no idea, and just like not try to impose, and not call for any sort of curtailing of such content under the moral panic that "it's exploitative", which may just a NIMBY sort of way of silencing them "for their own good."

socialismisok 4y ago

I think the parent is suggesting they should be paid more.

graderjs 4y ago
Hmm, maybe. But I'm sure there's current of attitude, that some people have, where people think, any payment in exchange for narrative from the classes of the "downtrodden" is simply exploitation but I think that is both a disempowering perpetuation of an incorrect stereotype that tries to rob people of agency, plus a tactic of the upper classes to keep people down. But then again even giving voice to class itself may be an incorrect stereotype that's disempowering. Uuhh...It's difficult to find the right language but I think we should just see people as people. And that's what I'm really speaking to here even if I'm not replying to the intention of the parent comment, it doesn't matter: what I'm saying is still valuable and important.
- socialismisok 4y ago
  It's a fine line. It depends a lot on who is producing the content and why. What's their objective. There's definitely folks who will create films and documentaries to exploit the subject, and folks who do it to highlight the subject. No silver bullet, unfortunately.
  - graderjs 4y ago
    Yeah, but what I'm saying is still valuable and important: I mean, who are we to judge? We don't know it's exploitation. From the outside it's pretty hard to see that, the people involved have to decide for themselves. And if they have decided we have to respect that, I think. Unless you see the full picture, how it's all made, all the connections between the people: as an audience member, consuming the content, I mean, you can't tell, no way. Maybe even being an audience member is exploitative...anyway. So I think you got to err on the side of caution as an outsider who has no idea, and just like not try to impose, and not call for any sort of curtailing of such content under the moral panic that "it's exploitative", which may just a NIMBY sort of way of silencing them "for their own good."