Typo at the line "Sorry, the dog at my work for hire paperwork". Probably meant to be "Sorry, the dog ate my work for hire paperwork". The former totally ruins the joke. :)
I agree that Netflix cannot be held legally responsible for this teen's suicide. However, that does not mean that they bear no responsibility at all. The studies about 'suicide contagion' are extensive and clear (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1124845/ for example.) There are guidelines for reporting and media portrayals of suicide to minimize the potential harm, but Netflix did not follow these. Honestly, I was angry way back when "13 Reasons Why" first came out because I knew this would be the result. So, no, not legally responsible, but there is still blood on their hands.
Well, if anyone deserves to be on the 'no-fly' list, it's these domestic terrorists. However, because I'm opposed to the very existence of this extrajudicial penalty, I have to agree it's a bad idea.
Hey, if it does happen, maybe there'd be some court cases that might have a chance at getting a "this is unconstitutional" ruling. That'd be nice.
Yep. YouTube messed that up. But I'm much more okay with YouTube making bad decisions while trying to please everyone, than YouTube making the same (or opposite) decisions because the law tells them to.
Just came back after great-grand-parent got the #1 insightful vote. Reading trough the other replies, everyone seemed to miss my point, which probably means I was presenting it poorly. I've tried very hard not to make a judgement call about bad or good, and though I've also tried to infuse my remarks with an even tone and maybe some humor, the hostility in your post indicates that was also probably unsuccessful. Sorry.
"You're not making much of a case that it's harmful for children to see a bare breast here."
/sigh. Good, because I was never trying to make that point. One last try, that probably won't get read, but may make myself feel better.
Violence. Nudity. Completely different. It's like saying Americans let their kids watch too much YouTube, but they freak out about nudity. Or Americans are fine with lack of healthcare for children, but they freak out about nudity. You can't have a double standard about two dissimilar things. If you feel they are equivalent or close to the same thing, then I can definitely say we disagree there. But nothing you've written seems to even address that, opting instead to argue very strongly the original point.
Here's a better double standard: Americans don't seem to have a problem sexualizing children and teens in media, but they freak out about children being exposed to nudity in any context.
Maybe where I went wrong was trying to argue a logical point, but everyone else wanted to argue a moral point. I've always felt the arguing morality will almost always be a lost cause, and laws and policy should not be based on something as nebulous and personal as morality.
Heh. I can tell you I've never seen the comparison expressed that way, and I have a hard time believing that most of those people who posted "America: violence good, sex bad" think about the concepts that deeply. This is certainly the first time I've seen a supreme court citation enter the conversation.
Your point about graphic violence is interesting, and I wonder if it's more of a case of you projecting your values, than an illustration of what is actually harmful to children. I think the age of the child has more to do with it than anything. I had nightmares about the charred bodies of Luke's aunt and uncle when I was 4, but I was completely indifferent to bare breasts. By the time I was 11 or 12, I was unfazed by violence in the movie Alien or Friday the 13th (the jump scares are what got me), but any 'nudie' scenes made a big impression.
Also, what we're almost always talking about is 'simulated' violence. Are there studies indicating that there is harm done to children by exposure to simulated violence? Why is American desensitization to fake violence bad, but European desensitization to real nudity is fine? These are strictly value judgements. I feel that both cultures could stand to take a deeper look at our preconceived notions.
And yes the rating system is bad. Another instance of the threat of legislation pushing private companies to make bad policy.
"though I would hope you recognize that as at least a little hyperbolic."
Of course. And I'm sorry you bore the brunt of my slowly building frustration with the years and years of seeing that comparison being made over and over and over. I'm not even sure what the real point of it is. Are people who make that comparison saying America should censor violence in our media? Are we supposed to be saying "think of the children!" for cartoonish violence but not for sexual imagery? Should we be censoring both, so as to be more consistent? And if we should be permissive of both, doesn't that mean we're progressive on one side, but not the other?
And using a minimus example of nudity and then saying it's nonsexual ignores the fact that what is sexual and what isn't is a very complicated and personal subject, with deep cultural roots.
Overall, it just seems like easy way to score internet points by playing on peoples preconceived biases about America and Americans. And I never see it called out, so I decided to this time.
And on the point of the article, I'm a deeply religious person who believes that a lot of damage is done by our inability to openly discuss sex in our society. So I'm right there with you in condemning that facet of our culture. I see a lot of progress being made in that area, though. I hope that continues.
And if that is the case, it's an insidious form of censorship, too, because the government didn't tell the companies "don't advertise on her site", it's the chilling effect of the possibility. I have no legal expertise, but my impression would be that it would be difficult to establish standing in order to challenge the law(s) in question.
Context is important, and thank you for adding necessary nuance. However my point was that the comparison he made is invalid. In my mind, it feels the same as "Americans will eat 2000 calories at a sitting, but you can barely show a glimpse..."
Non-sexual contexts. That's a tricky one. In the 80's I spent a lot of time paging through National Geographic magazines looking for nudity that, as an adult, I would now consider completely non-sexual. Once again, I'm not making the argument that NG mags = bad, just that nonsexual context != non-titillating for some people.
Also, I didn't say this explicitly in my original post (because I really was just addressing the comparison), but rightly or wrongly, it would not be difficult to find people who would cry "think of the children!" over the sight of "someone’s head being sliced in half with a giant axe". Overall, he was making a straw man argument conjoined with a false dichotomy, utilizing a bad stereotype, and he got a light bulb for it. I found that mildly irritating.
Look. I believe frank, open, honest discussion about sex and the issues surrounding it is a good thing. I believe that forcing it underground and preventing such talk is bad. But you cannot conflate images of sex and images of violence. I really don't understand how that even happens, other than both are considered 'adult'.
I can say from my experience, which I will be bold enough to say is far from unique, that images and discussion about sex have a much different effect on me than those of violence. I have never watched violence filled movie and then left with the need or desire to act out the violence. A great deal of research has been done to disprove those people who want to blame video games and movies for violent behaviors. Depictions of sex and nudity, however, are different story. Isn't that the entire point of porn? It is intended to arouse, and then that arousal is acted upon. I haven't tried to find the research, but I dare say that there is a bit of a link between porn and self pleasure or other sexual acts.
I'm not trying to make a morality argument here, but I am tired of the "Americans are fine with violence and not sex, those hipocrits!" argument. I don't think it's difficult to understand why we may treat them differently.
Or it could simply be a short yet accurate descriptive term. It's not like he didn't link to the other story where the video was shown to be light on facts and heavy on lies.
Also, a more effective argument will focus on the content of the message, addressing specific issues you may have with the points that I made. For example, you might say "without having a previously agreed upon definition of a word, communication becomes more difficult. Only by insisting on a specific meaning of a word can we truly foster a productive discussion." This will help me to understand your point of view, and gives me the ability to respond in kind.
Dictionaries will always lag behind actual English meaning. Dictionaries describe how words are used, they don't prescribe how we must use them. As long as the meaning behind the statement is understood by a majority of the audience, the word used is correct. You might successfully argue that a different word would be portray the intended meaning to larger percentage of readers, but that doesn't mean the original choice was wrong, only that it was less clear.
I think less important than the number of EO's are the subject and scope. I don't have time to research this right now, but I think that kind of analysis would be very interesting.
(untitled comment)
Typo at the line "Sorry, the dog at my work for hire paperwork". Probably meant to be "Sorry, the dog ate my work for hire paperwork". The former totally ruins the joke. :)
(untitled comment)
I agree that Netflix cannot be held legally responsible for this teen's suicide. However, that does not mean that they bear no responsibility at all. The studies about 'suicide contagion' are extensive and clear (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1124845/ for example.) There are guidelines for reporting and media portrayals of suicide to minimize the potential harm, but Netflix did not follow these. Honestly, I was angry way back when "13 Reasons Why" first came out because I knew this would be the result. So, no, not legally responsible, but there is still blood on their hands.
