[WnZ39p0Dgydaz1]

I love this comment. It demonstrates nicely how the web and (mostly American, I think other nationalities react differently) culture has changed over the past 20 years.

20 years ago this was simply funny. Nobody took it seriously. It even got an "awards" page.

These days, nobody would ever want to be associated with such a site out of fear of press and social media jumping at them and ruining their career forever.

Not here to judge right or wrong, I think it's somewhere in the middle, but it's an interesting observation.

[jahnu]

I wouldn't want to be associated with such things not because I'm afraid of being lynched but because I've learned that it's demeaning to people. Pitchforks and pile are the excesses of a generally good movement to excise mean spirited or just unintentionally demeaning stuff from our culture but growing and learning to respect others is not a bad impulse. So I wouldn't pile on the author of this site but definitely will not be sharing it amongst my peers.

[captainredbeard]

> Pitchforks and pile are the excesses of a generally good movement to excise mean spirited or just unintentionally demeaning stuff from our culture

...just gonna point out this isn’t a universally accepted notion. Were the Salem Witch Trials governed by this “righteous” fury?

[jahnu]

Totally fair.

[maxehmookau]

No, this isn't correct IMO. 20 years ago, this was funny to the small group of young men who would've been aware of it. "Locker-room talk" if you will. This was never "simply funny" to a lot of people, they just weren't empowered to say or do anything about it. Thankfully, things are changing.

Web technology isn't just the reserve of "geeks" making websites in their basements anymore. It fills every corner of our existance. It's no longer in the locker room and it should behave as such.

[LocalH]

There should honestly be room for both. I bemoan the modern sanitization of every single corner of the internet. Remember what they used to say about TV? "If you don't like it, don't watch it". If you don't like it, don't view the site.

People should be empowered to say something about things. But in the vast majority of situation where no actual law is being violated, they really shouldn't be empowered to do anything about it. Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Why are so many people today willing to throw freedom of speech out the window?

[nkrisc]

You're free to engage in as much "locker-room" talk as you like. But I think more people are raising is simply in bad taste and often just cruel. Yeah, it's just speech and no one is harmed by it, but myself and are choosing we don't want to partake in it or give it the time of day. So go ahead, do it, but if I hear you doing it I'm going to think a lot less of you as a result. Your speech is free, just not free of consequences.

It's just unkind and there's not really any reason for it.

[dkersten]

There's a difference between calling someone out for something untasteful and actively trying to ruin their careers, marriages and lives over it.

[maxehmookau]

Strangers on the internet can't ruin marriages and careers alone. They can, however, shine light on things that might end a marriage, or a career.

My wife wouldn't divorce me if a random stranger on the internet accused me of something terrible. If I did do something terrible, then she might want to divorce me.

My employer wouldn't dismiss me if a random stranger accused me of something terrible. If I did do something terrible, then they might no longer want to be associated with me.

That seems entirely reasonable.

[dkersten]

The problem is that these witch hunts are often not proportional to the alleged "crime", take the offense completely out of context and in some cases even ruin the lives of people who were innocent. The problem with the lynch mob is you don't get a fair trial. You get punished for whatever the mob says you did, regardless of what the truth actually is. Often what actually happened is blown out of proportion and sometimes its fabricated. Even when true, the "crime" often does not fit the punishment of harassment and "cancel culture".

If I make a dumb racist or sexist joke, I should be told "hey dude, fuck off, that's not cool", not have people calling my employer to tell them how terrible I am, harassing my friends and family or sending me death threats.

> My wife wouldn't divorce me if a random stranger on the internet accused me of something terrible. ... My employer wouldn't dismiss me if a random stranger accused me of something terrible.

What if a thousand random strangers harassed you, her, your employer, your family and your friends with all kinds of accusations and death threats? Its not even that your wife or employer believes the mob, but that the stress and pressure becomes too much for them.

What if you made a single distasteful joke on twitter and instead of a few people telling you hey, that wasn't cool at all, instead you find tens of thousands of people harassing you and everyone you know? This happened to Justine Sacco. She made a very stupid and distasteful joke on twitter, to her 170 twitter followers. It got picked up by a journalist and thousands of people piled on to her. She lost her job because her employer didn't want to be associated with the press caused by the mob. According to interviews she suffered from anxiety and mental health issues for a long time after. Yes her comment on twitter was distasteful and racist, but it wasn't so bad as to warrant everything that happened to her. I've heard of such bully campaigns that lead to the targets suicide and it wasn't even clear if they were guilty of what they were accused of or not (but even if they were, their death is entirely too far!)

That doesn't seem reasonable to me at all. Quite frankly, I find it shocking how many people are not just ok with but also in support of these modern day witch hunts.

[truculent]

> People should be empowered to say something about things. But in the vast majority of situation where no actual law is being violated

That's exactly what's happening in this thread. People are discussing this website, sharing criticisms ("saying things" as you put it). Nobody is advocating for legal action, nobody is suppressing the author's speech.

> If you don't like it, don't view the site.

Sure! But someone posted it here for viewing and discussion. Should the comments only be for sympathetic discussion? What about freedom of speech!

[LocalH]

I was specifically responding to the part of the post where they referenced doing something about it:

>This was never "simply funny" to a lot of people, they just weren't empowered to say or do anything about it. Thankfully, things are changing.

[maxehmookau]

> I bemoan the modern sanitization of every single corner of the internet.

There's plenty of corners of the internet that are anything but sanitized and will resist any form of sanitization. It's occupiers will probably choose that particular hill to die on too. 4chan would be a good (if you can use that word...) example.

> Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Why are so many people today willing to throw freedom of speech out the window?

Freedom of speech still exists. Case-in-point, the website in question still exists no matter how uncomfortable it makes me personally. Freedom of speech does not protect anybody from the consequences of that freedom.

People are much less tolerant of speech that offends them. I think this is a good thing, because many minorities were already often offended before but lacked the power to speak up. What you're seeing now isn't the erosion of freedom of speech, but the strengthening of it in the face of robust and diverse views.

[JKCalhoun]

Agree, but perhaps OP is bemoaning that some of the more tame stuff (like the Britney Spears bit) is being vilified. I mean, when you talk about "corners of the internet that are anything but sanitized" we all know how low and demeaning that can be.

I worry that this trend is polarizing — forcing us to two extremes.

[rsynnott]

... Wait, no-one's suggesting banning this, just saying that it is bad. Nothing to do with freedom of speech.

[criddell]

I never thought of it I before but I think you’re right. The demographics of internet users has broadened a great deal since then.

[MrGilbert]

> No, this isn't correct IMO.

Kindly disagree. Compare the old Simpsons seasons with the more modern ones. There is a change in tone in general.

But, apart from that, the "dark web" is currently filling this niche, so... Whatever floats your boat is fine.

[maxehmookau]

> Kindly disagree. Compare the old Simpsons seasons with the more modern ones. There is a change in tone in general.

Sure, I agree. FRIENDS is also an example of a pop culture icon which has aged _really_ badly since the 90s. But consider how the demographic make-up of those writers rooms will have changed in the last 20 years too.

[ericb]

Can you give examples of what aged really badly in friends? I don't remember it well enough.

[maxehmookau]

The behaviour of Ross and Joey was pretty gross and would be looked on pretty badly these days.

Here's a good list: https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/1209195-Ways-the-...

Here's a buzzfeed list (if you're in the mood for gifs): https://www.buzzfeed.com/caseyrackham/moments-that-prove-ros...

[dragonwriter]

> The behaviour of Ross and Joey was pretty gross and would be looked on pretty badly these days.

Every main character on Friends was a caricature centered around a character flaw (or a stereotypical combination of flaws), so, yeah, any one of their actions would be looked on pretty badly now or at the time they were written, and Ross and Joey were pretty much the worst at the time.

Sitcom characters are very often far from role models for their time.

[alisonkisk]

Half of that mumsnet list is "I don't like that humans like sex".

[exclusiv]

> It's no longer in the locker room and it should behave as such.

This website is not locker room talk by ANY means. The creator most likely had the hots for her, wanted to try and make boring nerd stuff more interesting & memorable and get more views. So what?

This is the online, PhD geek version of putting up a Britney Spears pinup. It's a fan/niche site, not the homepage of a major site. The audience is not kids; it's nerds.

She's a public celebrity who leveraged her looks to stardom. And a lot of people had the hots for her. So this guy used the shape of her body to explain conduction bands and valence bands and it's a problem? And an example of the cross that geeks need to bear in saving the internet with web technology?

Your opinion and ideal is not possible unless you censor content and user interactions.

And besides, the web got nasty once the general populace was added.

You can just look at your average friend and family argument on Facebook to see that.

[kube-system]

I think this is accurate. 20 years ago, 5% of the world used the internet, 50% of Americans used the internet and 1% of Americans had broadband.

[mickof]

> out of fear of press and social media jumping at them and ruining their career forever

People like to claim this all the time, with very little evidence of it actually happening. Also the web is full of sexist shit, even 20 years later. I really don't see the point you are making.

In reality you are WAY more likely to get fired for union organizing or for being the victim of sexual harassment, rather than for being an edge lord on the internet.

[teekert]

It is isn't it? I've been watching StarTrek The Original Series lately and oh boy, have we changed. There is a Netflix Explained episode on Political Correctness, fascinating stuff.

To be clear, in my opinion we definitely changed for the better, the position of women at the end of the 60's (which seems so close) is almost mind boggling to me now. It's just 2 generations away from me, but back then my grandmother's mother told my grandmother: "You want to work? What? I'll teach you how to work, in the kitchen, and around the house." I think this caused my grandmother to be very liberal with her kids and as a result my mother was with me and my brothers. As a result I never understood how one can not see men and women as equal. TOS gives some "nice" insights into the matter though...

[dvfjsdhgfv]

> To be clear, in my opinion we definitely changed for the better

I'd say most things changed for the better. But I'd be a hypocrite if I said there are no dark aspects. There are organized thugs on the Internet who will do everything to make your life miserable at the slighest hint of you not conforming to the current view on $SUBJECT. What's equally bad, it doesn't really matter if you actually did what you are accused of, it's enough that someone says so. As a consequence, many people just prefer to keep silent, including the ones who have the most meaningful things to say.

[p_l]

TOS is particularly interesting given how it made a noticeable push for equality and so on, a push that is much harder to notice due to different mores today and lacking context (for example, mini skirts used to be sign of women liberation, and IIRC there's at least one TOS episode with male crewman in a mini!)

[moron4hire]

The male mini skirt is in TNG.

[p_l]

Thank you for correction. Wasn't it per chance in one of the earlier episodes? I haven't watched TNG or TOS in ages and they were kind of watched at nearly the same time :)

[moron4hire]

Yeah, doesn't show up again after the first season. Might even be only in the first episode of first season of TNG.

[kristopolous]

The jokes fall flat because it's no longer taboo, it feels derivative even if it was original, and the context is gone.

This is why Bob Hope is lame to us. He may have popularized the "tight 5" standup format but everyone copied him and many do it better.

This is also why Amos & Andy is just a fairly uninteresting half hour of blackface racism or why Mr Yunioshi in breakfast at tiffany's just looks stupid now. Sure these are racist but when you look past that, they're also not funny any more.

They're pointing at some, bringing focus to it, but it has no more symbolic resonance.

It's also why if someone made say mrs doubtfire today it'd look like an outdated flop.

There's a societal context that gave these things a dynamic which no longer exists.

It's actually the same reason Monica lewinsky and draft card jokes wouldn't work today. There's no longer a supportive scaffolding to give it the context.

Race and sex based comedy can still be done, it just needs to live in the 2021 context.

It's still racist and sexist, which are both morally objectionable, but unlike this site, it could probably still also be funny.

For instance, you could do a black Mr. Magoo who gets treated with constant dangerous racial prejudice but in the magoo character, always assumes good intentions and miraculously survives everything. Runs into klansman, thinks it's a costume party, etc..

You might also be able to pull off the 3s company dynamic (in the original, straight guy needed to convince everyone he was gay so the premise was "straight man in the closet") but using a different spectrum that's more relevant to today's conflicts.

[throwaway45067]

The other reply already said what needed to be said. I too genuinely find the site distasteful and am not just virtue-signaling for social status.

I would just like to add that I'm, in fact, not American (nor Western European) and that we dislike low-key misogyny in other parts of the world too.

[truculent]

I think this comment says more about you than about the website, to be frank.

The distribution of people and cultures represented on the internet may have changed, but I think plenty of people would have seen this as objectionable at the time, even if you weren't as aware of them as you are now.

> These days, nobody would ever want to be associated with such a site out of fear of press and social media jumping at them and ruining their career forever.

Would the fact that the website is still up, _with_ a "contact me" link, undermine your point somewhat?

[michaelt]

> These days, nobody would ever want to be associated with such a site out of fear of press and social media jumping at them and ruining their career forever.

To an extent - but 20 years ago was also pre-Facebook when use of psudeonyms was widely accepted internet safety advice.

[api]

It's mirrored an overall change in the culture. The left has become much more critical and sensitive, while the right has entered Satanic Panic 2.0 and decided that anything remotely edgy is evidence of Satanic baby eating and sees pedophilia absolutely everywhere.

20-30 years ago it was perfectly acceptable to make incredibly lewd or offensive jokes or have your band LARP as Satanists. The culture was far more tolerant of coarseness and taboo-breaking.

Here's an example that would drive the present-day left and right bonkers if it was released today:

https://www.metrolyrics.com/my-sharona-lyrics-the-knack.html

[rsynnott]

> These days, nobody would ever want to be associated with such a site out of fear of press and social media jumping at them and ruining their career forever.

Or, er, maybe they wouldn't want to be associated with it out of other motivations, such as common decency?

[alimw]

I'm confused. If it is the photos that you consider indecent, surely you should be taking issue with the publicity machine that produced them? As far as I can see, this website has done little more than add a spurious connection to semiconductor physics.

[afavour]

Why can't you take issue with both?

[alimw]

Both of what? Both the publicity machine for producing the photos and the website for republishing them? Or both the photos themselves and the spurious connection to semiconductor physics?

[krapp]

>These days, nobody would ever want to be associated with such a site out of fear of press and social media jumping at them and ruining their career forever.

Is it really because "nobody would ever want to be associated with such a site out of fear of press and social media jumping at them and ruining their career forever" or because the web has matured beyond its "shitposting teenage edgelord" phase and many people now legitimately don't find that sort of thing funny?

[leetcrew]

is it that different than the scene in the big short where margot robbie explains subprime loans (presumably) naked in a bathtub? that was in 2015.

I guess margot robbie consented to that depiction at least, but the punchline is essentially the same.

[deepstack]

Hmm sounds like a bit too PC now days.