I like to think that most of the valuable information is generally unnoticed. Most of the things I make are very valuable to the people who want it, but any one of those things are pretty useless to the majority of people who would find it.
A huge part of the phenomenon comes through how fashions form. Hype collects around emotionally-charged things. By their very nature, their spectacle is compromising some of the sincerity and value to maximize reach. The spotlight is power, and power corrupts.
HN is a perfect example of this: looks like a chat forum from 1998, but is very much current and edgy with the cool kids.
I'm absolutely convinced that censorship takes one of two forms:
1. Cut out things, overstepping and taking some of the best that humanity has to offer.
2. Avoid cutting out things, leaving many people offended for a wide variety of possible reasons.
The reason I believe Lolita is being questioned is because the pendulum has swung too far toward Type 1. The entire idea of a free society, though, is predicated on lots more Type 2.
Thus, I believe Western society is unsustainable as it stands. We'll either see much more censorship in the coming years, or a company/government will face such a huge public backlash on their censoring that the trend reverses course.
Lolita is only subversive for elderly church going moms who understand a man is subverting a child, anyway.
I remember it as a lesson on self-control, child mindset (they are in a phase where they can manipulate dishonestly but also quickly move on like nothing has consequences), a road trip of the US, a lesson on obsessive passion, on one-sided escalation of obsession.
I read it on the advice of my dad around 16, and I had to admit this was absolute beauty, the main character being French like me helped also. There is nothing to censor, there is nothing to discuss: it can be read by children as a warning, it can be read by teenagers as a disturbing challenge, it can be read by adults as entertainment.
Only in the US do people discuss these things like it's a big deal, it's just the story of a lost man who got manipulated by a airhead child and fell in a criminal trap of his own making to end up with absolutely nothing to show for.
BTW western society doesn't exist. Americans should stop using this word to describe their own ways. We don't, everywhere west of China, agree on the definition of what is proper, what is censorship, what is society and how being west of China should impact how we group with others. So American society is unsustainable, but I'd like to argue that French society has an opinion on the balance of such things that works for us. It involves teaching limits openly and early, embrace free expression is a fantasy and explain why, and not shy away from re-discussing each instance of each issue together and publicly.
I'm still trying to differentiate the difference between Western and American culture. As a general rule, the content that floats here about the rest of the world is either extremely stereotyped or with a severe agenda attached.
To the end of that, I believe almost everything in your last paragraph, with some clarifications as an American:
- Americans are highly ethnocentric relative to the rest of the world. It's because this country is the size of Europe, and its relative newness has made very little variance between, say, Kansas and Wyoming as opposed to, say, France and Germany. Thousands of years of horse-drawn travel have crafted your country's culture, while most of this country has had steam power, especially when you head westward.
- The actual meaning of "Western Society", at least as I defaulted to using it, is to draw a political dichotomy to "Other Societies". Frankly, I think elements of all cultures are useful, but this two-party system over here removes any sense of subtlety to the dialogue.
- I believe that protecting innocence is a losing bet, so I personally give my kids all the information as much as possible. To most Americans, that's offensive because they believe I'm somehow scarring them.
I'm comforted by history. Shopped photos don't mean we distrust photos entirely, but we're now generally "herd immune" to silly things in a photo because we all know that it came from somebody's edits.
This will hold true for deepfakes. It means that we might start judging the character of a person, their surrounding information (e.g., who they know who vouches for them) instead of the core information itself. It'll be a bit like how cybersecurity involves trusting the trust of trustworthy sources: not perfect, but doable.
As a trend-resistant individual, this entire discussion is ridiculous. While I'm white as the plowed snow, my wife is distinctly black.
Whatever injustices that happened have, for the most part, been committed by long-dead people. The concept of "ancestral guilt" is mostly a social fashion for people to maintain their lifestyles without their status quo being disrupted.
I believe this is a fashion that's moving to pivot back again, based on my metamodel of trends[1]. This may take months or years, depending on the culture, but at some point the practical use cases of judging others by what's in their minds will outpace even bothering what skin color someone is.
Though, I must concede, this fashion of demanding reparation-driven political action has gone on for decades in many black communities, so it'll probably only change when their community leaders start forgiving stuff and moving on[2] without getting ostracized by their community[3].
Why so much fatalism? From what I understand, this seems like a one-off situation, and could swing back into full restoration once the urchins die off from starvation.
If nature is anything, it's most certainly resilient! Mt. Saint Helens erupting caused more pollution than the entire industrial revolution combined, and a year of worldwide lockdown cleared up metric shedloads of air pollution.
Why trust what so-called experts say about 20 years out when their models suck for the next few years?
It’s more than just letting urchins starve. The spines from their dead bodies prevent the bull kelp from establishing their foothold. And ocean warming is also very problematic for the kelp. Much more so than urchins.
I don’t mean to be fatalistic, but I’m realistic. One of my closest friends in the world is a marine biologist studying red abalone on the CA coast. We’ve been discussing this problem for years as it has caused the closure of the fishery, thus eliminating one of our favorite shared pastimes. We WANT to dive for abs again, but all the evidence is pointing to towards an ecosystem where that won’t be possible anytime soon.
A huge part of this depends on your philosophical axioms about the inherent morality of individuals. Are people default-good or default-bad?
Frankly, this view is the major divide between conservative and liberal. And, it'll directly affect all practical implementations such as giving everyone free money. It's also profoundly philosophical in questioning the essence of the soul, so most people like to get unphilosophically political (which is like trying to make software without knowing a language).
I love this! It really embodies the concept of "emergent order". From our birth onward, we perceive the environment around us, observe patterns, then build them, and the entire thing is absolutely stunning even with the most ridiculous constraints imaginable.
Wow, looks like a wealth of knowledge. Forked it for myself, only for reference, hope that is ok. Just seems like a ton of great info that I’d love to comb through myself. Cheers.
I entirely agree, but HN is filled with ASD savants, so what would you expect? It's not precisely correct, and affirmations about known facts are largely a neurotypical thing.
NOTE: I'm ASD, so please don't call it my "NT privilege"!
A joke I like to say is that a true geek will hear about the President caught in a sex scandal and will obsess about the fact that it was because the password was easy to guess.
A huge part of the phenomenon comes through how fashions form. Hype collects around emotionally-charged things. By their very nature, their spectacle is compromising some of the sincerity and value to maximize reach. The spotlight is power, and power corrupts.
HN is a perfect example of this: looks like a chat forum from 1998, but is very much current and edgy with the cool kids.