Hacker News Reader

>I always had a problem with this (very American, in my view) concept of "appropriate". What does it mean exactly? It seems to be hiding stuff that is either ill-defined or unlikely to withstand deep scrutiny.

It depends on society's definition of appropriateness. For example, in your society would it be "appropriate" for you to go out right now and defecate in public in a hygienic manner? Or have sex in public? Or walk up to a store employee and expose your genitals?

Do you think it's "inappropriate" ? Can you define and spell out the bad consequences of doing so? Any research into that? Is it just because it can cause social embarrassment? Is it exclusively American?

The simple answer for your first set questions is that probably nobody would care -- I live in Berlin.

But that is not my point. What I am arguing is that using the catch-all label of "inappropriate" seems like an American phenomenon. I don't notice people talking like this in other cultures -- but maybe that's just my own ignorance.

Having lived for long periods in the USA and Nigeria and visiting other continents as well, I can assure you that each culture has an idea of what's appropriate whether they use that specific word or not. Never been to Germany (I've visited 5 of its neighbors), but no matter how open or permissive Berliners consider themselves, I feel it's likely they "don't care" about certain things - a lot of people take things for granted that everyone in their culture accepts as a norm or a line that shouldn't be crossed and I'm sure there are bound to be some of those in Berlin whether you perceive them or not.

You keep talking about how this is a uniquely American concept but I get the feeling that your only basis for comparison is Europe? Because just to take one example, Chinese parents complain even louder than American parents about anything "inappropriate" in the media and thus Westerners are often very surprised and disappointed to find that their Chinese acquaintances aren't interested in fighting government censorship.

Every culture for thousands of years has had rules about what is appropriate. Kosher laws, Halal, and so on. Modern Europe is probably the main exception.

The concept is mostly what parents want for their children. Every parent is different. Some have no problem taking a 10 year old to an "R" rated movie, others would not dream of it.

Anyone who has had young children will tell you that they can definitely get very freaked out by violent or "scary" movies and most parents do not want to expose their young children to explicit sexual content either.

I have no problem with mandatory labeling of violent or sexual content in movies or music. It helps me make decisions and it doesn't deprive adult consumers of anything.

> I have no problem with mandatory labeling of violent or sexual content in movies or music. It helps me make decisions and it doesn't deprive adult consumers of anything.

Not really true -- it affects funding and distribution of cultural artefacts, and this becomes very evident if you go to a modern cinema complex. It can be a very alienating experience if you are not a child or a parent.

I understand that rating helps you make choices, but it is not for the people who like these restrictions to decide if the burden they are placing on everyone else is justifiable or not.

I would say that a modern cinema is equally alienating to me as a parent with young children. There have been only 3 G rated movies to have a wide theatrical release in the past 5 years, compared to 18 in the 5 years before that.

Living in SoCal, everyone has an opinion on Hollywood, and the consensus I've heard is that they are targeting the 8-13 segment really hard, and a G rating is a negative signal to tweeners.

> It can be a very alienating experience if you are not a child or a parent.

Can you elaborate?

What I found with my kids was that the two year olds simply weren't interested in these things. If breast were suddenly on display on the tv screen they didn't really care. YMMV

Or you could look at it like an ingredient label on food or calorie count on restaurant menus.

Yes, there are allergens but there are other things that people just want to avoid due to personal preference.

Proper labeling can be helpful in lots of areas.

Proper labeling can be helpful, but the music/movie content regulators go a lot further than labeling in their restriction on content. Basically teens are forced to torrent content that seems obscene to christians until they are 18. This is a form of market regulation that seems more likely about pushing christian cultural homogeneity onto a group that can't politically object, than simply labeling what the content is.

One is not explicitly barred from buying a product with too much fat or sugar due to their age however. Cigarettes and alcohol sure, those have proven societal and health implications, but the analogy falls short on the basis of the buyer not being restricted from purchasing that which contains the nutritional info

This is a very good analogy. Media is input for your mind in the same way food is input to your body.

As a parent, appropriate is determined by my children's ability to yield the knowledge correctly.

Take swears for instance. Until they know better, there's more risk of them using swears at the wrong time.

> I always had a problem with this (very American, in my view) concept of "appropriate". What does it mean exactly? It seems to be hiding stuff that is either ill-defined or unlikely to withstand deep scrutiny.

The concept of appropriate is locally culturally bound. I suggest to people pondering the matter to read anthropology texts. They are extremely illuminating and suggest that it's better to exercise a certain cultural relativism.

clearly there are things that are inappropriate for a 5 year old to watch. Your points about Puritanism would be much more amenable without your second paragraph. Do you really doubt that subjecting a chikd to nonstop violent porn would result in some psychological adverse effects? To take extreme example.

I overall agree with your sentiment on Puritanism. But let's not go to the other extreme.

> Your points about Puritanism would be much more amenable without your second paragraph. Do you really doubt that subjecting a chikd to nonstop violent porn would result in some psychological adverse effects?

Please read again. The second paragraph is precisely where I say that I have no problem believing that there might be ill effects. Our intuitions, however, are no replacement for scientific rigour. The history of science if full of cases where common sense turned out to be wrong.

More importantly: I am not proposing that a child should be subjected to "nonstop violent porn". That sound like a terrible idea and it is a straw man. Like most things in life, this is not a binary choice. It's not like we have to choose between puritanism and nonstop violence and porn. What I am saying is this: is catching a glimpse of violence or sex so damaging that our entire culture should be subjected to severe restrictions? Or is it something best left for parents to decide? Maybe some parents are more worried than others, and maybe it doesn't make sense to burden everyone with a certain standard -- unless it is supported by rigorous scientific research.

>Please read again. The second paragraph is precisely where I say that I have no problem believing that there might be ill effects. Our intuitions, however, are no replacement for scientific rigour.

They are not just out of the blue intuitions though, they are based on millennia of observations.

Empiricism is not just found in scientific labs.

I take your point, but this is not entirely true in this case. Cinema is less than 150 years old, and not long before that most people could not read. Mass media is a very recent phenomenon.

I am no expert in the history of social norms, but I don't think it's clear at all the protecting children from witnessing violence and sex is a human universal. I know of several cultures (e.g. Roman Empire) where it was normal to let children witness public executions or violent fights. Again -- I am not arguing that this is good, I am arguing that one should not make laws based on vague intuitions.

>I take your point, but this is not entirely true in this case. Cinema is less than 150 years old, and not long before that most people could not read.

Most people didn't make laws and force social norms either though. The "educated" classes that did had theater and other kinds of public shows (music, etc) since at least the time of Ancient Greece, and those did have certain codes about what is to be said and what shouldn't be said.

They also had special "adult" shows.

What millennia are you taking about? None of these cultural norms are that old. We still have people living in the jungle walking around with breasts exposed and nude beaches are quite popular on posts of Germany.

>None of these cultural norms are that old.

None of these cultural norms are that new either. Even back in ancient Greece and Rome there were rules about what constitutes public or on stage obscenity.

What "severe restrictions" are these? Having music and movies labeled as to their general themes/content? If in reference to the subject FBI investigation, do note that was over fifty years ago. Social standards have changed a lot since then.

Rating hurts funding and distribution channels for anything that is not bland, "family-friendly" content. Go to any modern cinema complex in the western world and you will see what I mean: dozens of rooms, no real choice.

You can argue that the internet solves this, but it's not really the case: for example consider the current YouTube "demonetization crisis" or the arbitrary rules imposed in walled gardens such as app stores. The bigger danger -- and there are many examples of this -- is that "think of the children" can be used by politicians to advance more nefarious censorship agendas. For example, trying to rate content that presents non-conventional ideas.

I don't think movie ratings are the cause of bland movies. The mass market has voted and superhero/transformer movies that cater to 15 year old boys are the biggest moneymakers. All the original programming has moved to TV, which is also subject to restrictions but is not the bland wasteland it used to be.