10 ms·

I'm done with politics using children as pawns for their agendas, the way they (and private corporations) use pornography and other vices to push censorship and

I'm done with politics using children as pawns for their agendas, the way they (and private corporations) use pornography and other vices to push censorship and ban content that the moral minority disapprove of. From now on if you claim "it's to protect the children" I'm just going to vote against it on principle. Children deserve real protection, but they're but gonna get it as long as they are a valuable political tool.

rideontime 3y ago
[flagged]
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  You live in a place that doesn't have initiative or referendum? And this poster can always just vote against legislators who have "protecting the children" as part of their platform.
  - rideontime 3y ago
    Yes, most US citizens don't have the opportunity to vote directly against policies like these. And which party is against this policy?
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      Presumably the party that prefers old-school Roman republics over old-school Greek democracies.
3pt14159 3y ago
[flagged]
- SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
  > How often do you see "Christians" hatefully use the F word referring to men who have sex with men? Plenty of times, unfortunately. You might not see it often— are you openly, publicly gay? Do you hold your boyfriend or husbands hand in public? Are you seen going to and leaving a queer bar on the regular? Have you tried to adopt a child with your same-sex significant other, or are seen in public or going to a public school with your adopted child? If you’re not the target of homophobia it makes sense to not experience very much of it.
  - 3pt14159 3y ago
    [dead]
  - cat_plus_plus 3y ago
    You mean how often do Hicks and Rednecks use the F word? Oh wait... Maybe you need to think it through and either model the behavior you want or accept that some people are just not going to like each other? You just used "Christians" in quotes, should they use "Men" and "Women" in quotes when referring to trans individuals?
    - SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
      I’m merely quoting someone else there. Idk what you mean. Im pretty sure neither me nor the person im replying to and quoting from are talking about trans people. What are you going on about?
- gorjusborg 3y ago
  > Tolerance works both ways. I shouldn't have to see graphic pornographic content when I walk down the street I feel for you, having the world disagree with your values and opinions can be exhausting. Wouldn't it be nice if we could force people to live the way we want, even if they don't agree? It'd be nice to have that sort of authority, wouldn't it? For example, it really bothers me when I hear hateful religious doctrine spouted in public. I shouldn't have to listen to that when I walk down the street.
  - godshatter 3y ago
    > For example, it really bothers me when I hear hateful religious doctrine spouted in public. I shouldn't have to listen to that when I walk down the street. We should have to, though, because of freedom of speech. Graphic pornographic content is a different animal legally. Though I would suggest the parent poster avoid walking down the dead-end street clearly marked "pornhub".
    - ben_w 3y ago
      > We should have to, though, because of freedom of speech. Graphic pornographic content is a different animal legally "Legally" isn't really the question, as that's about what is rather than what ought to be. That said, nobody has to listen, that's definitely not part of freedom of speech. They have to be allowed to listen, which is related but different. And for what ought to be… well, christian religious commandments have included calls to burn people at the stake if they follow a different faith, and such calls have been listened to and acted on. Heck, I'm in at least four distinct groups people have used religious justifications to demonise. If you think it won't happen to you, I'd add that sacred cows can be literal, so what happens when Hindu fundamentalism reaches your doorstep and some people call for you to be lynched for eating beef (which is a thing that has happened)? And unlike sexuality, you have a degree of control over the food you consume. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-34409354 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-34409354
    - themitigating 3y ago
      "We should have to, though, because of freedom of speech. Graphic pornographic content is a different animal legally. Though I would suggest the parent poster avoid walking down the dead-end street clearly marked "pornhub"." Why should it be. You are claiming one thing falls under the general "freedom of speech", I assume you mean the 1st admendment, but then you call pornography different but cite the law. Why is pornography wrong? Why is it worse than hate speech? How does it harm you directly? Hate speech can make people feel unsafe, uncomfortable, and can cause stress but it's allowed. Imagine you walked down the street and two people were just openly having sex, how does that harm you, how does that harm your family? Maybe I should ask, is that harm worse than hate speech? Freedom of speech is just one part of the 1st amendment, there's also freedom of expression.
- decremental 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - ben_w 3y ago
    I have no idea what a "Reddit tier atheist" is supposed to be. But I can say I grew up in a country where senior Bishops get a direct opportunity to review legislation, the coins have (Latin initial for) "defender of the faith" embossed on them, there is (or was, I don't keep up) a legal requirement for "broadly christian" themed school assemblies, and the national broadcaster has regular Christian shows on both radio and TV. And despite all that, 52% of the population identifies as "no religion". Are you in the country that has "in god we trust" printed on the currency, and in use as an official motto?
- yoyohello13 3y ago
  Christianity is the majority religion, in the US (63%) and world (31%). I'm sorry you hear things in public that offend you, but others in your group are literally telling others they are evil for existing, so maybe you can handle a 'Jesus Christ' here an there.
- themitigating 3y ago
  [flagged]
