One missing piece is that librarians are acting as curators of the data. Not anyone can come to the library, put books around, and game/pay the book finding process to make sure their books come first. Having human curators behind an internet search engine is not realistic.

You should check the extremists Hindus, Buddhists and the creepy cults in Japan.

Aren’t Human Rights the best outcome so far of the supposedly “natural law”?
The concept of natural law is probably even easier to manipulate. Some used it to justify slavery for example.
Listening to a pretty much world wide consensus of what is good for humans is a pretty good way to reduce your own biases and the already existing effect of manipulations on your morality.
Empathy and integrity are struggling against other less positive instincts (fear, greed) inside humans heads, and it’s rarely clearly labeled. So I think it’s good to have a consensual guide to sort the thoughts out.

I think what is supposed to replace the belief in hell for some people to act well in modern societies is police and justice. Not always working, but maybe still an improvement.
The problem is science can’t tell you what is morally good or bad. I think Human Rights is the best guide we have in terms of a fairly well accepted consensus of what is good for humans.

May I suggest to live in countries with a different religious majority to diversify your worst list?

Hello! (Deep in my eyes you could read that I had something very exciting to tell you at some point, but it was part of something that got cut due to cost reduction.)

Am I guessing no social stress neither? Because I was going to recommend joining a non-profit on whatever you find cool, art, sport, nature etc. We are social animals we need some contact to be happy, and having a target activity will reduce the fear of feeling awkward.

I am arguing nudity is more stable in the case of dressing because you can’t go further than no clothes. It’s like hitting the bottom of a valley.

It’s grey, unclear, usually sexist and mostly made of social pressure. I would not say the rules are defined nor fair.

What if it actually puts an end to some of this trashiness because there’s no further point, once it gets normalized?

That is the current situation. My proposal is rather “we guarantee your freedom to dress however you want, including not clothing at all”.

The point is rather for you not to worry anymore if you are covering enough of your body to be legal or socially acceptable. If you push this far enough to accept everyone’s freedom to dress more or less, you end up with nudity.

A human body not being covered by any cloth.

I understand there is also this side of the problem. But I was not thinking about this one when I posted but the maybe older social debate about the degree of covering shoulders and legs, hiding nipples, etc.
I think in Western countries the old debate still impacts more people than the Islamic dressing one, this oen is mostly far right media making a lot of noise about it for baiting.

It does, because you want the rule to be applied equally, not depending on someone’s opinion.

Agreed, nudity increases the potential of hygiene issues. I guess it would be fair rule to make it mandatory to carry some kind of cloth to prevent the non-conscensual sharing of body fluids and particles.
So you would not blame people for what they wear but for the dirtiness they are leaving.

Anarchy opposed hierarchy, it does not oppose having rules.
So your thinking is that we should have rules for dressing, is it? Which logic would you follow to define them?

I’m not saying it’s too sides of the same coin, more like nudity is a null solution to the problem of setting dressing rules.
What would be your solution?

Isn’t sexualized clothing a very relative appreciation? A conservative religious person and a socially liberal person will have very different opinions about this.

Laundry and a little workout!