cutitout

> It doesn't matter whether you hate the spies and believe they are corroding democracy, or if you think they are the noble guardians of the state. In both cases the assumption is that the secret agents know more than we do.

> But the strange fact is that often when you look into the history of spies what you discover is something very different.

> It is not the story of men and women who have a better and deeper understanding of the world than we do. In fact in many cases it is the story of weirdos who have created a completely mad version of the world that they then impose on the rest of us.

-- Adam Curtis

> Glass woulda fixed that. But it would have made everything else worse.

Kinda like using x-ray machines in shoe shops. But now that I think about it, that could be said even about many uses of social media. Yes, it achieves something, no, it's not always an essential or even very good thing, and the price is rather gigantic compared to the convenience.

I simply cannot see the value in happiness for the sake of happiness. As long as there are people being murdered and tortured, I will not ever feel deeply happy -- so? I still won't shift the goal posts just to feel "happy". I can't change the world just by myself, but I can make it so I would have deserved to live in a better one, and that to me implies not accepting or normalizing the state of things, however painful that may be.

Yes, and then robots (built by people so conditioned, no less) are still infinitely worse than that.

> I think that surreal nature makes folks less suspect of other sort of curious / awfully polished / almost surreal content

I agree, and it it reminds me of a very good article:

https://charleseisenstein.org/essays/the-ubiquitous-matrix-o...

Also notice one of the follow-up videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WXZU6CTVts

> YouTube has now age restricted this video... unbelievable. Three painstaking videos diving into this issue, and in the end I'm the one who gets punished. I'm absolutely devastated

YouTube, once again a tool for abusers -- why am I not surprised?

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.

> 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".

I said the intention is irrelevant. As I said in the bit you quoted, it's about the content.

You cannot seriously mention homosexuality between consenting adults and sexualization of children in the same sentence.

> because the French movie in question is fundamentally critical of the existing normalization of sexualization of children.

By engaging in it.. this isn't even a fig leaf, that's like posting insults and slurs to criticize insults and slurs, or saying "no offense, but $incredibly_offensive_thing". Even if that actually is the intention, that is irrelevant, the actions are what matters.

> A lot of fault must be put on Netflix for jacking up the controversy in their US marketing.

Nobody but the defenders of this even care about the marketing; it's about the content, about the minute long close up shots of children "grinding".

Regardless of the attempts to frame it that way, "thinking of the children" isn't just a monopoly of hypocritical, puritan "outrage", it's also what any healthy adult does by default. Even (non-predator) animals in some cases treat the young of other species that way.

> 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

The show is criticized for being essential erotic material for pedophiles, filled with up close shots of bums and panties of children. The American poster comes closer to that, but is still tame compared to the actual content, which is what this is about.

> And it's worked, in a sense: It wouldn't be on the front page of HN otherwise.

Compared to other stories, this one is already being penalized, and the top comment (yours) is about a total red herring. Ever since Elsagate I am just in awe at the collective ability to look the other way.

It simply means that the comment is not merely "pure speculation", which as a comment is 100% worthless in the first place and should be the focus of anyone claiming intellectual integrity and interest in the discussion; instead of bickering about about things downstream of it.