- rideontime 3y ago
  jesus fucking christ, what are you even talking about? what does this have to do with suppression of free speech on the internet?
  - dang 3y ago
    Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- TheCoelacanth 3y ago
  Christ-based exclamations are a thing precisely because Christians used them so much during the centuries where Christianity dominated western European culture. The people doing it usually are Christians or have been heavily influenced by Christianity. They aren't doing it to piss off Christians.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  > I shouldn't have to see graphic pornographic content when I walk down the street. I can't read the original article (503 - "Service Unavailable" from a capacity issue), but where are you exposed to "graphic pornographic content" walking down a street today? If that's happening on a public street today, I tend to agree with you, but I struggle to understand where that's happening today.
  - cat_plus_plus 3y ago
    San Francisco
- tpankaj 3y ago
  You do not have the right to force your personal religious views onto other people though. Tolerance does not mean everyone else has to allow you to dictate how they live their lives.
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  Poor Christians, such a persecuted minority in the US, definitely worse off than LGBT, PoC and women. Yeah I'm doing whataboutism, but seriously, check your privilege. "this stuff really bothers us" Have you tried minding your own business? Christianity is forced on people through money ("in god we trust"), politics, the legal system (christianity-based laws and morality) schools (pledge of allegiance, book bans), etc. But sure, you shouldn't have to see graphic porn when walking down the street; is this an actual issue? Does people's privacy and online services have to be amended to make this illegal? Because last time I checked, nothing changed about public decency, and it's not a religious issue.
- mxkopy 3y ago
  The reality is, that Hindus put up with a lot already. Most of us are pretty tolerant, despite what you may believe. Or how many times have you eaten a hamburger and had someone rebuke you for it in public? This stuff really bothers us and we bite down and take it. How often do you see "Hindus" hatefully ordering McDonalds when having their lunch meal? I don't see it much, and when I do I forcefully tell them to stop. Tolerance works both ways. I shouldn't have to see cows getting eaten when I walk down the street. TLDR don't cry me a river your Protestant work ethic already increased water levels
decremental 3y ago
[flagged]
- fastball 3y ago
  There is a difference between sexualizing children and using children as an excuse to ban sex.
rayiner 3y ago
About 43% of people find pornography morally acceptable: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/gallup-poll-majority-of-democrats-accept-pornography https://www.nationalreview.com/news/gallup-poll-majority-of-.... I suspect that the majority of parents don’t. It’s only 53% among Democrats. It’s probably a better political environment to push for restrictions on access to porn than it’s been in decades. Most people still don’t approve of it. The free speech justification for it has been knee-capped on the left. And there has been a rightward turn in views towards sex among #metoo feminists.
- aliasxneo 3y ago
  I'm curious what defines morally acceptable. I disapprove of it on the grounds personal convictions, but more importantly because I've done a lot of volunteer work in the anti-sex trafficking world. Knowing many of these victims were abused for the purpose of producing pornographic content is enough to sour my stomach on the issue. I just wonder if that's being made a part of the moral argument.
  - macrolocal 3y ago
    I wonder why there isn’t more support for replacing possibly the entire industry with generative AI. Pornography is such low entropy content.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    The opposition to pornography is multifaceted. In particular, most women are opposed, and there’s a significant philosophical basis to that opposition both among conservative feminism but also a significant category of liberal feminism. Even secular people have objections to how porn represents women, and how it socialized young men to think about sex and what normal sexual activity looks like. In the Gallup poll (linked above), the only group where a majority find pornography morally acceptable is men 18-49. Only 1/3 of adult women find it morally acceptable. Among married people it’s only 1/3. Half of women also think sex work should be illegal, compared to only 36% of men: https://www.vox.com/2016/3/11/11203740/prostitution-legal-men-women-poll https://www.vox.com/2016/3/11/11203740/prostitution-legal-me....
yafbum 3y ago
You might as well be done with politics altogether... Politics pulling unsubtly on people's emotional heartstrings to gain leverage ("won't anyone think of the children?") is the kind of systemic hacking technique that sometimes gets revered over here, applied to a different domain. Politics is all about gaining legitimacy, the feeling of legitimacy is an emotion, and thus emotional manipulation tends to be present in every political process, at various levels of egregiousness. It's just about as core to the process as factoring common bits of logic into functions is to programming.
jMyles 3y ago
...I think it's reasonable to point out that end-to-end encryption is particularly important for children, and that to the degree that its adoption is negatively impacted or hamstrung by the statutory and regulatory environments (even in situations that are partly well-meaning, as is perhaps the case here), children are likely to suffer disproportionately. The social and political impact of mass surveillance and secret targeted profiling of human behaviors is unlikely to dramatically change the trajectories of the lives of people who are today adults, even if it may impact the way our state functions. But for children, having a massive corpus of data on their ever preference, with which to manipulative them as consumers and voters, forever? This is an existential threat to their ability to mature into free-thinking adults. I don't mind 'think of the children' arguments; but they need to actually rationally consider the impact on children in the first place.

rideontime 3y ago

[flagged]

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
You live in a place that doesn't have initiative or referendum? And this poster can always just vote against legislators who have "protecting the children" as part of their platform.
- rideontime 3y ago
  Yes, most US citizens don't have the opportunity to vote directly against policies like these. And which party is against this policy?
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    Presumably the party that prefers old-school Roman republics over old-school Greek democracies.

3pt14159 3y ago

[flagged]

SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
> How often do you see "Christians" hatefully use the F word referring to men who have sex with men? Plenty of times, unfortunately. You might not see it often— are you openly, publicly gay? Do you hold your boyfriend or husbands hand in public? Are you seen going to and leaving a queer bar on the regular? Have you tried to adopt a child with your same-sex significant other, or are seen in public or going to a public school with your adopted child? If you’re not the target of homophobia it makes sense to not experience very much of it.
- 3pt14159 3y ago
  [dead]
- cat_plus_plus 3y ago
  You mean how often do Hicks and Rednecks use the F word? Oh wait... Maybe you need to think it through and either model the behavior you want or accept that some people are just not going to like each other? You just used "Christians" in quotes, should they use "Men" and "Women" in quotes when referring to trans individuals?
  - SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
    I’m merely quoting someone else there. Idk what you mean. Im pretty sure neither me nor the person im replying to and quoting from are talking about trans people. What are you going on about?
gorjusborg 3y ago
> Tolerance works both ways. I shouldn't have to see graphic pornographic content when I walk down the street I feel for you, having the world disagree with your values and opinions can be exhausting. Wouldn't it be nice if we could force people to live the way we want, even if they don't agree? It'd be nice to have that sort of authority, wouldn't it? For example, it really bothers me when I hear hateful religious doctrine spouted in public. I shouldn't have to listen to that when I walk down the street.
- godshatter 3y ago
  > For example, it really bothers me when I hear hateful religious doctrine spouted in public. I shouldn't have to listen to that when I walk down the street. We should have to, though, because of freedom of speech. Graphic pornographic content is a different animal legally. Though I would suggest the parent poster avoid walking down the dead-end street clearly marked "pornhub".
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > We should have to, though, because of freedom of speech. Graphic pornographic content is a different animal legally "Legally" isn't really the question, as that's about what is rather than what ought to be. That said, nobody has to listen, that's definitely not part of freedom of speech. They have to be allowed to listen, which is related but different. And for what ought to be… well, christian religious commandments have included calls to burn people at the stake if they follow a different faith, and such calls have been listened to and acted on. Heck, I'm in at least four distinct groups people have used religious justifications to demonise. If you think it won't happen to you, I'd add that sacred cows can be literal, so what happens when Hindu fundamentalism reaches your doorstep and some people call for you to be lynched for eating beef (which is a thing that has happened)? And unlike sexuality, you have a degree of control over the food you consume. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-34409354 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-34409354
  - themitigating 3y ago
