RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the clogosphere?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What is going on?

(talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

This page is automatically archived by Pibot
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>


[edit] National Review article on Neil deGrasse Tyson

Anybody with access care to summarize? I don't feel like giving them my money/info. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 09:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You're talking about the "Smarter Than Thou" article brought up by Bill Maher, right? I managed to track down a full-length copy of it. I'll give a short version here. Disclaimer: This is what I got from it personally, and may not reflect the author's actual intentions with this opinion piece.
After the first two paragraphs which are available free on the site, the author decries "self-professed nerds" as a combination of hipsterism, smug intellectual condescention, "the belief that one can discover all the secrets of human experience through differential equations." After listing a few examples (including Richard Dawkins and Bill Nye), the author goes on to say:
The [nerdy] pose is, of course, little more than a ruse -- most of our professional "nerds" being, like Mrs. Doubtfire, stereotypical facsimilies of the real thing. They have the patois but not the passion; the clothes but not the style; the posture but not the imprimatur. Theirs is the nerd-dom of Star Wars, not Star Trek; of Mario Kart and not World of Warcraft; of the latest X-Men movie rather than the comics themselves.
He goes on by saying that because science and geekiness are now seen as cool and hip, they're being glommed onto by people who want to be cool rather than who have a genuine interest, that the term "nerd" now carries the connotation "look at me... [I'm not] southern, politically conservative, culturally traditional, religious in some sense, patriotic, driven by principle rather than [data], and in any way attached to the past," and accuses "the nerds of MSNBC and beyond" that they are merely "popular kids indulging in a fad" and living the highball celebrity life. After quoting Neil deGrasse-Tyson on ignorance being a virus, he claims the quote is a sort of call-to-arms for those who believe they're part of the aforementioned nerdy intelligentsia, "thus do we see residents of Brooklyn who are unable to tell you at what temperature water boils, rolling their eyes at Bjnrn Lomborg because he disagrees with... climate change."
The author says that 'nerd' has become a political term, citing Obama's cameo on Cosmos, and those who conflate the political 'left vs. right' with 'science vs. religion'. He also points at the ostensible hypocrisy of "the smarter, progressive class" having wealthy and opulent lifestyles while simultaneously claiming populist views, citing the gaudy display of the White House Correspondents' Dinner.
He concludes by saying that Neil deGrasse-Tyson, et al., have actually damaged politics, scholarship, and culture in their attempt to popularize science. He states that "actual science is slow, unsexy and assiduously neutral." Politics pretending to be science, on the other hand, is "chic." He claims that "Big Data" and "It's just science" are actually a veiled attempt to advance progressivism under the guise of empirical neutrality. He quotes Tyson once again: "Other than being a scientist, I'm not any other kind of -ist. These -ists and -isms are philosophies; they're philosophical portpholios that people attach themselves to and then the philosophy does the thinking for you instead of you doing the thinking yourself." He goes on to say any claim to have "a worldview... driven only by the data" is nonsense because liberals believe in nonscientific ideas too, and concludes by accusing leftists of claiming that the 'old ways' were outdated and contrived, as well as accusing leftists of claiming that we would be saved by the old political ideas of "collectivism, lightly checked political power, and a permanent technocratic class" disguised as being "new" and "assured by ostensibly disinterested analysts," ending with the are-you-seriously-saying-this line of "Science is important, but these are not the nerds you're looking for."
I'll be coming back to tidy some of this up later. Just realized I'm late for a doc's appointment.Noir LeSable (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Jeez "star wars not star trek" is such a choice quote. Like Star Trek has all this intellectual depth, which is being skirted by people who produce science education television. It's totally not a soap opera in space with contrived philosophical puzzles tossed in sometimes. Definetly intellectual rigor there. Ikanreed (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
One of the US sites I read pointed out that deGrasse-Tyson actually does not support nonscientific positions that are popular with the left, citing anti-GMO and anti-vaccine as examples. Both these come down to "Well, OK the science doesn't support us, but our gut instinct should trump science anyway" and as you'd expect from a scientist deGrasse-Tyson says "No, that's not right". The fact that a lot of rich hippies who vote a Democrat ticket believe in auras or Myers Briggs personality types doesn't make those scientifically reasonable ideas. Whatever Neil deGrasse-Tyson is, he's clearly not just playing to the party faithful. Tialaramex (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Re: Meyers Briggs. Low reliability predictive utility is still predictive utility. Psychology and sociology have moved on from that model, but weak correlations are still useful. Ikanreed (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] The Justine Tunney Ordeal

Isn't the whole ordeal too weird? Also there is a guy on her twitter, saying that what she is doing is skillful trolling. But I also checked out her blog and saw a post about how a matriarchy would be better and how men are violent and form gangs etc anyway(a satirical post, meaning she is making fun of progressives and feminists who she perceives as believing such things.).

So... Poe? Or for reals? If so, how can someone pull such a 180 degree turn?

Reading about Dark Enlightenment and how followers of such an ideology very common in Silicon Valley makes me queasy, I have to admit. Shadow Nirvana (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Tunney also likes RW, FWIW. I know people who think she should have a Google Glass that helpfully flashes up "FOR GODSAKE STOP TALKING NOW" as needed. I'm sure she's lovely in person - David Gerard (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
It's supposedly easier to move from a hard-left to a hard-right position or vice versa, or from fundamentalist Christianity to fundamentalist Islam or vice versa. It's the road to Damascus effect. Even if they change their minds and reject their former cause, they're still looking for a dramatic view of the world that tells them that they're on the vanguard of history. They may switch just because the new cause offers a more compelling vision. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 02:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah ... this substantiates your theory that the problem with activism is generally the activists - David Gerard (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
"Tunney also likes RW" Does she also like the feminism, MRM, HBD and neoreaction pages, too? I don't get it. Wouldn't she find it as too liberal? BTW, don't get me wrong, I can see how one of her tweet that was featured on Gawker ("at least slaves had free housing and food") can be seen as a criticism of the current state of things, like saying things are even worse than slavery(I don't think they are, tbh, although can you calculate such a thing) and that we should be taking care of the poor and needy of the world better. It's just her every other tweets and blogposts seem... just like any other neoreactionary rambling. Shadow Nirvana (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
At the risk of "derailing" this (welcome to the Internet, where threads drift) given the two options I'd cheerfully choose the life of an 1820-era plantation field slave over the life of an industrial laborer during the same period. The slaves worked shorter hours, precisely because the slaves had no prospects and better security: they'd always be owned by somebody who'd be obliged to feed and house them. They could be sold, but not fired. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 01:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, no. Remember, slaves are property. That means your wife, and even your kids can be sold to another slaver to straighten out somebody's accounts. That's not a theoretical consideration, it happened fairly routinely. You say slavers "had to" feed and house their slaves. Sure, and people "have to" feed and look after their dogs, so there definitely aren't any starving or maltreated dogs, right? And as a slave you've no option who you work for. You may get lucky and get a "good" owner or not, and there's nothing to be done about it. In contrast a mill worker from the 19th century Bradford slums has the option to apply to work for the mayor, Titus Salt, who has built a new mill on a green field site a few miles away. His workers get brand new company housing, with toilets, and there is even a school where your children can learn reading and arithmetic (but there is nowhere to buy booze, Titus is teetotal). Titus Salt though a humanitarian was not a fool, he did all this in order to obtain the best workers for his company. Titus, unlike the slavers, saw a future in which both he and his workers were richer for their collective efforts. Tialaramex (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
One of the meanest things we did to the slaves was to suddenly subject them to nineteenth century domestic relations law. Slave 'marriages' always had an ad-hoc character just because of what you say. This is the subject of fairly extensive recriminations in the ex-slave narratives. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 04:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd argue the whole "brutally murdering some of them to keep the rest subjugated" thing was arguably worse, but I'm biased that way. --Gulik (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Heroic Doctor/Ann Coulter

There has recently been a WIGO:World-news post "Heroic doctor dies of ebola" or something. IMO, to avoid ambiguity, the current clog-entry about Ann Coulter should be somewhat specified, since it is now a different heroic doctor. (So the BON who changed this page 5 minutes ago and which change has been reverted, that was me.) --Sophophobe (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Female Selective Service Registration

