4 ms·

No this isn't just American. Most of the world is very anti-porn. The BRICS countries mostly outlaw porn. Even Nordic countries, which are very socially liberal

No this isn't just American. Most of the world is very anti-porn. The BRICS countries mostly outlaw porn. Even Nordic countries, which are very socially liberal, discourage it (at least production). There's a tendency for social liberals to see their view as the only legitimate one. Sometimes they are right. But this is an area where there is lots of international push back from undeveloped, developing, and even many developed socially liberal countries.

anonym29 1y ago
Several of the BRICS (& other "global south" / non-neoliberal / non-western) countries also imprison journalists and nonviolent political opposition groups, and some even have the death penalty for minor cannabis possession. "Everyone else does things this way" isn't a legitimate justification.
- fc417fc802 1y ago
  A justification of what, though? It isn't a cohesive argument on it's own but it is important perspective. If a significant fraction of societies have arrived at policies that contradict your worldview I think that ought to give you pause. (Note that I say that as someone who holds far more extreme views about legal freedom of expression than the vast majority of people out there.) That's getting somewhat off topic though. In the context of this thread it's merely the observation that attributing this to "puritans" or "christianity" or "US history" is rather misguided. The US and western Europe are very much the outliers here.
  - anonym29 1y ago
    Are you defending the morality of authoritarian states imprisoning journalists and nonviolent political opposition groups? It's one thing to recognize that it happens, another to recognize the practice as legitimate, virtuous, or even desirable. To be clear, I'm not accusing you of promoting these practices, just asking you to clarify your position.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - fc417fc802 1y ago
      I am expressing neither support nor opposition to any particular policy position in that comment, merely putting forth the general principle that any time you find yourself to be an outlier you should very carefully examine how that came to be. It's a natural extension of Chesterton's fence. I think it also follows from such a principle that in general the relevant reasoning should be explicitly articulated when discussing the topic. > It's one thing to recognize that it happens, another to recognize the practice as legitimate, virtuous, or even desirable. Suppose that a thing is explicitly chosen by the majority of the world's population, or dictated by the majority of governments, or imposed by the majority of cultural norms. I am suggesting that dismissing it in favor of your own reasoning is fine, but that doing so lightly is arrogant and misguided.
      - anonym29 1y ago
        What gives you the impression that I might be offering my critiques lightly or arrogantly, as opposed to only after arriving at them through extensive, careful, and deliberate thought? Humans engaged in tribalistic groupthink committing moral atrocities is a tale as old as time. It is never wise to accept a majority or status quo position reflexively without thoroughly interrogating the ideas held within. A great deal of majority positions are morally reprehensible and ethically indefensible, and that has always been the case throughout human history. Human sacrifices of the innocent were not a "different culture", they were barbaric murders that were always wrong. They were also normative in much of the world for much of human history. The values espoused (but not always upheld) by western societies that many of us take for granted today are the exception to the rules throughout human history - rules that promoted needless bloodshed, widespread suffering, and persecution of the innocent. It is not arrogant to assert that loss of innocent human life is reprehensible and the societies that normalize it should be condemned. To assert otherwise isn't simply innocuously defending pluralism, it's defending atrocities. All life is inherently valuable and I will not apologize for asserting that, no matter how many billions of people disagree for tribalistic, persecutory reasons.
- MSFT_Edging 1y ago
  Not to whatabout but the US isn't free from punishing journalists. See the Steven Donziger[1] case. It was just done more Americanly. Private corporation threw their full weight at a lawyer defending an indigenous population who had their water supply poisoned. Chevron hired a private prosecutor who had him locked up on house arrest for years. Similar to this porn case, the censorship and suppression is coming from market interests rather than government, but they're nearly equally untouchable and even more difficult to hold accountable. You can't vote out the leadership of mastercard or chevron. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Donziger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Donziger
  - pyuser583 1y ago
    Steven Donziger isn’t a journalist. He was a lawyer who was suing Chevron. I’ve been following the case closely. This is the first time anybody has claimed he’s a journalist, AFAIK. Am I missing something? Edit: according to Wikipedia he worked as a journalist for three years before attending law school. So I guess he’s an ex-journalist, and ex-lawyer for that matter. But calling the persecution of journalists is false. Maybe persecution of environmental lawyers, but lawyers, unlike journalists, are heavily regulated, and face much higher liability for bad acts.
    - MSFT_Edging 1y ago
      > threw their full weight at a lawyer I used Steven as an example if private prosecution, where a private organization can take away your freedom outside of public prosecutors. Steven did similar work to an investigative journalist at a high level, he brought attention to, and fought for a marginalized group. He did it through the court system rather than through publication. Despite doing it legally. I don't see much of a difference. As recent times have shown, much of the legal system(and legal protections) depend on someone enforcing. Without that, there's little difference between the government boot and the corpo boot.
phendrenad2 1y ago
When I finally got around to reading Fukuyama, I had an "aha" moment where I realized... oh, this is how liberal democracy thinks. They think they've perfected society and everyone agrees with them, except for a few weird superstitious cults. Then I realized that it was all wrong, countries accept western liberal democracy only as long as the free aid keeps flowing. And the libdems were in for a rude awakening if they ever ran out of kibble.
- gonzobonzo 1y ago
  The very strange thing I’ve found about liberal democracies is not just the amount of people who believe the entire world believes in the value of liberal democracies. It’ the amount of people who believe, for some strange reason, that other countries support the values of liberal democracies even more than liberal democracies themselves. Hence comments about the U.S. being extremely puritanical, when anyone can look at laws throughout the world and see that the U.S. is more open on most of these issues than the vast majority of countries. It’s a very strange form of self-loathing. I’ve discussed it with a lot of people from non-Western countries, and they find this behavior extremely confusing.
  - pyuser583 1y ago
    A lot of this goes back to Rousseau, a philosopher who sees civilization as the root of evil. He thought of undeveloped places as filled with “noble savages” uncorrupted by the evils of modern society. This is why many people believe that anti-gay sentiment only exists because of American or European influences. While it’s true undeveloped counties often have very different sexual ethics, that does not mean humanity’s default is liberal individualism sanctioned by custom and community.
GoblinSlayer 1y ago
In England such laws were lobbied by NCH (7000 staff), so it's not necessarily opinion of people, especially in places like Brazil.