    "We should have to, though, because of freedom of speech. Graphic pornographic content is a different animal legally. Though I would suggest the parent poster avoid walking down the dead-end street clearly marked "pornhub"." Why should it be. You are claiming one thing falls under the general "freedom of speech", I assume you mean the 1st admendment, but then you call pornography different but cite the law. Why is pornography wrong? Why is it worse than hate speech? How does it harm you directly? Hate speech can make people feel unsafe, uncomfortable, and can cause stress but it's allowed. Imagine you walked down the street and two people were just openly having sex, how does that harm you, how does that harm your family? Maybe I should ask, is that harm worse than hate speech? Freedom of speech is just one part of the 1st amendment, there's also freedom of expression.
decremental 3y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ben_w 3y ago
  I have no idea what a "Reddit tier atheist" is supposed to be. But I can say I grew up in a country where senior Bishops get a direct opportunity to review legislation, the coins have (Latin initial for) "defender of the faith" embossed on them, there is (or was, I don't keep up) a legal requirement for "broadly christian" themed school assemblies, and the national broadcaster has regular Christian shows on both radio and TV. And despite all that, 52% of the population identifies as "no religion". Are you in the country that has "in god we trust" printed on the currency, and in use as an official motto?
yoyohello13 3y ago
Christianity is the majority religion, in the US (63%) and world (31%). I'm sorry you hear things in public that offend you, but others in your group are literally telling others they are evil for existing, so maybe you can handle a 'Jesus Christ' here an there.
themitigating 3y ago
[flagged]
rideontime 3y ago
jesus fucking christ, what are you even talking about? what does this have to do with suppression of free speech on the internet?
- dang 3y ago
  Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
TheCoelacanth 3y ago
Christ-based exclamations are a thing precisely because Christians used them so much during the centuries where Christianity dominated western European culture. The people doing it usually are Christians or have been heavily influenced by Christianity. They aren't doing it to piss off Christians.
sokoloff 3y ago
> I shouldn't have to see graphic pornographic content when I walk down the street. I can't read the original article (503 - "Service Unavailable" from a capacity issue), but where are you exposed to "graphic pornographic content" walking down a street today? If that's happening on a public street today, I tend to agree with you, but I struggle to understand where that's happening today.
- cat_plus_plus 3y ago
  San Francisco
tpankaj 3y ago
You do not have the right to force your personal religious views onto other people though. Tolerance does not mean everyone else has to allow you to dictate how they live their lives.
Cthulhu_ 3y ago
Poor Christians, such a persecuted minority in the US, definitely worse off than LGBT, PoC and women. Yeah I'm doing whataboutism, but seriously, check your privilege. "this stuff really bothers us" Have you tried minding your own business? Christianity is forced on people through money ("in god we trust"), politics, the legal system (christianity-based laws and morality) schools (pledge of allegiance, book bans), etc. But sure, you shouldn't have to see graphic porn when walking down the street; is this an actual issue? Does people's privacy and online services have to be amended to make this illegal? Because last time I checked, nothing changed about public decency, and it's not a religious issue.
mxkopy 3y ago
The reality is, that Hindus put up with a lot already. Most of us are pretty tolerant, despite what you may believe. Or how many times have you eaten a hamburger and had someone rebuke you for it in public? This stuff really bothers us and we bite down and take it. How often do you see "Hindus" hatefully ordering McDonalds when having their lunch meal? I don't see it much, and when I do I forcefully tell them to stop. Tolerance works both ways. I shouldn't have to see cows getting eaten when I walk down the street. TLDR don't cry me a river your Protestant work ethic already increased water levels

