/townhall/ - Townhall

Yeah I don't subscribe to the idea that society is for the normal. To a large extent, if people are uncomfortable with "weird" things, maybe they should expand their comfort zone instead of expect everyone to be perfectly conforming. Some weird kink, okay I can see that should be kept behind closed doors. But people are born with all sorts of differences and disabilities, it's straight oppression to demand everyone be whatever is deemed "normal". Putting aside how we are born, everyone should be given a great amount of autonomy in how they present themselves, how we modify our bodies, etc. If it's not hurting other people, perhaps we should ask people to get over discomfort.

>>12449
I see, so you favor a wider scope of normalization, but still place the kink outside that scope.  I guess I'm trying to get at the process for filtering what ought to be normalized and what ought to be marginalized.  And although marginalization is typically a negative word, it's complicated.  Keeping things private allows consent, as I mentioned, and may increase safety, so there might be such a thing as good marginalization?

>>12450
>Good marginalization
I'm okay with that idea, I think people should have the freedom to pursue extreme kink and all sorts of weird things but some stuff should be kept out of the public eye

I feel like it's exceptionally difficult to adopt a standard for such things. I would support the idea that trans folk should be able to present however they want in public, but I remember the case of some Canadian teacher who wore absolutely enormous prosthetic breasts in public and in class and i don't feel like that was really appropriate.

I wish people could be trusted to have good intentions and exercise common sense around reasonability, but that's too much to ask our species haha

Interesting.

I think the process that determines these things is related to what is most helpful to the largest number of people. The things that society considers unacceptable is likely considered that way because of some trauama passed on from the previous generations. To protect oneself and others from further injury, certain things are resisted in some form another.

>I'm thinking of forming a science and tech society and have been thinking a lot about consent.  The more things we consider private business, the more we can give people the option to consent or not, possibly reducing conflict.  For example, should people's exposure to science happen only following consent?  Would that make people happier about science?

That sounds like a pretty good idea. If everyone's stuff, including potential new content, was private or restricted by default, they could simply choose what they wanted to be exposed to when they were ready to be experience it, rather than feel like they need to hurry up and get with the program, so-to-speak. Maybe this is where AI could come in, as it could make beneficial recommendations to a person (assuming privacy was the default, unlike how it usually is today).

>>12452
>That sounds like a pretty good idea.

Thank you.  I will seek to marginalize science to increase people's freedom of choice.

>because of some trauama passed on from the previous generations

Maybe.  If there were a lot of wars with native people, perhaps Native culture should be minimized in public.  I guess it could be stuff like that.  Well, we need to be sensitive and empathetic to past trauma.

I'm really not sure what to think because the terms "normal", "natural", "healthy", and "average" are in practice fundamentally different.

For example, standard ethical morality in Christian societies teaches that sexuality and romance is inherently evil. It's shameful and disgusting. The only allowed exception is sexual intercourse between a married man and a woman. That alone is celebrated due to how it supposedly connects one to inherent goodness. That's it. The only exception. Any other form of sexual expression involves defiling one's body in a way that invokes sin and destroys inherent virtue. This is why body parts such as breasts are called "shameful places". Et cetera.

This is "normal". It is "average" behavior. And yet from a scientific perspective, this is absolute madness. There's no biological reason why engaging in sex that doesn't involve a married partner of the opposite gender is regarded as hurting you. It just doesn't. This is as clear-cut as understanding that the sky is blue and 2 plus 2 equals 4. A "healthy" and "natural" view of sexuality and romance would involve people a)recognizing that their bodies aren't inherently invalid or otherwise malformed by design and b)allowing themselves to experience happiness through self-discovery in ways that involve giving their informed consent to others.

Specifically, there's no valid rational reason for somebody who's heterosexual to view a homosexual person with utter hatred and wish to destroy them. This doesn't work from a scientific view. Why would you harm yourself in a direct fashion by crusading against your neighbors? Why would you refuse beneficial cooperation? Why would you be willing to destroy even bonds related to family and more (such as trying to hurt your own sibling, cousin, parent, et cetera who's also a neighbor)?

It's all... uncertain.

>>12466
>standard ethical morality in Christian societies teaches that sexuality and romance is inherently evil
It is somewhat about respecting the religious freedom of Christians to not see sexual things or be exposed to sexual ideas they don't care for.  And some Christians have not cared for and do not care for astronomy, for example, so connecting science and sexuality is probably valid when it comes to religious freedom and consent. Scientists can be free in our own private spaces, just as non-traditional sex and ideas can be free in private.

>>12470
>>12473
I don't think that there's a real solution for the issue per se.

Either you destroy the freedoms of certain politically and religiously motivated people by preventing them from hurting their perceived enemies, or you grant those freedoms and therefore in term allow the liberties of those opposed enemies to die instead.

If a police officer sees a robber holding a gun to the head to a bank teller, the officer broadly speaking can either a)do nothing or b)shoot the robber. To be blunt about it. And either action will be, understandably, subject to intense criticism. And as well, also understandably, the police officer will be nervous and terrified to be in that anxious situation.

>>12494
I doubt too many people would object to a police officer shooting an armed robber, at least under most conditions.

>>12494
>Either you destroy the freedoms of certain politically and religiously motivated people by preventing them from hurting their perceived enemies, or you grant those freedoms and therefore in term allow the liberties of those opposed enemies to die instead.

Some religious people prefer to destroy or harm others.  Religious people must at least remember God is not above the state, but religion should be granted as much freedom as possible.

>>12499
That's fair, but then most people would lament that the entire situation had to happen in the first place.

Similarly, doctors would celebrate a car crash victim successfully having a piece of a steering wheel or the like removed from their body and that individual walking around happily recovered, while at the same time lamenting that the person had their vehicle slammed into to begin with. Somebody with a cancerous tumor successfully removed would wish that they could've spent the entire hospital time with their families relaxing instead in the first place. And so on.