Culture

[wizards8507]

I want to go back in time to five minutes ago, before I learned that "TikTok teens" are a thing. The internet was a mistake.

 

[Irish YJ]

I want to go back in time to five minutes ago, before I learned that "TikTok teens" are a thing. The internet was a mistake.

wut?

 

[wizards8507]

wut?

TikTok is where the Tumblristas all hang out now.

 

[Irish YJ]

TikTok is where the Tumblristas all hang out now.

That didn't help lol. But thank you for trying.

 

[IrishLax]

I want to go back in time to five minutes ago, before I learned that "TikTok teens" are a thing. The internet was a mistake.

The sad thing is that TikTok is just a Vine recode... but owned by China. Well played, Zoomers.

 

[wizards8507]

That didn't help lol. But thank you for trying.

Remember when we were kids and there were punks and mall goths and whatnot? The 2020 version of those kids involves duct taping their boobs down and calling themselves "gender fluid" and lip syncing cringy rap lyrics. And they're recording themselves doing these things and posting them to an app for tens of thousands of total strangers to see.

 

[Irish YJ]

Remember when we were kids and there were punks and mall goths and whatnot? The 2020 version of those kids involves duct taping their boobs down and calling themselves "gender fluid" and lip syncing cringy rap lyrics. And they're recording themselves doing these things and posting them to an app for tens of thousands of total strangers to see.

So basically a liberal in-training type video app that pushes the boundary of morality and focuses on the "me special" culture.

 

[greyhammer90]

So basically a video app.

.

 

[Irish YJ]

.

So not relevant that it's likely a no rules video app targeting minors, hosted by a nation that's devoid of any privacy rules?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

sTuPiD fReEdOm Of SpEeCh AlLoWiNg GaYs To ReAd To KiDs, LeTs GiVe MoRe PoWeR tO tHe GoVeRnMeNt. It CaNt BaCkFiRe.

The argument isn't that the state should control speech because it always does so wisely and justly. States are made up of fallible people, and they will govern better or worse based on the soundness of their principles and the competence of their bureaucrats.

The argument is that someone is always controlling speech, and only the state can do so properly. Banging on about the First Amendment, prior restraint, etc. just shifts that power to unaccountable corporate actors, like the Silicon Valley tech giants that own our social media platforms. And that leads to wonderful decisions like this one:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">In 2019, Twitter quietly changed its terms of service to permit discussion about "attraction towards minors" with the proviso that "they don’t promote or glorify child sexual exploitation in any way". <a href="https://t.co/XYz9QQrLiI">https://t.co/XYz9QQrLiI</a></p>— Michael Salter (@mike_salter) <a href="https://twitter.com/mike_salter/status/1212888057252171776?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 3, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I'd much rather these decisions be made by the State, which is at least theoretically accountable to its citizenry and responsible for the Common Good, than by a private company that recognizes responsibility to no one but its shareholders.

 

[greyhammer90]

Showing the ill effects of open speech in corporate platforms by pointing to information that's been disseminated through a post that's being critical of its own host corporate platform. Whew lad.

I'd much rather these decisions be made by the State, which is at least theoretically accountable to its citizenry and responsible for the Common Good,

A state that will surely become more accountable to the governed as freedom of speech is drained away.

than by a private company that recognizes responsibility to no one but its shareholders.

So now we get two filters instead of one. Both the government and the corporations. But its ok guys, because the government that elects to minimize freedom of speech is totally going to go with Jesus's teachings.

 

[greyhammer90]

So not relevant that it's likely a no rules video app targeting minors, hosted by a nation that's devoid of any privacy rules?

Oh are you concerned about privacy from a foreign communist regime? Before you were only complaining about the liberality of the user-base of the social media platform you didn't know existed thirty minutes ago. Sorry I must have misread.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Showing the ill effects of open speech in corporate platforms by pointing to information that's been disseminated through a post that's being critical of its own host corporate platform. Whew lad.

So because I learned about Twitter's change of policy to allow pedophile advocacy on Twitter, that's proof positive that outsourcing these decisions to Silicon Valley was a great call? Twitter has 126 million users, and a significant % of those are minors. The FCC approving a NAMBLA ad for public broadcast would have been unthinkable just a single generation go. This is a major change for the worse, and it's happening because our government has abdicated a lot of its proper authority to The Market™.

A state that will surely become more accountable to the governed as freedom of speech is drained away.

This is where we disagree. Speech is always being regulated. The only questions are "by whom" and "to what ends?" That the FCC might step in to prevent Twitter from allowing the dissemination of pedophile advocacy on its platform is viewed as an especially odious threat to liberty (because "gubmint"), but when Twitter facilitates a virtual lynch mob that gets someone fired from their job and rendered unemployable for the foreseeable future, that's just the market at work, baby. It's an illogical distinction that traces back to the Reformation.

So now we get two filters instead of one. Both the government and the corporations. But its ok guys, because the government that elects to minimize freedom of speech is totally going to go with Jesus's teachings.

The filters are going to exist regardless. As I said above, the only real questions are "by whom" and "to what ends"? You're apparently more comfortable allowing Zuckerberg, Dorsey, et al. making those decisions without any accountability. I'm not.

A father who allows his kid to watch anything he wants on the internet is a bad parent. Similarly, a state that pretends that it doesn't matter what sort of content its citizenry consumes has abdicated a significant moral responsibility, which cannot be fulfilled by any other actor.

 

[Irish#1]

Oh are you concerned about privacy from a foreign communist regime? Before you were only complaining about the liberality of the user-base of the social media platform you didn't know existed thirty minutes ago. Sorry I must have misread.

Did you miss the question mark at the end?

 

[Irish YJ]

Oh are you concerned about privacy from a foreign communist regime? Before you were only complaining about the liberality of the user-base of the social media platform you didn't know existed thirty minutes ago. Sorry I must have misread.

First, my reply to Wiz was based off his description of the app. If Wiz's description is accurate, I was pretty much spot on.

Second, I'm pretty much anti China in general when it comes to privacy, trade, human rights, etc. There's not too much I like about the Chinese gov or it's tactics. I'm also concerned about US gov and privacy here at home, but does that really impact my concern over China who we know are nefarious?

Third, regardless of the above, does that really matter if they are indeed exploiting minors? Isn't that bad enough?

 

[greyhammer90]

So because I learned about Twitter's change of policy to allow pedophile advocacy on Twitter, that's proof positive that outsourcing these decisions to Silicon Valley was a great call?

I just thought it was funny in my usual sophomoric way.

Twitter has 126 million users, and a significant % of those are minors. The FCC approving a NAMBLA ad for public broadcast would have been unthinkable just a single generation go. This is a major change for the worse, and it's happening because our government has abdicated a lot of its proper authority to The Market™.

I've apparently missed all their positive press for NAMBLA members that's been taking over the news lately. As far as I'm aware, an organization even being remotely associated with pedophilia is considered a pretty difficult stigma to overcome, no matter how unfair that association might be *cough*. Are we sure this isn't a nonevent that's been turned to 11 within an intellectual Twitter echo chamber as fuel for faux concern to justify preexisting political beliefs? Should the government step in?

This is where we disagree. Speech is always being regulated. The only questions are "by whom" and "to what ends?" That the FCC might step in to prevent Twitter from allowing the dissemination of pedophile advocacy on its platform is viewed as an especially odious threat to liberty (because "gubmint"), but when Twitter facilitates a virtual lynch mob that gets someone fired from their job and rendered unemployable for the foreseeable future, that's just the market at work, baby. It's an illogical distinction that traces back to the Reformation.

Twitter largely only "facilitates" lynch mobs in that it gives people access to others ideas. I see no change in the existence of "mobs" if Twitter censored more or less, except that there would be less ability to say something "mob worthy" to begin with. That's a result of human nature and access, and insinuating that "person saying something that the public doesn't like and gets bullied for it" wouldn't happen if only the government stepped in is a red herring. But lets play the thought experiment:

1) The social media conglomerates outlaw speaking out in favor of *minority view.* This is devastating, but holders of that view can go the public square (the real one), and attempt to change the hearts and minds of their local community/family. As you've repeatedly pointed out on these threads, those are the real connections to care about and people should be more concerned with those than the mountains of trolls in the world.

2) The government outlaws speaking out in favor of *minority view.* That's it. It's over.

The filters are going to exist regardless. As I said above, the only real questions are "by whom" and "to what ends"? You're apparently more comfortable allowing Zuckerberg, Dorsey, et al. making those decisions without any accountability. I'm not.

Your rejection of the free market for being inefficient at promoting change while saying that elections are efficient at promoting change is the illogical distinction here.

People will vote for things that they approve of, which will keep the government accountable despite the fact that speech against the government can be disallowed, which means dissent will be nearly impossible = Works.

People will use things that they approve of, which will keep the corporations accountable. Corporations can control speech on their platforms, and can use their immense influence to change positions, but there is a hard limit. = Inmates running the asylum.

A father who allows his kid to watch anything he wants on the internet is a bad parent. Similarly, a state that pretends that it doesn't matter what sort of content its citizenry consumes has abdicated a significant moral responsibility, which cannot be fulfilled by any actor.

Again, I'll disagree with you there. Voters cannot both metaphorical children who are incapable of determining what is good for them, and intelligent actors who will hold the government accountable once the ability to discuss all options are taken from them.

Finally, I think it's important to note the context of my post within the argument you are coming into. I'm a reasonable individual when it comes to understanding that there types of speech that cannot and should not be protected, and I'm not a libertarian who thinks the role of the government should be nothing (though note how all of them seem to disappear when taking potshots at millennials isn't the order of the day and they have to defend their political beliefs). But I'm not responding to a person who would prefer to have a mild increase in censorship in extreme cases for benevolent reasons. I'm responding to this:

Someone will wield power, I want it to be my side just for once.

I prefer wielding power and imposing order.

I'm mocking posters who say stuff like this, then laugh and cry "hysterical" when someone comes along and says "That's fascist yo."

 

[Legacy]

Life expectancy for American men drops for a third year

- Life expectancy for U.S. men slipped for a third straight year, according to new data from the National Center for Health Statistics.
- The average male lifespan stood at 76.1 years in 2017, a four-month decline since 2014.
- Drug overdose rates for men are almost twice as high as a decade ago.

Life expectancy for American men dropped for a third consecutive year, with the National Center for Health Statistics citing an increase in so-called "deaths of despair," such as the rise in drug overdose deaths.

Princeton economists Anne Case and Nobel laureate Angus Deaton first highlighted the issue in 2015 with their research on how white, less-educated Americans had veered off track. In 1999, the mortality rate for this demographic was about 30% lower than those of African-Americans. But by 2015, their mortality rate had eclipsed that of blacks by 30%, the economists found. The reason? A spike in death rates due to alcohol and drug poisoning, suicide, and alcoholic liver disease and cirrhosis.

The new data from the National Center for Health Statistics underline the scale of the problem. Drug overdose deaths for males over age 15 has almost doubled over the last decade, the agency found, rising to 29.1 deaths per 100,000 men in 2017, from 14.9 deaths per 100,000 in 2007.

"The recent increases were especially pronounced among men aged 25–34 and 35–44," the NCHS report noted. "From 2013 to 2017, the drug overdose death rate increased by an average of 18.5% per year among men aged 25–34 and by an average of 18.8% per year among men aged 35–44."

The average lifespan of men in the U.S. dipped to 76.1 years in 2017 (the latest data available), amounting to a four-month decline in life expectancy since 2014. The findings shed additional light on economic research into the sharp increase in recent years in deaths from overdoses and suicides among white men with less education. (cont)

That brings up the excellent article and stats that Whiskey has previously posted (linked above). His may have included breakdowns by state or region, too. One factor has been wealth v. poverty. From above,

Wealthier Americans are more likely to live into their 70s and 80s than people in the middle class and the poor, according to a September report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office. In other words, being poor can be hazardous to your health.

And that can lead to significantly different life expectancies, according to a recent Harvard analysis of 15 years' worth of IRS data. Men who are among the richest 1% of Americans live almost 15 years longer than those who are in the poorest 1%, the Harvard analysis found. The gap was about 10 years for the richest versus poorest women.

An increase of $1 in the minimum wage is linked to lower suicide rates, a study says

 

[Irish YJ]

Gwyneth Paltrow's Goop is selling a vagina-scented candle, and it's already sold out
https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/gwyneth-paltrows-goop-vagina-scented-candle

 

[Whiskeyjack]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Learned from a recent sex investigations conference the average age of hardcore pornography exposure in this country is 8 years old.<br><br>Within ONE month it is sought again out by the child.</p>— Nick (@fidelispatre) <a href="https://twitter.com/fidelispatre/status/1219799412769087488?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 22, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Sources are linked farther down in the thread.

 

[NorthDakota]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Learned from a recent sex investigations conference the average age of hardcore pornography exposure in this country is 8 years old.<br><br>Within ONE month it is sought again out by the child.</p>— Nick (@fidelispatre) <a href="https://twitter.com/fidelispatre/status/1219799412769087488?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 22, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Sources are linked farther down in the thread.

I think the first time I saw porn was during a sleepover in the 5th or 6th grade on the fuzzy HBO channel late at night.

What kids can do now is terrifying.

 

[ACamp1900]

I didn't see an actual prono until like late high school... playboy was a far as I got while 'younger'....

 

[GowerND11]

I didn't see an actual proo until like late high school... playboy was a far as I got while 'younger'....

Agreed. Though I would stay up late at night to see the infomercials for Girls Gone Wild on Comedy Central as an early teen...

 

[Old Man Mike]

If you're trying to graph this against age or era: for me it was graduate school. (magazine --- not TV, ever actually, nor internet, of course for my paleolithic era.)

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Marlo Safi just published an article in The Spectator titled "All I dream of becoming is a tradwife":

‘A woman’s place is in the House and the Senate’, read the shirts assembled by slave labor in Myanmar, the messaging likely dreamed up by graduates of a small liberal arts school whose annual tuition would make a generous stimulus package for a city in any developing country. I like seeing women in the Senate, don’t get me wrong. I just see the former option, the house, as much more preferable for myself for a variety of reasons.

I went through my Girl Boss phase in my late teens — my hard working immigrant parents, the descendants of a long, long line of ‘tradwives’, wanted different things for their only daughter. I was at the top of my high school class, a leader of various clubs, taking pleasure in subverting men trying to usurp me from my glorious, imperial reign as president of the choir. In college, I, like all children of Middle Eastern parents, was trying to become a doctor (and then a lawyer, a major downgrade in my parents’ eyes). I am now dreaming of becoming a tradwife.

Record scratch, freeze frame, blah blah blah. You’re probably wondering how I decided I’d like to become a tradwife. Fast forward to the current day, as I approach the age of 24. Perhaps my family should have caught on that their daughter who preferred dressing Barbie in an apron rather than a doctor’s lab coat would gravitate toward the domestic life. Surely they couldn’t have thought that I could be a Girl Boss and a tradwife at once. In this economy? I can’t be milked for my labor by my corporate overlord and raise a family of more than one child, telling my flesh and blood that ‘mommy promises to be at your ballet recital this time honey!’ I can’t pursue my vocation as a writer while working 70-hour weeks in a law firm or ER, when my free time is being used to pick up my Xanax prescription from the pharmacy or calling my therapist to reschedule an appointment because a client is having a meltdown.

Perhaps other women belong in the Senate, but I belong in the kitchen.

Most recently, BBC Talkback introduced readers to a tradwife, which they describe in a way similar to how National Geographic would describe an endangered animal in the Amazon: ‘A young woman who has chosen to be a traditional wife, staying at home to take care of the household chores while her husband works, and she is fine with submitting to her husband as he makes the key decisions in their lives.’

The trade off, as I see it, is quite fair and attractive if you don’t marry a complete tool. Sure, husband, you can go spend eight hours a day under the thumb of a money grubber! I’ll stay at home, enjoying my fully subsidized existence, perhaps homeschooling my children and cooking them meals I’ve vetted of the poison I was fed in public school. Macaroni art instead of marketing? Playing with babies instead of board meetings? Cleaning instead of ‘corporate synergy’? Maybe my perpetually pregnant ancestors were onto something.

Of course, many women who would like to stay home with their kids are no longer able to do this because the household income wouldn’t be sufficient for survival, and I support just about any political initiative that would allow more mothers to pursue the tradwife life if they choose. Personally, I couldn’t imagine a life better than one that would allow me to write books while staying home with my children. A tradwife’s life for me.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

 

[Legacy]

Two classes of child sex abuse and the challenges they face always come to my mind:

1. Homeless teenagers
2. Victims of pedophilia

When children are subjected to sex abuse, they often have little or no choices to find homes and end up on the street, sleeping cars. Yet they are committed to complete high school. Fortunately, a federal program called Title 1 provides funding and helps them find safe living situations.

The Catholic priest pedophilia is just a piece of child sex abuse. Some escape the personal impacts in later life. All are scarred in some way. As states pass laws extending the age and opening a window for sex abuse victims to sue their abusers, the numbers are astonishing. When you are successful and safe, it's hard to put faces to that abuse and comprehend it.

All end up struggling with trust issues because of abuse by people they trusted.

 

[zelezo vlk]

Great stuff, Whiskey. Thank you.

 

[Bishop2b5]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebr...ters-call-it-quits/ar-BBZywW2?ocid=spartanntp

This is just heartbreaking. I'm devastated. After only two weeks of marriage, Pam Anderson and husband #5 Jon Peters have called it quits. If Pam can't make it work by her fifth marriage, what hope is there for the rest of us? Tragic.

 

[Irish YJ]

So now PETA is saying we shouldn't call dogs, cats, etc., "pets"......

"Pets" is derogatory and we should call them companions.

What's next, Pet, no sorry, "companion" suffrage?

 

[ulukinatme]

So now PETA is saying we shouldn't call dogs, cats, etc., "pets"......

"Pets" is derogatory and we should call them companions.

What's next, Pet, no sorry, "companion" suffrage?

So what do we call our non-married human companions? Calling a dog a companion might...uhh...give people the wrong idea.
Good job, PETA! Way to think this one out.