decremental 3y ago

[flagged]

fastball 3y ago
There is a difference between sexualizing children and using children as an excuse to ban sex.

rayiner 3y ago

About 43% of people find pornography morally acceptable: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/gallup-poll-majority-of-democrats-accept-pornography https://www.nationalreview.com/news/gallup-poll-majority-of-.... I suspect that the majority of parents don’t. It’s only 53% among Democrats. It’s probably a better political environment to push for restrictions on access to porn than it’s been in decades. Most people still don’t approve of it. The free speech justification for it has been knee-capped on the left. And there has been a rightward turn in views towards sex among #metoo feminists.

aliasxneo 3y ago
I'm curious what defines morally acceptable. I disapprove of it on the grounds personal convictions, but more importantly because I've done a lot of volunteer work in the anti-sex trafficking world. Knowing many of these victims were abused for the purpose of producing pornographic content is enough to sour my stomach on the issue. I just wonder if that's being made a part of the moral argument.
- macrolocal 3y ago
  I wonder why there isn’t more support for replacing possibly the entire industry with generative AI. Pornography is such low entropy content.
- rayiner 3y ago
  The opposition to pornography is multifaceted. In particular, most women are opposed, and there’s a significant philosophical basis to that opposition both among conservative feminism but also a significant category of liberal feminism. Even secular people have objections to how porn represents women, and how it socialized young men to think about sex and what normal sexual activity looks like. In the Gallup poll (linked above), the only group where a majority find pornography morally acceptable is men 18-49. Only 1/3 of adult women find it morally acceptable. Among married people it’s only 1/3. Half of women also think sex work should be illegal, compared to only 36% of men: https://www.vox.com/2016/3/11/11203740/prostitution-legal-men-women-poll https://www.vox.com/2016/3/11/11203740/prostitution-legal-me....

yafbum 3y ago

You might as well be done with politics altogether... Politics pulling unsubtly on people's emotional heartstrings to gain leverage ("won't anyone think of the children?") is the kind of systemic hacking technique that sometimes gets revered over here, applied to a different domain. Politics is all about gaining legitimacy, the feeling of legitimacy is an emotion, and thus emotional manipulation tends to be present in every political process, at various levels of egregiousness. It's just about as core to the process as factoring common bits of logic into functions is to programming.

jMyles 3y ago

...I think it's reasonable to point out that end-to-end encryption is particularly important for children, and that to the degree that its adoption is negatively impacted or hamstrung by the statutory and regulatory environments (even in situations that are partly well-meaning, as is perhaps the case here), children are likely to suffer disproportionately. The social and political impact of mass surveillance and secret targeted profiling of human behaviors is unlikely to dramatically change the trajectories of the lives of people who are today adults, even if it may impact the way our state functions. But for children, having a massive corpus of data on their ever preference, with which to manipulative them as consumers and voters, forever? This is an existential threat to their ability to mature into free-thinking adults. I don't mind 'think of the children' arguments; but they need to actually rationally consider the impact on children in the first place.