...inexplicably, PA picked up the gauntlet. Why? You got me. Most of the outrage heaped upon them was due to their second comic, not the first.)
Well, I have to say that criticism of art isn't exactly throwing a gauntlet for battle, so with the second comic and everything they did afterward, they were picking up a nonexistent and imaginary gauntlet, which was really a bad idea. But I agree that the second comic (and everything that followed), was really the 'oil on fire' bit. The first comic was cringe-worthy, but the rest was crap.
I think his error there is more along the lines of "terrible analogy" rather than "promoting rape culture". Unless you believe one is the other, in which case I grant you the point here.
The fact that he can make that terrible error in a culture where so many people have experienced sexual assault is, in fact, a tenet of rape culture. So it's not an either/or situation. His statement is an example rape culture and terrible analogies, lol.
So it's more about ignorance or slips of the tongue?
Rape culture is about both. We aren't ignorant about murder or theft. Actually, we think more of murder and theft than we actually should, statistically. When people have 'slips of the tongue' about theft (especially vs. piracy), people jump on them for them. Rape? Not so much. I was surprised and heartened to see it happen here, although that's probably more of a 'logic' thing than a 'we actually care about rape' thing. (I'll take it how I can get it, though.)
For example, he could have said "and the way to stop rape is to have sex with anyone who wants to". Would that have removed his statement from "rape culture" back into "bad analogy" territory, at least for #2?
Again, that's assuming that everyone can consent, and rape only happens to people who can otherwise consent. Millions of Americans raped as children can tell you that's not the case. I guess he could have said:
'And the way to stop the rape of cognitively able adults would be for them to enthusiastically agree to have sex with every other cognitively able adult who wanted to.'
In which case it would have been a terrible, illogical analogy. Of course, someone who's spent that much time understanding the reality of rape isn't even going to make a stupid analogy like that, so there's that as well.
He appears (to me) to have used the word "rape" to mean actual rape.
Yes, in the inference that rape is analogous to piracy. (Or theft, maybe?) In other words, he's using the word 'rape' to describe an act that isn't even grave enough to be described by the word 'theft' by most people.
Again, comparing sexual assault to even actual theft and finding them to be equal is a part of rape culture, because it pretends that having your mp3 downloaded or your laptop stolen is as bad as being raped. It's not.
You ought to familiarize yourself with the concept called "free speech".
No, I'm pretty sure you're the one who needs a refresher.
It entails not trying to censor speech you find offensive.
No, it doesn't. It entails the government not censoring speech. The community members are not the government and this website is not public property, ergo, no censorship.
I suggest you begin by reading the constitution of the USA.
That's my suggestion to you, sir. Here's the pertinent bit:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
See? This applies to the government, not private citizens on private property.
Otherwise venturing out of your cosy home into wide bad internet is bound to cause you lots of severe anguish.
Strange that a censorship feature is built right in to the website that so opposes censorship.
Previously, Mike has questioned the judgment of companies that 'moderated' their offerings past loud protests and cries of outrage from their customer base (a la Apple's App Store and Google's InstantSearch).
In this case, Mike is openly offering the community a way to moderate the thread themselves, after several used of incessant begging by said community. In this case, it's a feature, not a bug, esp. to the many people using it.
That being said, I disagree with this button being used in this manner, and have protested this idea every time that readers have asked for it. I would be happier if the pushing of the report button led to a human being looking it over, and deciding if it's spam or off-topic, but then it really would be Techdirt removing messages, rather than the community, and the cries of censorship would get louder, rather than quieter. :/
According to techdirt, it's "censorship" for Google to not show certain results in its auto-complete even though those same results show up in the full search. I'm simply applying techdirt's own definition of the word.
Yes, but Mike Masnick hasn't selected what doesn't show. The community had selected what doesn't show. This is less like censorship and more like SafeSearch.
1. Assumes that everyone can consent, which is absolutely not true. (Take children, some cognitively impaired adults, and coma victims, for example.)
2. Assumes that strangers are the potential rapists, even though people are three times more likely to be raped by someone they know than a stranger, and nine times more likely to be raped in their home, the home of someone they know, or anywhere else than being raped on the street.
3. Diminishes the gravity of sexual assault by using the word 'rape' to describe something other than a forced or coerced sex act.
And kudos to you for asking, instead of just assuming that since you don't personally understand it yet, I'm wrong. :)
On the post: Do Tools Ever Die Off?
Re: Re:
On the post: Do Tools Ever Die Off?
Re: Damascus Steel
On the post: Do Tools Ever Die Off?
Re: Damascus Steel
As far as history is concerned, we're not sure whether or not Damascus steel has been replicated.
FIFY
On the post: Can A Judge Force A Juror To Reveal Facebook Account Info?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Can A Judge Force A Juror To Reveal Facebook Account Info?
