undefined | Better HN

0 pointshackinthebochs2y ago0 comments

Your response misses the target the parent was getting at. There are laws that constrain behavior in public places derived from the taboos of the past. This is what you are referring to when you talk about limits to nudity and such. These laws may derive from shame culture of the past, but they have modern relevance largely due to the existence of laws.

There's another form of shame culture that isn't codified into law but constrains behavior due to the potential reduction in social status for breaking various taboos. Essentially part one's feelings of status is sourced externally and this provides a moderating effect on one's behavior. The problem is that modern society has seen a stark reduction in the effectiveness of this kind of shame culture. We've essentially devalued the prevailing culture in favor of various sub/counter cultures. Now every degenerate interest has a sub-culture formed around it that insulates anyone who identifies with it from the shame of going against the prevailing culture. The usefulness of shame for reinforcing social norms has been eliminated to disastrous effect.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

ClumsyPilot2y ago· 1 in thread

It is not, in fact, different at all. Being seen naked in public affects your status. Being seen consuming drugs affects your status. All shame is, is degradation of your status.

hackinthebochsOP2y ago

The issue isn't about an external person's judgment, but one's sensitivity to an external person's judgment. The point is that mainstream culture has been devalued such that sensitivity to alterations in status as judged by people deemed "mainstream" is much less relevant to an average person these days, especially in younger folks. If there were no laws about public nudity, there are subcultures that absolutely would go around naked and would be immune to shame from mainstream culture.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse