MixedNuts comments on The noncentral fallacy - the worst argument in the world? - Less Wrong

157 Post author: Yvain 27 August 2012 03:36AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (1742)

Comments (1742)

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: MixedNuts 04 September 2012 08:51:48AM * 0 points [-]

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.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 04 September 2012 09:11:05AM 5 points [-]

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.

Comment author: cousin_it 04 September 2012 11:29:05AM * 2 points [-]

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.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 04 September 2012 11:32:43AM * 1 point [-]

People tend to be overconfident about their model of the world when they're angry.

Comment author: cousin_it 04 September 2012 11:36:53AM 1 point [-]

Yes, you're right of course. Sorry for editing my comment.

Comment author: RomanDavis 04 September 2012 09:04:48AM * -1 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Multiheaded 04 September 2012 02:47:52PM * -1 points [-]

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!

Comment author: Kindly comment score below threshold [+] (29 children)

Comment author: RomanDavis 04 September 2012 09:08:53PM -1 points [-]

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.

Comment author: shminux 04 September 2012 09:50:37PM 3 points [-]

Porn can be a really unpleasant job for women

And even more so for men: lousy pay, boner drug injections, stiff (sorry) competition.

Comment author: RomanDavis 04 September 2012 10:08:13PM -1 points [-]

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.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 04 September 2012 10:16:18PM 1 point [-]

Are you assuming perfect rationality on the part of the actors?

Comment author: RomanDavis 04 September 2012 10:25:49PM 0 points [-]

No, just imperfectly rational ones. Are you suggesting they were tricked into the job somehow?

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 04 September 2012 11:23:18PM 0 points [-]

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.

Comment author: RomanDavis 04 September 2012 11:27:01PM * 0 points [-]

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.

continue this thread »

Comment author: [deleted] 04 September 2012 10:19:47PM * 0 points [-]

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.)

Comment author: RomanDavis 04 September 2012 10:24:27PM * -1 points [-]

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?

Comment author: [deleted] 04 September 2012 10:34:32PM 1 point [-]

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).

Comment author: [deleted] 05 September 2012 10:16:53PM 1 point [-]

Why was this downvoted? AFAIK this usage is more-or-less standard.

continue this thread »

Comment author: RomanDavis 04 September 2012 10:47:58PM * 0 points [-]

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).

continue this thread »

MixedNuts comments on The noncentral fallacy - the worst argument in the world? - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (1742)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (1742)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login