An exchange could be “Whether porn movies should be legal, left-wing viewpoint” “I, right-wing person, believe a left-wing person would support this because it causes no obvious harm.” “I, real-life left-wing feminist, oppose this because porn is objectification.”
Well, everyone agrees that actors in most porn movies are just here to turn on the viewer, and could be replaced by CGI with equivalent effect. “Objectification” just means that. The useful work in the argument is done by the theory about why objectification is a bad thing.
Well, everyone agrees that actors in most porn movies are just here to turn on the viewer, and could be replaced by CGI with equivalent effect. “Objectification” just means that.
Sorry, don’t want to turn this into a full-fledged political argument, but your definition seems to be missing some important part. Any movie can be replaced by sufficiently realistic CGI, but left-wing folks don’t seem to be against movies in general...
My imaginary feminist here claims that people should care about what shooting the movie meant for the actor. For example, some people admire Harrison Ford’s ad-libbed “I love you. “I know.”, or have strong feelings about an actor’s interpretation of a role that differs from the original script. This exists in porn too; I’ve heard Bettie Page praised for making sex look joyful and shameless. But in mainstream porn movies actors rarely have any room to show their feelings about the role.
Edit: This has sparked a full-on political subthread. I am sorry, retract this comment, and will be more careful in the future.
My imaginary anti-porn feminist (while not ignoring working conditions for porn actors (and possibly having some concern about whether “actors” reliably includes women)) is much more concerned about the effect on male viewers—that they will be strengthening a habit of only seeing women as potential porn-like entities. If the anti-porn feminist spoke LW, they’d phrase it as availability bias.
Thanks, your explanation makes more sense. The evidence for it seems inconclusive, so I won’t switch to being anti-porn, but at least it’s an understandable human reaction.
EDIT: oh shit, oh shit, I just unintentionally made a WAITW by extending the stupidity and callousness of the above comment to right-libertarianism in general. Damnit!
They weren’t sold into slavery. If you don’t like a job, hold out for something you like more. If there’s no such job, and you don’t step out of the labor market, you don’t not like the job enough to complain: it really is an improvement on your life. Or, demand more money to make up for the amount you dislike your job. This seems to be what happened in porn.
There are so many worse problems in porn as a job than the fact that people might not feel artistically fulfilled in their job. Porn can be a really unpleasant job for women, especially if you are working on several jobs a day, as many actresses do, but they don’t have to do that to survive, as it can pay from hundreds to thousands of dollars. They do that because it pays shit loads of money, and because they know that it’s not a job they want to work into old age.
Are we talking about a separate world here, where the only form of employment is porn? If it was that unpleasant with lousy pay the job wouldn’t be that competitive: they’d be doing something else.
My objection is more generic than that: I’m not making an argument about porn-actors’ career choices one way or another, as I hardly have the required knowledge to do so.
I’m just finding your own arguments which seems to say that every career choice is a good career choice and that therefore people shouldn’t complain rather unconvincing.
I’m not sure if I’d go all the way to good. Only an improvement over nothing, given that you stay in the job. If you dislike the job enough to either not take it or quit, then it wasn’t.
If there are a lot of people competing for a job, assuming they actually want the job and aren’t tricked by magic fairies, they must at least believe the job is going to be and improvement over their current employment.
I’m not sure if I’d go all the way to good. Only an improvement over nothing
Why is “nothing” the alternative to compare a given job to?
When people complain about a job, they generally don’t say “I wish I was unemployed”, they say things like “I wish I was paid more” or “I wish I wasn’t forced to work as many hours for fear of losing my job” or “I wish I had better working conditions”.
To compare any job to unemployment seems to be missing the point of such complaints. It’s not that the people would prefer unemployment. They’d prefer a better job.
I’m comparing the job to the job not existing. Not to no job at all for an individual. We’d all prefer a better job for ourselves, and if we aren’t jerks, we’d prefer better jobs for others too. Until the robots replace all the shitty jobs and all forms of scarcity vanish I don’t see the point.
There are so many jobs on the labor market. If you have a job, then you must at least think it is better than the alternatives. How is this controversial?
At this point, you’re comparing two different versions of society, a society (A) where the job exists and a society (B) where the job doesn’t exist.
If you have a job, then you must at least think it is better than the alternatives.
But at this point, you’re comparing two different choices for an individual within the same society (A), choosing to have the particular job (choice A1) or quitting (choice A2).
Those are two different questions. E.g. imagine that the porn industry didn’t exist at all, for some magic reason. Wouldn’t the customer money financing it go to some other form of entertainment or product? What makes you think that the additional jobs that industry would create wouldn’t have less shitty working conditions than the porn industry?
The question of whether the existence of porn industry is positive or negative as a whole, therefore isn’t the same to whether any given individual in it should quit or not. The choices person has in timeline B aren’t necessarily the same they have in timeline A2.
At this point, you’re comparing two different versions of society, a society (A) where the job exists and a society (B) where the job doesn’t exist.
Yes.
But at this point, you’re comparing two different choices for an individual within the same society (A), choosing to have the particular job (choice A1) or quitting (choice A2).
Yes.
Those are two different questions. E.g. imagine that the porn industry didn’t exist at all, for some magic reason. Wouldn’t the customer money financing it go to some other form of entertainment or product? What makes you think that the additional jobs that industry would create wouldn’t have less shitty working conditions than the porn industry?
Because there is only so much demand for goods, and only so much investment. The how any why of porn suggests that the mainstream entertainment industry probably isn’t where that money would go e.g. probably towards prostitution which is even less humane. And doesn’t pay as well.
More importantly, the reason people invest in porn is because they think that would be the best return on their dollar. The drive on investment is of course demand, utility represented by dollars in the economy. A redirection of that would have to be to the perceived second and third best percieved investment. If you think people who invest in porn are dumb and the percieved second best investmentwould generate better returns, then OK. But I tend to assume every one is an (imperfect) rational actor, who’s trying to generate the best return on investment, so changing that would be a bad Thing (TM).
If you don’t know why good returns on investment are good, realize that if I want to send all my money to AMF, I need to get it from somewhere. If you want a job from me, I need to get the money from somewhere.
The choices wouldn’t be the same, but they’d be worse, CP, because people were generating less return on investment, because one of their options was removed.
This is especially bad if you’re primarily concerned about employment in a first world nation, say America, (I’d talk about Greece, but I just have no idea.) where porn is actually one of the home grown industries, and that money would end up going to China or India as a likely second best investment. Which would normally be cool; the Chinese have to eat too. But you’re also supporting a government that keeps the wages down and standards cheap through methods you might not be entirely kosher with.
This doesn’t have that much to do with porn per se, only to point out that you aren’t necessarily supporting a less cruel industry, by removing a single industry that you find “objectifying”.
I still say if you find your job objectifying, quit or demand more money for the inconvenience. If you can’t do either, then the job is improving your life, or you are a slave. No one seems to attack the main point; they just don’t like hearing it.
The how any why of porn suggests that the mainstream entertainment industry probably isn’t where that money would go e.g. probably towards prostitution which is even less humane. And doesn’t pay as well.
Well, the people who want to magically stop porn also tend to want to magically stop prostitution.
I, personally, would be in favor of the existence of both, but I’d also wish much higher working conditions for both—a wish which your command to “Deal!” in regards to their low working conditions, because they’re supposedly better than the “alternative” of their non-existence doesn’t quite adequately represent.
If you think people who invest in porn are dumb and the second best return on investment would generate better returns, then OK. But I tend to assume every one is an (imperfect) rational actor
And hence all the people buying lottery tickets? All the alcoholics buying booze? All the drug-addicts doing drugs? All the people going to church?
What’s the actual difference between “dumb” and “imperfect” besides the former being a ruder word than the latter?
The choices wouldn’t be the same, but they’d be worse, CP, because people were generating less return on investment, because one of their options was removed.
That again may sound reasonable, but it isn’t a logical necessity. It isn’t a logical necessity that having more options causes greater profit, unless people are indeed perfect rational agents, with perfect knowledge of the consequences of each choice, including psychological/social/etc.
I respect libertarianism because I do mistrust the government to make these choices for us—but that doesn’t mean by far that its application necessitates greater utility for all in every single scenario.
I, personally, would be in favor of the existence of both, but I’d also wish much higher working conditions for both—a wish which your command to “Deal!” in regards to their low working conditions, because they’re supposedly better than the “alternative” of their non-existence doesn’t quite adequately represent.
