4 ms·
> Usually threads like this fill up with comments about how "think of the children" is always a lie used to justify something draconian It also highlights HN's
by alephnerd 7mo ago
> Usually threads like this fill up with comments about how "think of the children" is always a lie used to justify something draconian
It also highlights HN's demographics. What younger women feel is problematic is viewed as trifling by a number of younger or middle aged men on HN (especially those without kids).
- gwbas1c 7mo agoNo, it shows that people on Hacker News understand two important things: 1: Unintended consequences 2: That power-hungry people latch on to issues like this to further political agendas that have severe negative consequences; mostly by using "think of the children" to stifle important debate and discussion of unintended consequences.
- Taters91 7mo agoSo since there are other consequences, nothing should be done? I think sexually demeaning children is a really big issue, and pretty well-defined and wide spread. We may not need to ban things, but not doing anything is a cop-out.
- 9x39 7mo agoWhat would the effect of hysteria from technologists achieve? If you think it’s a really big issue, why don’t you own the problem? You could just go turn off the trillions in AI spending and destroy computing as we know it. No cop-outs, remember.
- gwbas1c 7mo agoNo one's saying to do nothing. When you debate like that, (specifically twisting words like you did,) you leave yourself open to be a victim of power-hungry people, and trade one problem for another potentially worse problem.
- array_key_first 7mo agoIt depends on what the other consequences are, obviously. I can fix the problem right now. We just throw all the children into the orphan grinder. Can't sexualize ground meat. Is that what you want? Wooooww, so you're telling me you want to grind up children?? That's really messed up dude. It's super easy to twist any argument against this stuff to being "against children", which is extremely annoying and unproductive. That's why you, and others, get a lot of pushback - you're annoying and dishonest. Nobody here, and I do mean nobody, wants children to be hurt. That includes me and you. If you want to fix these issues, you have to answer three questions head-on: 1. What is the actionable, real solution? 2. Will it work? 3. How well will it work? "Durrr sexually demeaning children bad" doesn't answer any of those. We all know sexually demeaning children is bad. Now tell me if, I don't know, banning the Internet or some shit will work
- embedding-shape 7mo agoIf you think the sentiments of comments in one thread (not even specified which) highlights the general HN demographics, I think saying that reveals more about you than HN.
- kerblang 7mo agoAm a middle-aged man, don't have kids, don't see it as a trifling problem, and I don't agree with the libertarian free-speech-at-all-costs angle. Instead I think a) kids shouldn't be on the internet and b) the public school system is a barely supervised dumpster fire.
- lo_zamoyski 7mo agoOnly to certain kinds of defective men/men suffering from ressentiment. No healthy man of good will wishes to see women get hurt or disrespected.