(untitled comment)
Well, if anyone deserves to be on the 'no-fly' list, it's these domestic terrorists. However, because I'm opposed to the very existence of this extrajudicial penalty, I have to agree it's a bad idea.
Hey, if it does happen, maybe there'd be some court cases that might have a chance at getting a "this is unconstitutional" ruling. That'd be nice.
Ha Ha!
Live by the supplantation of democracy by trade agreements, die by the supplantation of democracy by trade agreements!
(untitled comment)
My counter is that parents ought to be in control of raising their children, not big government.
Re: Re:
Melancholy Elephants, by Spider Robinson? http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html
Re: Re: Sounds like a win
Yep. YouTube messed that up. But I'm much more okay with YouTube making bad decisions while trying to please everyone, than YouTube making the same (or opposite) decisions because the law tells them to.
Sounds like a win
The fact that both parties are unhappy with it, for opposite reasons, makes it appear to be the rare good law, IMHO.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just came back after great-grand-parent got the #1 insightful vote. Reading trough the other replies, everyone seemed to miss my point, which probably means I was presenting it poorly. I've tried very hard not to make a judgement call about bad or good, and though I've also tried to infuse my remarks with an even tone and maybe some humor, the hostility in your post indicates that was also probably unsuccessful. Sorry.
"You're not making much of a case that it's harmful for children to see a bare breast here."
/sigh. Good, because I was never trying to make that point. One last try, that probably won't get read, but may make myself feel better.
Violence. Nudity. Completely different. It's like saying Americans let their kids watch too much YouTube, but they freak out about nudity. Or Americans are fine with lack of healthcare for children, but they freak out about nudity. You can't have a double standard about two dissimilar things. If you feel they are equivalent or close to the same thing, then I can definitely say we disagree there. But nothing you've written seems to even address that, opting instead to argue very strongly the original point.
Here's a better double standard: Americans don't seem to have a problem sexualizing children and teens in media, but they freak out about children being exposed to nudity in any context.
Maybe where I went wrong was trying to argue a logical point, but everyone else wanted to argue a moral point. I've always felt the arguing morality will almost always be a lost cause, and laws and policy should not be based on something as nebulous and personal as morality.
Re: Re: Re:
Heh. I can tell you I've never seen the comparison expressed that way, and I have a hard time believing that most of those people who posted "America: violence good, sex bad" think about the concepts that deeply. This is certainly the first time I've seen a supreme court citation enter the conversation.
Your point about graphic violence is interesting, and I wonder if it's more of a case of you projecting your values, than an illustration of what is actually harmful to children. I think the age of the child has more to do with it than anything. I had nightmares about the charred bodies of Luke's aunt and uncle when I was 4, but I was completely indifferent to bare breasts. By the time I was 11 or 12, I was unfazed by violence in the movie Alien or Friday the 13th (the jump scares are what got me), but any 'nudie' scenes made a big impression.
Also, what we're almost always talking about is 'simulated' violence. Are there studies indicating that there is harm done to children by exposure to simulated violence? Why is American desensitization to fake violence bad, but European desensitization to real nudity is fine? These are strictly value judgements. I feel that both cultures could stand to take a deeper look at our preconceived notions.
And yes the rating system is bad. Another instance of the threat of legislation pushing private companies to make bad policy.
Re:
"though I would hope you recognize that as at least a little hyperbolic."
Of course. And I'm sorry you bore the brunt of my slowly building frustration with the years and years of seeing that comparison being made over and over and over. I'm not even sure what the real point of it is. Are people who make that comparison saying America should censor violence in our media? Are we supposed to be saying "think of the children!" for cartoonish violence but not for sexual imagery? Should we be censoring both, so as to be more consistent? And if we should be permissive of both, doesn't that mean we're progressive on one side, but not the other?
And using a minimus example of nudity and then saying it's nonsexual ignores the fact that what is sexual and what isn't is a very complicated and personal subject, with deep cultural roots.
Overall, it just seems like easy way to score internet points by playing on peoples preconceived biases about America and Americans. And I never see it called out, so I decided to this time.
And on the point of the article, I'm a deeply religious person who believes that a lot of damage is done by our inability to openly discuss sex in our society. So I'm right there with you in condemning that facet of our culture. I see a lot of progress being made in that area, though. I hope that continues.
Re: Re: Is this censorship
And if that is the case, it's an insidious form of censorship, too, because the government didn't tell the companies "don't advertise on her site", it's the chilling effect of the possibility. I have no legal expertise, but my impression would be that it would be difficult to establish standing in order to challenge the law(s) in question.
Re: Re: Re:
Context is important, and thank you for adding necessary nuance. However my point was that the comparison he made is invalid. In my mind, it feels the same as "Americans will eat 2000 calories at a sitting, but you can barely show a glimpse..."
Non-sexual contexts. That's a tricky one. In the 80's I spent a lot of time paging through National Geographic magazines looking for nudity that, as an adult, I would now consider completely non-sexual. Once again, I'm not making the argument that NG mags = bad, just that nonsexual context != non-titillating for some people.
Also, I didn't say this explicitly in my original post (because I really was just addressing the comparison), but rightly or wrongly, it would not be difficult to find people who would cry "think of the children!" over the sight of "someone’s head being sliced in half with a giant axe". Overall, he was making a straw man argument conjoined with a false dichotomy, utilizing a bad stereotype, and he got a light bulb for it. I found that mildly irritating.
Re:
Look. I believe frank, open, honest discussion about sex and the issues surrounding it is a good thing. I believe that forcing it underground and preventing such talk is bad. But you cannot conflate images of sex and images of violence. I really don't understand how that even happens, other than both are considered 'adult'.
I can say from my experience, which I will be bold enough to say is far from unique, that images and discussion about sex have a much different effect on me than those of violence. I have never watched violence filled movie and then left with the need or desire to act out the violence. A great deal of research has been done to disprove those people who want to blame video games and movies for violent behaviors. Depictions of sex and nudity, however, are different story. Isn't that the entire point of porn? It is intended to arouse, and then that arousal is acted upon. I haven't tried to find the research, but I dare say that there is a bit of a link between porn and self pleasure or other sexual acts.
I'm not trying to make a morality argument here, but I am tired of the "Americans are fine with violence and not sex, those hipocrits!" argument. I don't think it's difficult to understand why we may treat them differently.
Re:
Or it could simply be a short yet accurate descriptive term. It's not like he didn't link to the other story where the video was shown to be light on facts and heavy on lies.
Re: Re: Re:
No, it isn't!
Re: Re: Re: Hijacking your name: maybe of "xebikr"!
LOL! Guess that's what I get for mostly lurking.
Also, a more effective argument will focus on the content of the message, addressing specific issues you may have with the points that I made. For example, you might say "without having a previously agreed upon definition of a word, communication becomes more difficult. Only by insisting on a specific meaning of a word can we truly foster a productive discussion." This will help me to understand your point of view, and gives me the ability to respond in kind.
Re: Hijacking your name
Dictionaries will always lag behind actual English meaning. Dictionaries describe how words are used, they don't prescribe how we must use them. As long as the meaning behind the statement is understood by a majority of the audience, the word used is correct. You might successfully argue that a different word would be portray the intended meaning to larger percentage of readers, but that doesn't mean the original choice was wrong, only that it was less clear.
Re: Re: Re: So where's the problem?
The 'moron' part was completely uncalled for, though.
Re: Re: On a side note
More comments from xebikr >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by xebikr.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt