Awareness
Posts: 3918
Joined: 9/8/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyPact
quote:
ORIGINAL: Awareness
That strikes me as the kind of pointless Twitter advocacy which achieves very little. Nick's received nothing but opprobrium in this forum anyway, so more of the same really makes no difference. Social feedback only works if people have an investment in the social community
That's not quite intellectually honest. Several people, myself included, answered this thread with actual input to the discussion. My first comment on it was asking him if he had posted the same thread before, because I could have sworn we had the same subject way back when SxxxxofUxxx was still posting. You're missing the point. Every thread he posts results in personal attacks against him. He makes statements about feminism and people make statements about him. My point is, he doesn't have a social investment in this community because his reputation level is low. It's the lack of social investment which is the issue here - it renders all the faux outrage completely moot.
quote:
When have you ever seen me say anything that made you think I have ever thought it was cool to post another persons pics or links to those pics on a public forum? You know exactly how I feel about such invasions of privacy and if you don't, I'm going to say that one is on you, because you haven't paid enough attention. No, but this isn't all about you. It's about the majority mob rule in this place which is pretty much anti-male, anti-hetero and anti-anyonewhoasksquestionsyouveseenbefore. The ludicrously pompous fuckwits here who think because they've got all the answers that nobody else is entitled to ask questions are so astonishingly blind to their own arrogance, it's pathetic.
quote:
He *didn't* operate within site guidelines. If I had Facebook and you did, too, and I found you pics on that site, should I be linking them here? No. If I did, you'd have every right to be telling me that I was a scum sucker for doing it. Like Fet, Facebook has privacy controls which specify what pictures are public. My assumption is that any picture I haven't explicitly set as private is available for public consumption because search engines will sure as shit make it so. Stef's pictures on Fet are for public Fet consumption. As such, whether a discussion here or a discussion on Fet refers to them is largely irrelevant. And it sure as shit is no fucking difference to someone commenting on someone's profile and what can be viewed there. A link is a shortcut, but posting the link and commenting on it is exactly the fucking same as people commenting on someone's publicly visible profile picture. People will find the profile and examine the picture - the degree of energy required is just marginally less.
A facebook link would be problematic for other reasons - mainly because Facebook uses real names. There's a world of difference between linking to a facebook profile and linking someone's real identity with their pseudonym - and posting a link to someone' photo in their public pseudonym profile. One is a privacy violation, the other is a reference to a readily viewable artifact which has been enabled for public consumption by the person concerned.
If you still want to contend that this is a privacy violation, then explain to me exactly what private information has been made public that was not public before.
quote:
What you think Stef thinks about it isn't the point, either. Unless he asked Stef if he had her consent to post the links to her other profile, he's in the wrong. What, you mean the way people here ask permission before slamming someone's profile pics? The net effect is the same, so I gotta say I find the outrage here REALLY fucking disingenuous - it's an awfully convenient line which allows people's friends here to slam someone's appearance but not Nick because he posted links. That's a distinction without a difference and frankly, I find the hypocrisy of those decrying this - while clapping every time one of their friends does something similar - really fucking nauseating.
quote:
Does it really matter to you what kind of poster Stef is that she shouldn't have the same member right to privacy as everybody else? Look, I believe in the right to privacy, but stef probably has those pics on the CollarSpace profile so this is not exactly something that's being KEPT private in the first place. If it was actual private pictures that were restricted, I'd say you're absolutely right, but this is not the case. These are publicly visible in this community and the fet community - thus, what violation of privacy actually occurred?
quote:
It shouldn't matter if you like her or you don't. If you wouldn't consider it ok to do somebody that you liked, you should feel the same about it, no matter which poster it happened to be. I agree. Principles are those things which we hold to, regardless of to whom they apply. My contention is that the impact is overblown and the line of acceptable behaviour is really fucking arbitrary because Nick's done exactly what other people have done with a link as a shortcut.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Awareness
*shrug* Lucy is pretty much doing the same thing these days with constant links to her idea of how men are terrible people, but she's a woman so she gets a pass.
quote:
If you are referring to the Brock Turner threads, I'd be shocked if anybody really thought that sentence was justice. When you catch people in the act, they should go to jail. Not specifically, it's just that Lucy posts a fair amount of "men are scum, look what happened to a woman" type links and she's completely indifferent to male suffering. Men suffer violence more than women do, but Lucy thinks women are a special case and deserve special attention. Like I said, she's the female version of Nick.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Awareness
I think you'll find mean personal attacks has been the standard here for some time, it's just that some people do it obliquely and they've been allowed to get away with it. I think criticising someone's appearance is crossing the line, but Nick's certainly not the first person to do it so becoming outraged when HE does it tends to smack of hypocrisy.
Sorry. It's not hypocrisy when violating somebody's privacy comes into play. It's a BS move and decent people shouldn't be thinking it's ok. As I said, I don't think privacy is the issue in regard to public photos which are on two public profiles. And I think you need to ask yourself whether it's the fact that he posted a link or the fact that he criticised her appearance which is incensing you.
_____________________________
Ever notice how fucking annoying most signatures are? - Yes, I do appreciate the irony.
|
RE: Feminists want equality, except when paying for dates - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread