Does 'rape culture' accurately describe (many) societies?

[theprestige]

Now tell us how serious you are with this.

I'm this serious:

Really? That seems like a huge victory to me. It's estimated that 90% of movies are violent. Estimates for TV shows are around 60-70%. It seems like the public appetite for violent porn is extremely low. Don't want to normalize violence? Advocate for more kids to watch porn.​

​

I hope this helps.

 

[Lithrael]

Yeah, on that subject I've been pretty disheartened at online gambling getting so legally supported and mainstream that it has goddamned tv ads now in the US. Talk about something that blatantly exploits psychology and is difficult to effectively combat with education. Everyone knows about people whose lives are difficult because of gambling and that doesn't stop them betting with their rent money because 'yeah but.. maybe maybe maybe'

That Roblox stuff is insane. I'd heard stories but eaugh!

 

[Darat]

One example of the Roblox abusers:

 

[theprestige]

I see just as many if not more adults wondering around staring at their phones as children, who often have someone who occasionally takes it away.

So? We afford adults the freedom to make many choices that would concern us if it were children instead.

Google's AI summary:

It is antisocial to introduce LLMs into a conversation between human beings.

<excerpts from your conversation with an AI snipped>

Actually I think my idea of making Pornhub's tax bill inversely proportional to the deviation between the content that it serves to users and what we teach children in sex education is the way to go.

Esprit d'Internet? Just levy a regular old sin tax.

Social media companies only care about one thing: profit. Use that to align their interests with those of broader society. No need to ban any content at all, just categorisation and counting clicks.

Who decides what are the interests of broader society? How to align the profits of private companies without some form of censorship? To me, "no need to ban anything" seems incompatible in spirit with "we'll ban you if you don't comply with the categorizations of our censors, or the tax collection efforts of our enforcers".

 

[theprestige]

Yeah, on that subject I've been pretty disheartened at online gambling getting so legally supported and mainstream that it has goddamned tv ads now in the US. Talk about something that blatantly exploits psychology and is difficult to effectively combat with education. Everyone knows about people whose lives are difficult because of gambling and that doesn't stop them betting with their rent money because 'yeah but.. maybe maybe maybe'

Exactly. One of my favorite podcasts has been overrun with ads for online gambling. One of my favorite commentary YouTubers has done a 30 minute video essay on why this is bad stuff. So I'm inclined to believe online gambling may well be a serious social issue that's more pervasive than we might think. What Poem is talking about? I'm not so sure.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

So? We afford adults the freedom to make many choices that would concern us if it were children instead.


It is antisocial to introduce LLMs into a conversation between human beings.

It's basically a fancy Google search with less cutting and pasting required.

Esprit d'Internet? Just levy a regular old sin tax.

No, I think we can leverage big tech to boost the effect of high quality sex education, which is what everyone here wants, isn't it?

Who decides what are the interests of broader society?

The people who set the sex education curriculum, who presumably will be chosen by elected officials, who are elected by you and me.

How to align the profits of private companies without some form of censorship? To me, "no need to ban anything" seems incompatible in spirit with "we'll ban you if you don't comply with the categorizations of our censors, or the tax collection efforts of our enforcers".

No bans at all, just a bigger tax bill that obviously can't exceed 100% of profits.

 

[dirtywick]

Yeah, on that subject I've been pretty disheartened at online gambling getting so legally supported and mainstream that it has goddamned tv ads now in the US. Talk about something that blatantly exploits psychology and is difficult to effectively combat with education. Everyone knows about people whose lives are difficult because of gambling and that doesn't stop them betting with their rent money because 'yeah but.. maybe maybe maybe'

That Roblox stuff is insane. I'd heard stories but eaugh!

Revealed: gambling logos and ads seen up to every 13 seconds during big sports games in US

Critics warn of top sports becoming a ‘second-by-second gambling opportunity’ as new study shared with the Guardian reveals scale of marketing blitz

www.theguardian.com

estimated that you see a gambling logo in an nfl game an average of every 13 seconds

 

[dirtywick]

I got the 90% figure wrong and said so. That 90% of porn isn't violent isn't exactly a victory for porn advocates. I have cited other studies as well.

i recall some other issues at the time with a study on a keyword search but not specifics and have no interest in looking back. neither here nor there. the data on which you base your opinion on being wrong hasn’t altered your opinion on something you’re unfamiliar with. which was all i was saying.

 

[Poem]

i recall some other issues at the time with a study on a keyword search but not specifics and have no interest in looking back. neither here nor there. the data on which you base your opinion on being wrong hasn’t altered your opinion on something you’re unfamiliar with. which was all i was saying.

And I would restate my point that being wrong about violence being at the level of 90% does not help those that favour the status quo.

 

[dirtywick]

And I would restate my point that being wrong about violence being at the level of 90% does not help those that favour the status quo.

yeah i figured.

just as a thought exercise, at what level would it help those that favor the status quo? and what level is it actually?

 

[arthwollipot]

I don't know about the article iteself, but the headline at least is a lie. The Internet is observably not "overrun" with such material.

Evidence?