Re: Re: Re:
At minimum, and probably at maximum in this case, his comment was made within a room full of people, all of whom were speaking at the time.
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, possibly, you should grow up and quit saying stupid shit?
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, I have to say that criticism of art isn't exactly throwing a gauntlet for battle, so with the second comic and everything they did afterward, they were picking up a nonexistent and imaginary gauntlet, which was really a bad idea. But I agree that the second comic (and everything that followed), was really the 'oil on fire' bit. The first comic was cringe-worthy, but the rest was crap.
I think his error there is more along the lines of "terrible analogy" rather than "promoting rape culture". Unless you believe one is the other, in which case I grant you the point here.
The fact that he can make that terrible error in a culture where so many people have experienced sexual assault is, in fact, a tenet of rape culture. So it's not an either/or situation. His statement is an example rape culture and terrible analogies, lol.
So it's more about ignorance or slips of the tongue?
Rape culture is about both. We aren't ignorant about murder or theft. Actually, we think more of murder and theft than we actually should, statistically. When people have 'slips of the tongue' about theft (especially vs. piracy), people jump on them for them. Rape? Not so much. I was surprised and heartened to see it happen here, although that's probably more of a 'logic' thing than a 'we actually care about rape' thing. (I'll take it how I can get it, though.)
For example, he could have said "and the way to stop rape is to have sex with anyone who wants to". Would that have removed his statement from "rape culture" back into "bad analogy" territory, at least for #2?
Again, that's assuming that everyone can consent, and rape only happens to people who can otherwise consent. Millions of Americans raped as children can tell you that's not the case. I guess he could have said:
'And the way to stop the rape of cognitively able adults would be for them to enthusiastically agree to have sex with every other cognitively able adult who wanted to.'
In which case it would have been a terrible, illogical analogy. Of course, someone who's spent that much time understanding the reality of rape isn't even going to make a stupid analogy like that, so there's that as well.
He appears (to me) to have used the word "rape" to mean actual rape.
Yes, in the inference that rape is analogous to piracy. (Or theft, maybe?) In other words, he's using the word 'rape' to describe an act that isn't even grave enough to be described by the word 'theft' by most people.
Again, comparing sexual assault to even actual theft and finding them to be equal is a part of rape culture, because it pretends that having your mp3 downloaded or your laptop stolen is as bad as being raped. It's not.
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I'm pretty sure you're the one who needs a refresher.
It entails not trying to censor speech you find offensive.
No, it doesn't. It entails the government not censoring speech. The community members are not the government and this website is not public property, ergo, no censorship.
I suggest you begin by reading the constitution of the USA.
That's my suggestion to you, sir. Here's the pertinent bit:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
See? This applies to the government, not private citizens on private property.
Otherwise venturing out of your cosy home into wide bad internet is bound to cause you lots of severe anguish.
Like you've just experienced? LOL
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re:
Previously, Mike has questioned the judgment of companies that 'moderated' their offerings past loud protests and cries of outrage from their customer base (a la Apple's App Store and Google's InstantSearch).
In this case, Mike is openly offering the community a way to moderate the thread themselves, after several used of incessant begging by said community. In this case, it's a feature, not a bug, esp. to the many people using it.
That being said, I disagree with this button being used in this manner, and have protested this idea every time that readers have asked for it. I would be happier if the pushing of the report button led to a human being looking it over, and deciding if it's spam or off-topic, but then it really would be Techdirt removing messages, rather than the community, and the cries of censorship would get louder, rather than quieter. :/
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would be happier if the pushing of the report button led to a human being looking it over. :/
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but Mike Masnick hasn't selected what doesn't show. The community had selected what doesn't show. This is less like censorship and more like SafeSearch.
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And in case you didn't notice, there are quite a few comments on this thread that are completely unrelated to your trolling.
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re: Re:
I see. You're an ignorant douchebag. But do come back when you get a clue.
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anyway, specifically, his comment:
1. Assumes that everyone can consent, which is absolutely not true. (Take children, some cognitively impaired adults, and coma victims, for example.)
2. Assumes that strangers are the potential rapists, even though people are three times more likely to be raped by someone they know than a stranger, and nine times more likely to be raped in their home, the home of someone they know, or anywhere else than being raped on the street.
3. Diminishes the gravity of sexual assault by using the word 'rape' to describe something other than a forced or coerced sex act.
And kudos to you for asking, instead of just assuming that since you don't personally understand it yet, I'm wrong. :)
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Attitude
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re:
We haven't done this. Basic economics has done this.
God, I really want to put this on a picture of a cat so people can understand it.
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re:
Wow, it's so weird. Subjective humor is subjective.
Next >>