I personally would like better working conditions for everyone. I live in the real world. They chose the work. Given real world economic realities, I’m not sure I see the problem. An actress can work less, choose different films, pick another career. These all come at cost, because that’s the real world. Every actor who isn’t a slave made their decision. Who am I to question it?
What’s the actual difference between “dumb” and “imperfect” besides the former being a ruder word than the latter?
I tend to think people generate utility from all those things and don’t really see the problem. I’m an athiest, but know both Christians and, I hesitate to say Athiest, but people who don’t really believe in a personal god as such, who go to church like functions for the utility they recieve from them. Same goes for lottery tickets, booze, and drugs.
I tend to think in terms of imperfect = less than perfect mathematically described agent, dumb = less than me, at least in this particular domain. That last one is probably not great. I apologize for any confusion.
That again may sound reasonable, but it isn’t a logical necessity. It isn’t a logical necessity that having more options causes greater profit, unless people are indeed perfect rational agents, with perfect knowledge of the consequences of each choice, including psychological/social/etc.
I’m not sure I said that, though I do think there enough smart people gaming the system where that works out, albeit with a certain amount of inefficiency. How much inefficiency? No idea. The common libertarian arguement is usually not that libertarianism is perfect. But it’s better than the alternatives as they currently exist.
I personally would like better working conditions for everyone. I live in the real world.
But you would also like everyone to not complain about the working conditions they currently have? Ending people’s complaints requires an even more magical solution than ending porn or prostitution.
Why don’t you say to yourself “People complain. Deal.”
They chose the work. Given real world economic realities, I’m not sure I see the problem.
Reality includes the fact that people are free to argue about whether reality sucks and how to improve it. So what’s your problem? Why are you so okay with every “real” aspect of the labour market, except the fact that in the real world people can also complain about the labour market?
The whole subthread started with you saying “Deal.” While others still discussed the “is” of the matter, you leaped to an unsupported “ought”. Whether from a consequentialist or a deontologist perspective, you demanded a particular course of action which you don’t remotely prove by saying “this is the labour market” nor even by “they chose it”—both “is” statements which can’t by themselves build an “ought”.
I didn’t mean literally don’t complain ever, that’s silly and I never said that. There is a certain extent to which I think that if you have immediate control over something you should just shut up and do, but that wasn’t what I meant either.
All employment is comodification of human time, and therefore objectification of human beings. Part of living in the real world is making peace with that. The fact that people want to single out porn is silliness. That’s what I meant. Is this really what this whole conversation has been about?
All employment is comodification of human time, and therefore objectification of human beings. Part of living in the real world is making peace with that. The fact that people want to single out porn is silliness. That’s what I meant. Is this really what this whole conversation has been about?
Yes. If you had said “All employment is comodification of human time, and therefore objectification of human beings. Part of living in the real world is making peace with that. The fact that people want to single out porn is silliness.” this would allow people to respond e.g. why they might consider porn a worse form of objectification, or e.g. agree with you and nonetheless continue discussing what a society might do with alleviating the problems of objectification in employment in general.
Saying on the other hand “It’s the labour market. Deal.” is nothing but a rude conversation-stopper, which attempts to stifle discussion without actually making any coherent argument one could respond to. It fell so much beneath the standards of a LessWrong discussion that it wasn’t even funny.
It fell so much beneath the standards of a LessWrong discussion that it wasn’t even funny.
I totally agree with your stated point, and you made the point well. But the function of the quoted sentence is winning a status contest, not advancing your argument. The post would be vastly stronger without it.
If it was that unpleasant with lousy pay the job wouldn’t be that competitive: they’d be doing something else.
That argument is only valid during times of full employment, of which this isn’t one. There are people for whom the alternative to an unpleasant job with lousy pay would be having no way to earn a living at all. (Just making a general point; I’m not claiming this is likely to be the case for a male porn actor in particular.)
Really? Cause it seems like it’d be more valid to me. You could take a part time or second full time job, take a hobby that produces goods (gardening, carpentry, etc.), and if you have full employment this implies you do not need secondary non full employment to survive.