Tell us what kind of evidence you think could demonstrate that something does not exist.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Just a clarification: clearly Pornhub's tax bill should be directly proportional to the deviation between content served up to users and what is taught in high quality sex education. I dread to think what would be promoted on Pornhub if it's tax bill was inversely proportional to this deviation as I suggested before!

Categorisation would be Pornhub's responsibility and verified through random sampling to detect if deliberate mis-categorisation is being used to reduce it's tax bill.

 

[Darat]

Just a clarification: clearly Pornhub's tax bill should be directly proportional to the deviation between content served up to users and what is taught in high quality sex education. I dread to think what would be promoted on Pornhub if it's tax bill was inversely proportional to this deviation as I suggested before!

Categorisation would be Pornhub's responsibility and verified through random sampling to detect if deliberate mis-categorisation is being used to reduce it's tax bill.

Poem wants Pornhub to be made illegal and completely closed down, they are against all porn (Myriad's point aside).

 

[Darat]

I have already accepted that porn will never go away. We ban porn like we ban slavery. We make a stand. That is all.

So what are your suggestions as to how to do that, you'll need of course to start with a definition of porn to be placed into legislation. What will be the consequences for people who break your new law?

 

[Darat]

Revealed: gambling logos and ads seen up to every 13 seconds during big sports games in US

Critics warn of top sports becoming a ‘second-by-second gambling opportunity’ as new study shared with the Guardian reveals scale of marketing blitz

www.theguardian.com

estimated that you see a gambling logo in an nfl game an average of every 13 seconds

In the UK quite a few Premiership football clubs have had front of the shirt sponsorship deals with betting companies. This means it appears on every single player's shirt and on all the replica kit sales. In other words you can't watch the teams playing without constantly having it shoved down your throat. And it means even the cutesy replica shirts people buy for babies and toddlers come with the advertising. (Done a quick check and the football teams have "voluntarily" said those front of shirt deals will end after the upcoming season, presumably meaning other sponsorship deals with gambling companies will remain.)

In the UK we have a huge problem with under the waterline gambling that we are ignoring, this is especially so for women in regards to "bingo" now pretty much an online only activity.

 

[Poem]

Just a clarification: clearly Pornhub's tax bill should be directly proportional to the deviation between content served up to users and what is taught in high quality sex education. I dread to think what would be promoted on Pornhub if it's tax bill was inversely proportional to this deviation as I suggested before!

Categorisation would be Pornhub's responsibility and verified through random sampling to detect if deliberate mis-categorisation is being used to reduce it's tax bill.

Isn't this just another way of saying you want to ban porn - as in the type of porn available on Pornhub et al? Porn is about sexually arousing the consumer. Sex education isn't.

If you truly believe that sex education material is the only thing we should allow, then, unless the tax bill was really punitive, it would just be virtue signalling (just like many politicians who are railing at the harms of such content) - with very little substance...like the Online Safety Act.

 

[Poem]

So what are your suggestions as to how to do that, you'll need of course to start with a definition of porn to be placed into legislation. What will be the consequences for people who break your new law?

The definition of porn is generally that it's intent is to sexually arouse. There will always be grey areas - just as there are currently with the legalisation of porn - viz. allowing actors to look underage. This should be a wake up call for anyone with a moral compass.

Posted before:

In Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition, Chief Justice Rehnquist (who dissented from the courts decision):

...agreed that serious First Amendment concerns would arise if the government actually prosecuted, say, the producers of Traffic or American Beauty under CPPA. But it had not done so, and Rehnquist believed that the statute did not need to be construed to allow the government to do so. (Wikipedia)

 

[3point14]

The definition of porn is generally that it's intent is to sexually arouse. There will always be grey areas - just as there are currently with the legalisation of porn - viz. allowing actors to look underage. This should be a wake up call for anyone with a moral compass.

Yeah, but you can't just leave it there. You absolutely need to provide a definition if you're going to prosecute people. Do you not understand that? For your suggestion to be viable you - And I do mean you - have to be able to define, sufficient for a court of law to make a judgement, what it is you want to ban.

The fact that you seem not to be able to understand this - and that you make no attempt to understand this - really does demonstrate that you haven't thought this through and that you don't want to.

Unless and until you provide a definition of exactly what you want to ban, there's really no point in you espousing your philosophy because you literally cannot say what it is.

 

[Poem]

Yeah, but you can't just leave it there. You absolutely need to provide a definition if you're going to prosecute people. Do you not understand that? For your suggestion to be viable you - And I do mean you - have to be able to define, sufficient for a court of law to make a judgement, what it is you want to ban.

The fact that you seem not to be able to understand this - and that you make no attempt to understand this - really does demonstrate that you haven't thought this through and that you don't want to.

Unless and until you provide a definition of exactly what you want to ban, there's really no point in you espousing your philosophy because you literally cannot say what it is.

In the same way - legalising porn (whilst banning porn that is deemed extreme) needs a definition. Apparently, in the UK at least, there is no single definition.

 

[arthwollipot]

Yeah, but you can't just leave it there. You absolutely need to provide a definition if you're going to prosecute people.

Not only that, but you need to provide a definition in the extremely nuanced and hyper-precise technical jargon of the legal profession - a cant so notoriously complex that it has its own term - Legalese - to suggest that it is an entirely different language from regular English, and all but unintelligible to native speakers of that language.