This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Is this to say that you think that the supply of child porn is nearly perfectly elastic?
We are discussing a hypothetical change in policy toward lolicon that has not happened yet. We're not talking about the past price history, which would be an empirical question.
I'm not sure elasticity is the most appropriate lens through which to the view the issue (as you don't have nearly enough of a sample size in points of fluctuation in the price imposed by policy here). The most direct thing to say is that its highly illegal nature creates a de facto high price/cost floor for producers and consumers.
You don't get that in talking about a possible future where it is much more taboo/illegal/harder to access we also implicitly (well, not just implicitly, at least on my end) talk about the existing world and its history of not being so? And that our whole argument is also specifically based on that because you're calling me an economic denialist for claiming that real child porn is incapable of competing with lolicon (and other fictional equivalents) on this exact basis despite your naive interpretation of how they should behave (and haven't behaved) as substitute goods?
Can you name any other good that lacks sufficient sample size?
Why should I interpret a de facto high cost floor for producers as anything other than a nearly perfectly elastic supply curve?
You have empirical data showing that they haven't behaved as substitute goods?
A purely non-physical good that's been consistently illegal for decades? Maybe warez/pirated media, though that's all obviously a lot less illegal. And I think that kind of proves my point. How would you describe the "price elasticity" of pirated movies? I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I'm not sure that it's the best way to phrase it.
You can interpret it that way. It's just not how I'd phrase it for maximum clarity.
I have empirical data showing that they haven't behaved as substitute goods in the manner you claim I'm economically ignorant for thinking they won't (the price of the one being inclined to go down because the price of the other is so much lower). Namely, all of these costs you claim should have been reduced (keep in mind that one of the constraints I mentioned on anything you proposed is that given that the situation's been mostly the same for decades, anything you claim would happen should have already) have not been:
^ Those costs
In particular, it's stayed pretty as much illegal as it ever was if not more. Contrary to any tendency towards the price going down as you claim is academic economic wisdom in the case where you have a lower-priced substitute good, if anything it's gone up. What gives?
See also.
More options
Context Copy link
You're not scoping the good correctly. The good is "movies". And there are a variety of ways that good is transacted. The production of movies still follows a supply curve. Furthermore, this is not an example of a good that has insufficient sample size.
Show me your data.
Okay so the best way to scope a good is to eliminate essential context? By this logic, it's just "pornography", not "child pornography".
No reduction in illegality (at least in the US, but that's obviously the subject of our analysis or at least a fine one) of real CP from when the initial laws passed as far as I can tell
Can you find me any evidence of any reduction in the costs you mentioned?
No. It's to do the same thing that academic economists do for pirated movies, since that was the example you gave. They don't suddenly think that supply curves don't real.
That is not data which supports your claim. Your claim was that you have empirical data that they don't act as substitute goods (particularly, WRT the validity of using supply/demand curves).
I'm talking about a hypothetical that hasn't happened yet. Ergo, I have no claimed to have any empirical data on the question. You claimed that you did in fact have empirical data for something that you thought was relevant. It's apparent that you don't.
I didn't say they don't real. I said they may not be the clearest way to describe the situation in this case.
Also you're telling me that no economist has ever analyzed specifically pirated movies, not just movies in general? Really? Doesn't this entirely contradict all of your kvetching before about how of course economists have studied illegal goods, including non-physical ones, specifically?
No, my claim in full, not your snippet, was:
The relevance of supply/demand curves was a whole other issue.
But why hasn't it happened yet? If substitute good A being lower priced than substitute B creates a strong if not inevitable tendency for the price of substitute good B to also lower, as you've claimed many times, then why hasn't it happened yet in this case, in decades? Why haven't all of the costs you mentioned which are naturally baked into the price of real CP consumption/production lowered?
Has it merely not happened yet or is it unlikely to happen due to the distorting effects of policy on the market?
I even provided a link for you, dude.
Still not supported by any provided data.
Public choice theory probably holds the answer to why fake child porn is still illegal.
Like, I don't get what you're not understanding. The question is what would happen if, hypothetically, there was a change to the law that made a substitute (fake child porn) less costly (by making it legal). That hasn't happened yet. (The making it legal bit. You know, the premise bit.) What the hell are you on about not having happened yet?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link