EDIT: Oh, I’ve been there. I would have wished I could get a job in porn too. Or at McDonalds. Or anywhere. Again, if you take the job, you at least perceive it is an improvement over not taking the job. Right? Or am I crazy?
By “full employment” I mean ‘negligible unemployment rate’ (on a society level), not ‘working as many hours as you possibly could’ (on an individual level).
I don’t get it either. Seems to happen every time politics is brought up. My own posts in this thread have gone up and down several times. Reflexive down voting over politics I can understand, even if I think it’s silly.
The up votes are actually harder to explain. It’s possible I could have educated some one, but given the people who post here, that seems doubtful.
Ah. I thought you were implying something more like “40ish hours a week” of work.
I don’t know how that changes my point. You like the job enough to keep working, therefore it is an improvement of your life. Conceivably, a solution could be better social welfare or better regulation of the industry, but if the job didn’t exist, (as I assume would be the ideal state for an anti porn feminist) that takes away something that was improving their life.
I happen to live somewhere where wages are terrible, there isn’t much of a safety net outside your own family. Some jobs, like TA, really pay poorly enough where it might be a good idea to go try and farm in your own backyard. Should the minimum wage be raised? Maybe. But for those working the job, it’s enough to improve their lives, so taking away the job would be a Bad Thing(TM).
You could always head out into the woods and farm. Or beg. Or steal. Or kill yourself. I didn’t say you liked the job. I said you like the job enough. If the job didn’t exist, you’d be worse off.
Everyone agrees on that fact. But the relevant question, when I’m deciding whether it would be good on net to regulate an industry, is whether the jobs in a state of economic nature (bargained down in terms of wages and working conditions to just better than the marginal employee’s best alternative) are worse for the general welfare than the regulated jobs (and the associated economic tradeoffs) would be.
Sometimes regulation is clearly a win for society (like the workplace safety regulations in the US following the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire and other disasters), sometimes it’s clearly a net loss (the Greek pension system is one of the things bankrupting the country), and sometimes it’s hard to tell. But there’s an actual tradeoff in consequences, and the optimal amount of regulation is not zero in all cases.
I didn’t argue that the amount of regulation was zero in all cases. I don’t think may people really believe that, and the argument amounts to a straw man. Only that if a job market didn’t exist, the people working in that job market would be worse off.
Ah, thanks. Now I see what you misunderstood. The point of making the argument high level is because then you’re able to 1) see the depths of your ignorance and 2) see where you need to move to remove that ignorance. Moreover, the best arguments are going to be written out more completely somewhere else anyway (probably books).
For example, if you’re arguing at a high level that porn should be illegal, you could import the work of other people to support you of which the details have been argued—and this makes sense if your argument is representational of the highest level of thought within that area.
An exchange could be “Whether porn movies should be legal, left-wing viewpoint” “I, right-wing person, believe a left-wing person would support this because it causes no obvious harm.” “I, real-life left-wing feminist, oppose this because porn is objectification.”
Well, everyone agrees that actors in most porn movies are just here to turn on the viewer, and could be replaced by CGI with equivalent effect. “Objectification” just means that. The useful work in the argument is done by the theory about why objectification is a bad thing.
Sorry, don’t want to turn this into a full-fledged political argument, but your definition seems to be missing some important part. Any movie can be replaced by sufficiently realistic CGI, but left-wing folks don’t seem to be against movies in general...
My imaginary feminist here claims that people should care about what shooting the movie meant for the actor. For example, some people admire Harrison Ford’s ad-libbed “I love you. “I know.”, or have strong feelings about an actor’s interpretation of a role that differs from the original script. This exists in porn too; I’ve heard Bettie Page praised for making sex look joyful and shameless. But in mainstream porn movies actors rarely have any room to show their feelings about the role.
Edit: This has sparked a full-on political subthread. I am sorry, retract this comment, and will be more careful in the future.
My imaginary anti-porn feminist (while not ignoring working conditions for porn actors (and possibly having some concern about whether “actors” reliably includes women)) is much more concerned about the effect on male viewers—that they will be strengthening a habit of only seeing women as potential porn-like entities. If the anti-porn feminist spoke LW, they’d phrase it as availability bias.
A pro-porn feminist discusses some problems caused by porn.
