Hacker News Reader

> The people complaining about it seem to have their own discomfort that they project onto a phantom pedophile

> Has anyone noticed that?

How can I "notice" something you're just claiming, based on nothing, that doesn't even make sense on top of that? I'm not projecting my own discomfort at sexualized depiction of underage girls on a phantom pedophile, since I would assume such a pedophile wouldn't feel discomfort, but arousal.

> I don’t think this movie crosses any community standards

And if anyone disagrees, you speculate a bit, then say it doesn't even matter.. yet think your assessment matters. These aren't "community standards", these are yours. The suppression of how "the community" actually reacts speaks volumes in and of itself.

> like it needs the controversy in order to be viewed

I don't need anything for any Netflix stuff to be viewed. I simply call things as I see them.

edit: and for the "men on Twitter" thing (as if there's not plenty men calling this a profound something or other), here's shoe0nhead's take: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvFyhqSE51A

I don't know anyone who is concerned with pedophiles getting off on the film. Almost all the arguments I've heard against it are based on potential exploitation of the child actors and people generally being uncomfortable with overt sexualization of children.

> The people complaining about it seem to have their own discomfort that they project onto a phantom pedophile

Ah yes, the old “people who have a problem with pedophilia are the real pedophiles”

Stranger things have happened

Everyone could just ignore the movie because it’s not that interesting

Or we can condemn it for the filth it is and the blatant attempt to normalize absolutely disgusting behavior.

People love to dismiss slippery slope arguments, but we see time and time again "oh, we only want X" soon turns into Y, Z and infinity and beyond.

People are amazed that Harvey Weinstein got away with what he did for so long. Matt Lauer - the lists go on. Hell do we even need to talk about Roman Polanski or indeed the co-founder of Sundance (where the award that Netflix points out they won) was CONVICTED of child pornography?

How does this keep happening? It's because there were people like you willing to make the argument you are making - "oh, it's just a little bit - it's not that bad".

Nope. There is NO QUARTER. Not one more square inch. This movie is flat out unacceptable in and of itself and that is more than enough. You can defend kiddie diddlers if that's really the legacy you want to leave here but I have zero problem being unequivocal on where I stand on this issue.

I wish that having people willing to compromise even the slightest on the exploitation of children could shock me - that's what's even more disgusting to me about this thread.

Its a dumb movie

We're at the bottom of the slope, there is nothing "being" normalized we're way past that point by the standard of whatever is triggering you

That's not quite it. It's that there are some people crying wolf who see something as erotic material when it's not. Do you see the difference there? Getting to the heart of why they see it this way when others don't is an interesting question.

There's an ugly implication of the "I know it when I see it" standard -- something in the individual's brain has realized that what it's getting from the eyes is supposed to be exciting. How could they otherwise make the claim? That's got to be an unsettling experience for a lot of people. The self-disgust this causes is likely to be so visceral and panic-inducing that it will be hard for someone experiencing it to understand that the reaction is not universal.

> something in the individual's brain has realized that what it's getting from the eyes is supposed to be exciting.

If you motion captured someone dancing sexually I would recognize what it's supposed to be even if you applied that animation to a wireframe of bones. I could even do that even if I didn't find grown women (or men) dancing sexually attractive myself, just by osmosis, just like I know an ad for a car is supposed to elicit this or that association, while not caring much for cars myself.

> The self-disgust this causes is

an assumption of yours, and you might as well ask what makes you engage in these mental gymnastics. I don't find children dancing sexually arousing in the least, yet still recognize it as dancing sexually, which isn't weird or interesting at all, much less "ugly".

Except for the fact that I never said "arousing", I don't think we disagree. You're just not mortified by the recognition of what you see.

I do disagree with you say.

You say there is "something in the brain" of someone who recognizes this for sexual dancing, as something that is supposed to be exciting (which to me in this context is just an euphemism for arousing) -- but you don't say what that is, just call it an "ugly implication".

I say that all that's required in the brain is a passing familiarity with general society, and the same behavior/dancing in adults. That's neither ugly nor interesting nor an insight. The only interesting thing is how you first assume some sort of denial in anyone criticizing the movie, then turn around and can't even handle that I do, in fact, disagree with you, because you're wrong.

If you say so. I see our difference as being mostly semantics, but you're quite upset.

> because you're wrong

I'm okay with that.

Not sure about this particular topic, but what you describe does happen. I used to be a schoolteacher and there were instances of students doing sexual dancing, wearing reavealing clothes or flirting. You're startled and make yourself ignore it. Think of their last assignment or something.

There is nothing sophisticated in "pushing boundaries" to make a point - it's sophistry to justify child pron, plain and simple.