anonym29 1y ago

Several of the BRICS (& other "global south" / non-neoliberal / non-western) countries also imprison journalists and nonviolent political opposition groups, and some even have the death penalty for minor cannabis possession. "Everyone else does things this way" isn't a legitimate justification.

fc417fc802 1y ago
A justification of what, though? It isn't a cohesive argument on it's own but it is important perspective. If a significant fraction of societies have arrived at policies that contradict your worldview I think that ought to give you pause. (Note that I say that as someone who holds far more extreme views about legal freedom of expression than the vast majority of people out there.) That's getting somewhat off topic though. In the context of this thread it's merely the observation that attributing this to "puritans" or "christianity" or "US history" is rather misguided. The US and western Europe are very much the outliers here.
- anonym29 1y ago
  Are you defending the morality of authoritarian states imprisoning journalists and nonviolent political opposition groups? It's one thing to recognize that it happens, another to recognize the practice as legitimate, virtuous, or even desirable. To be clear, I'm not accusing you of promoting these practices, just asking you to clarify your position.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - fc417fc802 1y ago
    I am expressing neither support nor opposition to any particular policy position in that comment, merely putting forth the general principle that any time you find yourself to be an outlier you should very carefully examine how that came to be. It's a natural extension of Chesterton's fence. I think it also follows from such a principle that in general the relevant reasoning should be explicitly articulated when discussing the topic. > It's one thing to recognize that it happens, another to recognize the practice as legitimate, virtuous, or even desirable. Suppose that a thing is explicitly chosen by the majority of the world's population, or dictated by the majority of governments, or imposed by the majority of cultural norms. I am suggesting that dismissing it in favor of your own reasoning is fine, but that doing so lightly is arrogant and misguided.
    - anonym29 1y ago
      What gives you the impression that I might be offering my critiques lightly or arrogantly, as opposed to only after arriving at them through extensive, careful, and deliberate thought? Humans engaged in tribalistic groupthink committing moral atrocities is a tale as old as time. It is never wise to accept a majority or status quo position reflexively without thoroughly interrogating the ideas held within. A great deal of majority positions are morally reprehensible and ethically indefensible, and that has always been the case throughout human history. Human sacrifices of the innocent were not a "different culture", they were barbaric murders that were always wrong. They were also normative in much of the world for much of human history. The values espoused (but not always upheld) by western societies that many of us take for granted today are the exception to the rules throughout human history - rules that promoted needless bloodshed, widespread suffering, and persecution of the innocent. It is not arrogant to assert that loss of innocent human life is reprehensible and the societies that normalize it should be condemned. To assert otherwise isn't simply innocuously defending pluralism, it's defending atrocities. All life is inherently valuable and I will not apologize for asserting that, no matter how many billions of people disagree for tribalistic, persecutory reasons.
MSFT_Edging 1y ago
Not to whatabout but the US isn't free from punishing journalists. See the Steven Donziger[1] case. It was just done more Americanly. Private corporation threw their full weight at a lawyer defending an indigenous population who had their water supply poisoned. Chevron hired a private prosecutor who had him locked up on house arrest for years. Similar to this porn case, the censorship and suppression is coming from market interests rather than government, but they're nearly equally untouchable and even more difficult to hold accountable. You can't vote out the leadership of mastercard or chevron. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Donziger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Donziger
- pyuser583 1y ago
  Steven Donziger isn’t a journalist. He was a lawyer who was suing Chevron. I’ve been following the case closely. This is the first time anybody has claimed he’s a journalist, AFAIK. Am I missing something? Edit: according to Wikipedia he worked as a journalist for three years before attending law school. So I guess he’s an ex-journalist, and ex-lawyer for that matter. But calling the persecution of journalists is false. Maybe persecution of environmental lawyers, but lawyers, unlike journalists, are heavily regulated, and face much higher liability for bad acts.
  - MSFT_Edging 1y ago
    > threw their full weight at a lawyer I used Steven as an example if private prosecution, where a private organization can take away your freedom outside of public prosecutors. Steven did similar work to an investigative journalist at a high level, he brought attention to, and fought for a marginalized group. He did it through the court system rather than through publication. Despite doing it legally. I don't see much of a difference. As recent times have shown, much of the legal system(and legal protections) depend on someone enforcing. Without that, there's little difference between the government boot and the corpo boot.

phendrenad2 1y ago

When I finally got around to reading Fukuyama, I had an "aha" moment where I realized... oh, this is how liberal democracy thinks. They think they've perfected society and everyone agrees with them, except for a few weird superstitious cults. Then I realized that it was all wrong, countries accept western liberal democracy only as long as the free aid keeps flowing. And the libdems were in for a rude awakening if they ever ran out of kibble.

gonzobonzo 1y ago
The very strange thing I’ve found about liberal democracies is not just the amount of people who believe the entire world believes in the value of liberal democracies. It’ the amount of people who believe, for some strange reason, that other countries support the values of liberal democracies even more than liberal democracies themselves. Hence comments about the U.S. being extremely puritanical, when anyone can look at laws throughout the world and see that the U.S. is more open on most of these issues than the vast majority of countries. It’s a very strange form of self-loathing. I’ve discussed it with a lot of people from non-Western countries, and they find this behavior extremely confusing.
- pyuser583 1y ago
  A lot of this goes back to Rousseau, a philosopher who sees civilization as the root of evil. He thought of undeveloped places as filled with “noble savages” uncorrupted by the evils of modern society. This is why many people believe that anti-gay sentiment only exists because of American or European influences. While it’s true undeveloped counties often have very different sexual ethics, that does not mean humanity’s default is liberal individualism sanctioned by custom and community.

GoblinSlayer 1y ago

In England such laws were lobbied by NCH (7000 staff), so it's not necessarily opinion of people, especially in places like Brazil.