Thanks, your explanation makes more sense. The evidence for it seems inconclusive, so I won’t switch to being anti-porn, but at least it’s an understandable human reaction.
People tend to be overconfident about their model of the world when they’re angry.
Yes, you’re right of course. Sorry for editing my comment.
They’re working a job. They’re getting paid. There’s a case to be made that that is objectification. That’s the labor market. Deal.
EDIT: oh shit, oh shit, I just unintentionally made a WAITW by extending the stupidity and callousness of the above comment to right-libertarianism in general. Damnit!
That sort of argument seems not to leave any room to object to anything, ever.
They weren’t sold into slavery. If you don’t like a job, hold out for something you like more. If there’s no such job, and you don’t step out of the labor market, you don’t not like the job enough to complain: it really is an improvement on your life. Or, demand more money to make up for the amount you dislike your job. This seems to be what happened in porn.
There are so many worse problems in porn as a job than the fact that people might not feel artistically fulfilled in their job. Porn can be a really unpleasant job for women, especially if you are working on several jobs a day, as many actresses do, but they don’t have to do that to survive, as it can pay from hundreds to thousands of dollars. They do that because it pays shit loads of money, and because they know that it’s not a job they want to work into old age.
And even more so for men: lousy pay, boner drug injections, stiff (sorry) competition.
Are we talking about a separate world here, where the only form of employment is porn? If it was that unpleasant with lousy pay the job wouldn’t be that competitive: they’d be doing something else.
Are you assuming perfect rationality on the part of the actors?
No, just imperfectly rational ones. Are you suggesting they were tricked into the job somehow?
My objection is more generic than that: I’m not making an argument about porn-actors’ career choices one way or another, as I hardly have the required knowledge to do so.
I’m just finding your own arguments which seems to say that every career choice is a good career choice and that therefore people shouldn’t complain rather unconvincing.
I’m not sure if I’d go all the way to good. Only an improvement over nothing, given that you stay in the job. If you dislike the job enough to either not take it or quit, then it wasn’t.
If there are a lot of people competing for a job, assuming they actually want the job and aren’t tricked by magic fairies, they must at least believe the job is going to be and improvement over their current employment.
Why is “nothing” the alternative to compare a given job to?
When people complain about a job, they generally don’t say “I wish I was unemployed”, they say things like “I wish I was paid more” or “I wish I wasn’t forced to work as many hours for fear of losing my job” or “I wish I had better working conditions”.
To compare any job to unemployment seems to be missing the point of such complaints. It’s not that the people would prefer unemployment. They’d prefer a better job.
I’m comparing the job to the job not existing. Not to no job at all for an individual. We’d all prefer a better job for ourselves, and if we aren’t jerks, we’d prefer better jobs for others too. Until the robots replace all the shitty jobs and all forms of scarcity vanish I don’t see the point.
There are so many jobs on the labor market. If you have a job, then you must at least think it is better than the alternatives. How is this controversial?
Here’s the discrepancy:
At this point, you’re comparing two different versions of society, a society (A) where the job exists and a society (B) where the job doesn’t exist.
But at this point, you’re comparing two different choices for an individual within the same society (A), choosing to have the particular job (choice A1) or quitting (choice A2).
Those are two different questions. E.g. imagine that the porn industry didn’t exist at all, for some magic reason. Wouldn’t the customer money financing it go to some other form of entertainment or product? What makes you think that the additional jobs that industry would create wouldn’t have less shitty working conditions than the porn industry?
The question of whether the existence of porn industry is positive or negative as a whole, therefore isn’t the same to whether any given individual in it should quit or not. The choices person has in timeline B aren’t necessarily the same they have in timeline A2.
Yes.
Yes.
Because there is only so much demand for goods, and only so much investment. The how any why of porn suggests that the mainstream entertainment industry probably isn’t where that money would go e.g. probably towards prostitution which is even less humane. And doesn’t pay as well.
More importantly, the reason people invest in porn is because they think that would be the best return on their dollar. The drive on investment is of course demand, utility represented by dollars in the economy. A redirection of that would have to be to the perceived second and third best percieved investment. If you think people who invest in porn are dumb and the percieved second best investmentwould generate better returns, then OK. But I tend to assume every one is an (imperfect) rational actor, who’s trying to generate the best return on investment, so changing that would be a bad Thing (TM).
If you don’t know why good returns on investment are good, realize that if I want to send all my money to AMF, I need to get it from somewhere. If you want a job from me, I need to get the money from somewhere.
The choices wouldn’t be the same, but they’d be worse, CP, because people were generating less return on investment, because one of their options was removed.
This is especially bad if you’re primarily concerned about employment in a first world nation, say America, (I’d talk about Greece, but I just have no idea.) where porn is actually one of the home grown industries, and that money would end up going to China or India as a likely second best investment. Which would normally be cool; the Chinese have to eat too. But you’re also supporting a government that keeps the wages down and standards cheap through methods you might not be entirely kosher with.
This doesn’t have that much to do with porn per se, only to point out that you aren’t necessarily supporting a less cruel industry, by removing a single industry that you find “objectifying”.
I still say if you find your job objectifying, quit or demand more money for the inconvenience. If you can’t do either, then the job is improving your life, or you are a slave. No one seems to attack the main point; they just don’t like hearing it.
Well, the people who want to magically stop porn also tend to want to magically stop prostitution.
I, personally, would be in favor of the existence of both, but I’d also wish much higher working conditions for both—a wish which your command to “Deal!” in regards to their low working conditions, because they’re supposedly better than the “alternative” of their non-existence doesn’t quite adequately represent.
And hence all the people buying lottery tickets? All the alcoholics buying booze? All the drug-addicts doing drugs? All the people going to church?
What’s the actual difference between “dumb” and “imperfect” besides the former being a ruder word than the latter?
That again may sound reasonable, but it isn’t a logical necessity. It isn’t a logical necessity that having more options causes greater profit, unless people are indeed perfect rational agents, with perfect knowledge of the consequences of each choice, including psychological/social/etc.
I respect libertarianism because I do mistrust the government to make these choices for us—but that doesn’t mean by far that its application necessitates greater utility for all in every single scenario.
I personally would like better working conditions for everyone. I live in the real world. They chose the work. Given real world economic realities, I’m not sure I see the problem. An actress can work less, choose different films, pick another career. These all come at cost, because that’s the real world. Every actor who isn’t a slave made their decision. Who am I to question it?
I tend to think people generate utility from all those things and don’t really see the problem. I’m an athiest, but know both Christians and, I hesitate to say Athiest, but people who don’t really believe in a personal god as such, who go to church like functions for the utility they recieve from them. Same goes for lottery tickets, booze, and drugs.
I tend to think in terms of imperfect = less than perfect mathematically described agent, dumb = less than me, at least in this particular domain. That last one is probably not great. I apologize for any confusion.
I’m not sure I said that, though I do think there enough smart people gaming the system where that works out, albeit with a certain amount of inefficiency. How much inefficiency? No idea. The common libertarian arguement is usually not that libertarianism is perfect. But it’s better than the alternatives as they currently exist.
But you would also like everyone to not complain about the working conditions they currently have? Ending people’s complaints requires an even more magical solution than ending porn or prostitution.
Why don’t you say to yourself “People complain. Deal.”
Reality includes the fact that people are free to argue about whether reality sucks and how to improve it. So what’s your problem? Why are you so okay with every “real” aspect of the labour market, except the fact that in the real world people can also complain about the labour market?
The whole subthread started with you saying “Deal.” While others still discussed the “is” of the matter, you leaped to an unsupported “ought”. Whether from a consequentialist or a deontologist perspective, you demanded a particular course of action which you don’t remotely prove by saying “this is the labour market” nor even by “they chose it”—both “is” statements which can’t by themselves build an “ought”.
I didn’t mean literally don’t complain ever, that’s silly and I never said that. There is a certain extent to which I think that if you have immediate control over something you should just shut up and do, but that wasn’t what I meant either.
All employment is comodification of human time, and therefore objectification of human beings. Part of living in the real world is making peace with that. The fact that people want to single out porn is silliness. That’s what I meant. Is this really what this whole conversation has been about?
Yes. If you had said “All employment is comodification of human time, and therefore objectification of human beings. Part of living in the real world is making peace with that. The fact that people want to single out porn is silliness.” this would allow people to respond e.g. why they might consider porn a worse form of objectification, or e.g. agree with you and nonetheless continue discussing what a society might do with alleviating the problems of objectification in employment in general.
Saying on the other hand “It’s the labour market. Deal.” is nothing but a rude conversation-stopper, which attempts to stifle discussion without actually making any coherent argument one could respond to. It fell so much beneath the standards of a LessWrong discussion that it wasn’t even funny.
In the spirit of constructive criticism:
I totally agree with your stated point, and you made the point well. But the function of the quoted sentence is winning a status contest, not advancing your argument. The post would be vastly stronger without it.
I thought the point was clear. Apparently, I was wrong.
If you found it was rude, it’s because I found the point silly, obvious, and really not worth the time. And here I find shortcuts make long delays.
Porn workers are objectified in a way library workers aren’t.
That argument is only valid during times of full employment, of which this isn’t one. There are people for whom the alternative to an unpleasant job with lousy pay would be having no way to earn a living at all. (Just making a general point; I’m not claiming this is likely to be the case for a male porn actor in particular.)
Really? Cause it seems like it’d be more valid to me. You could take a part time or second full time job, take a hobby that produces goods (gardening, carpentry, etc.), and if you have full employment this implies you do not need secondary non full employment to survive.
EDIT: Oh, I’ve been there. I would have wished I could get a job in porn too. Or at McDonalds. Or anywhere. Again, if you take the job, you at least perceive it is an improvement over not taking the job. Right? Or am I crazy?
By “full employment” I mean ‘negligible unemployment rate’ (on a society level), not ‘working as many hours as you possibly could’ (on an individual level).
Why was this downvoted? AFAIK this usage is more-or-less standard.
I don’t get it either. Seems to happen every time politics is brought up. My own posts in this thread have gone up and down several times. Reflexive down voting over politics I can understand, even if I think it’s silly.
The up votes are actually harder to explain. It’s possible I could have educated some one, but given the people who post here, that seems doubtful.
Ah. I thought you were implying something more like “40ish hours a week” of work.
I don’t know how that changes my point. You like the job enough to keep working, therefore it is an improvement of your life. Conceivably, a solution could be better social welfare or better regulation of the industry, but if the job didn’t exist, (as I assume would be the ideal state for an anti porn feminist) that takes away something that was improving their life.
I happen to live somewhere where wages are terrible, there isn’t much of a safety net outside your own family. Some jobs, like TA, really pay poorly enough where it might be a good idea to go try and farm in your own backyard. Should the minimum wage be raised? Maybe. But for those working the job, it’s enough to improve their lives, so taking away the job would be a Bad Thing(TM).
Or, you keep working because it’s the only way to survive you’ve found, even if you hate it. Not everyone has a wealthy family or something.
You could always head out into the woods and farm. Or beg. Or steal. Or kill yourself. I didn’t say you liked the job. I said you like the job enough. If the job didn’t exist, you’d be worse off.
Everyone agrees on that fact. But the relevant question, when I’m deciding whether it would be good on net to regulate an industry, is whether the jobs in a state of economic nature (bargained down in terms of wages and working conditions to just better than the marginal employee’s best alternative) are worse for the general welfare than the regulated jobs (and the associated economic tradeoffs) would be.
Sometimes regulation is clearly a win for society (like the workplace safety regulations in the US following the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire and other disasters), sometimes it’s clearly a net loss (the Greek pension system is one of the things bankrupting the country), and sometimes it’s hard to tell. But there’s an actual tradeoff in consequences, and the optimal amount of regulation is not zero in all cases.
Related: The Non-Libertarian FAQ, or Why I Hate Your Freedom
I didn’t argue that the amount of regulation was zero in all cases. I don’t think may people really believe that, and the argument amounts to a straw man. Only that if a job market didn’t exist, the people working in that job market would be worse off.
Ah, thanks. Now I see what you misunderstood. The point of making the argument high level is because then you’re able to 1) see the depths of your ignorance and 2) see where you need to move to remove that ignorance. Moreover, the best arguments are going to be written out more completely somewhere else anyway (probably books).
For example, if you’re arguing at a high level that porn should be illegal, you could import the work of other people to support you of which the details have been argued—and this makes sense if your argument is representational of the highest level of thought within that area.