3 ms·

Could you clarify what you mean by "institution"? What institution is actively encouraging transgression? Do you mean the cultures on social media that socially

Could you clarify what you mean by "institution"? What institution is actively encouraging transgression? Do you mean the cultures on social media that socially reward transgression? Isn't that just people and their culture, not an institution? Or is there something social media companies are actively doing to promote specific transgressions? I'm thinking about the 80s-90s worries about Christian heresy. Popular culture was (and still is) full of insults against Christianity, probably because that was the kind of thing that offended an older generation in the west at the time. Is it wrong for institutions to encourage that? While I have my own personal moral standards, I see society in general as morally relativist and don't accept arguments that the popular morals of today are right because they're popular now, while the popular morals of previous generations were wrong because they contradict the "right" morals of today. That's why I don't have much respect for people trying to enforce their own culture's arbitrary morals while not equally respecting conflicting morals. > when bad behavior is not transgressive That's a tricky one because what's "bad behavior"? Does it include denying the existence of God?

techblueberry 10mo ago
For what it's worth I'm making an argument that is probably completely unfeasible and with morally rocky foundations, but - > While I have my own personal moral standards, I see society in general as morally relativist and don't accept arguments that the popular morals of today are right because they're popular now, while the popular morals of previous generations were wrong because they contradict the "right" morals of today While I agree with you morally, I think practically for the stability of society it's useful for there to be a relatively conservative (and not overly litigious) mainstream that people can choose to freely act outside of, and it doesn't entirely matter what that mainstream is. I am not morally aligned with the say they Reagan era moral majority who fought against foul language on TV and in music, but I think there is a value in having that "moral majority" to rebel against. There was this sort of lightning in a bottle in the second half of the 20th century, or maybe this has always been an Western thing but - there was this strong conservative popular culture - you couldn't even swear on television - but transgression wasn't handled legally (at least not excessively so). So you could go see a transgressive comedian if you wanted to, but it was necessarily a subculture, and I think this idea is healthy for society. Strong social pressure in one direction, but an escape hatch from it if you want in communities that aren't part of the popular culture. So yes, I would say X is an institution, and maybe if I had my way, X wouldn't even allow swearing. If you wanted to swear on the internet, you would have to find a relatively "underground" place to do it; you could do it on say a private forum, but not on anything with more than I dunno, 1 million users or something. But when X as an institution tells you that everything is ok; when basically ideas or pictures or movies stop being "dangerous" people stop being "dangerous". There's no unique thought because all ideas are part of the mainstream. I think it creates less free thought, not more. Is it really better for the world that there's basically no 4chan anymore because Twitter is now 4chan? https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/how-the-internet-left-4chan-behind https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/how-the-in... But in summary to speak to your question directly - I think I'm making a very counter-intutive argument that the thing you say you want, people from the 90's who valued dangerous media doesn't exist anymore. I think in a sense, the folks on X are not all that 90's kid, they’re all the "moral majority" the 90's kid was railing against; In a perverse manner of speaking.
- foxglacier 9mo ago
  I think I understand you. That makes a lot of sense having a default "safe" popular culture - something children and innocent people would be limited to because they don't actively look for the transgressive places. It seems like we don't really have that anymore and fighters for the mainstream are also working to stop the transgressive cultures (eg. wanting hate speech laws). Perhaps because the internet makes the transgressive places almost as easily accessible as the mainstream they're seen as a valid threat to society.

techblueberry 10mo ago

For what it's worth I'm making an argument that is probably completely unfeasible and with morally rocky foundations, but - > While I have my own personal moral standards, I see society in general as morally relativist and don't accept arguments that the popular morals of today are right because they're popular now, while the popular morals of previous generations were wrong because they contradict the "right" morals of today While I agree with you morally, I think practically for the stability of society it's useful for there to be a relatively conservative (and not overly litigious) mainstream that people can choose to freely act outside of, and it doesn't entirely matter what that mainstream is. I am not morally aligned with the say they Reagan era moral majority who fought against foul language on TV and in music, but I think there is a value in having that "moral majority" to rebel against. There was this sort of lightning in a bottle in the second half of the 20th century, or maybe this has always been an Western thing but - there was this strong conservative popular culture - you couldn't even swear on television - but transgression wasn't handled legally (at least not excessively so). So you could go see a transgressive comedian if you wanted to, but it was necessarily a subculture, and I think this idea is healthy for society. Strong social pressure in one direction, but an escape hatch from it if you want in communities that aren't part of the popular culture. So yes, I would say X is an institution, and maybe if I had my way, X wouldn't even allow swearing. If you wanted to swear on the internet, you would have to find a relatively "underground" place to do it; you could do it on say a private forum, but not on anything with more than I dunno, 1 million users or something. But when X as an institution tells you that everything is ok; when basically ideas or pictures or movies stop being "dangerous" people stop being "dangerous". There's no unique thought because all ideas are part of the mainstream. I think it creates less free thought, not more. Is it really better for the world that there's basically no 4chan anymore because Twitter is now 4chan? https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/how-the-internet-left-4chan-behind https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/how-the-in... But in summary to speak to your question directly - I think I'm making a very counter-intutive argument that the thing you say you want, people from the 90's who valued dangerous media doesn't exist anymore. I think in a sense, the folks on X are not all that 90's kid, they’re all the "moral majority" the 90's kid was railing against; In a perverse manner of speaking.

foxglacier 9mo ago
I think I understand you. That makes a lot of sense having a default "safe" popular culture - something children and innocent people would be limited to because they don't actively look for the transgressive places. It seems like we don't really have that anymore and fighters for the mainstream are also working to stop the transgressive cultures (eg. wanting hate speech laws). Perhaps because the internet makes the transgressive places almost as easily accessible as the mainstream they're seen as a valid threat to society.