Honestly I don't see what's so bad about mandatory Selective Service registration for women. Most men are required by law to do it, and there's nothing wrong with having women as candidates for military conscription. It's equality, plain and simple. The only reason I think anyone posted this is because an MRA group is behind it. Fortunately it has gone into negative votes.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't you think it's equality in the wrong direction? Shadow Nirvana (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there's such thing. Also, feminists don't like women being seen as helpless or not worthy of a man's job (e.i. the military), so they should support it too (according to the forum in question, some of them do). Anyway, there are so many more trivial inequalities that people complain about if you ask me. TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
"I don't think there is such thing." Equality can be established by forcing neither gender into registering for Selective Service or both. I am not necessarily opposed to the idea of the "both" option, I just think it is an utterly unnecessary procedure that will account to nothing, at least not in the near future where it doesn't seem like a draft is going to happen again. And like you said, it is a trivial "inequality" because it is nigh impossible to convict someone for not registering, because apparently, according to Wikipedia, the government must prove that you not registering was willful and knowing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System#Failure_to_register Shadow Nirvana (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Time was when the bearing of arms was considered a defining mark of freedom; but let's face it, those times are now long past, done in by machine guns and the experience of trench warfare. The demands of military service are vastly different from those that prevailed when armed men were free men; now it's just one more form of involuntary servitude inflicted on the politically weak. I'd rather the whole apparatus of conscription be torn down; but until then, yes, subject women to the registration. At least this way you increase the number of people threatened by it. There are a number of bureaucratic penalties still involved in failure to register. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 01:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I gotta agree with that. It's a rare day when I agree with the MRAs, but this is one of them. Obviously, no Selective Service is better, but that's probably not an option. (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Even if the its unlikely you will be prosecuted, you still must be registered in order to get federal student loans, a federal job, or become a citizen, according to http://www.sss.gov/FSbenefits.htm TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I was sort of hoping that posting this here would inspire some kind of debate rather than downvoting. I suppose the big issue I have with it is that this legal change doesn't improve the lives of men in any way. Rather than putting any energy into getting rid of mandatory conscription for men, they push the idea that women should have to sign up for it too. In fact, reading the thread, many were for conscription. Of course, one of these two options negatively affects women, so it's the one that they go for. Maybe I'm alone in hoping for a world where men's rights activists rallied for the removal of conscription rather than the extension of its reach --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I figure i have a better shot of making the "Not a Draft" equal than i do getting rid of it entirely. --Miekal 21:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
So it's not worth your energy whatsoever? How radical --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
No, but if i have to decide between in the end futile attempt to get rid of the draft and atleast making it not be male only, and the latter has a better shot of being worth the time and energy, ill go for the one that isnt me wasting time yelling into the wind.--Miekal 21:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
We don't have the draft here so I can't say that I understand how it feels, but if you are protesting at all regarding it being gender neutral, then the channels exist to protest against it properly. In my opinion, I sincerely doubt they will extend the draft to include women, it's unpopular enough as it is, it just seems an enormous waste of energy when the same resources could be put into protesting against the draft itself. I don't get why they are wasting their time trying to get women to sign up for a system that has been irrelevant for a long time. You think that feminism functioned by removing men's rights to vote or to work? Or that the suffragettes didn't feel like they were "yelling into the wind" a lot of the time? What a joke --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
You realize i'm not an MRA--Miekal 22:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I do, I imagine any confusion in my writing comes from me discussing both your points and that of the MRAs in question at the same time. I apologise for any offense caused --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The clogosphere isn't really a place for debate, the way I see it. It's a place to gather a bunch of stupid articles we can all laugh at. By posting this petition in here, you're basically saying "there is no need to debate this, its laughable and anyone who agrees with it shouldn't be taken seriously". I think this is more of a complex issue than that though (I'm not really decided on whether or not it is a good thing at this stage).TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I think this must be a cultural difference as I still find it really, really weird. You're welcome to remove it if you'd prefer --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
When I voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980, I did so largely on the strength of his campaign promise to end draft registration. So it goes. This is a dog-whistle issue for me. I am an American born citizen who grew up in Ontario. I was quite aware of the Vietnam war when my family moved back to the States in 1973; I would have been 13 at the time. I was rather alarmed that we were doing the obviously wrong thing by leaving the safety of Canada. I was quite relieved when the draft ended, and immensely angry at Jimmy Carter for reinstating registration. I beat the deadline for having to register myself by five months. I am not a pacifist, but I am quite certain that I do not belong in basic training, and that placing me in that kind of environment and then handing me a real weapon and live ammunition is not likely to end well. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 03:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
To be fair about Selective service, the chances we are ever going to actually reinstate a full on draft again is incredibly low, Our current military does a decent job and it's not exactly a popular thing barring our country getting physically invaded and paratroopers shooting up children in schools.--Miekal 04:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Fortunately, the moment anything like that actually happened, the current and any foreseeable future US government would already surely have crumbled. You gather that there are large segments of the population that say they want to throw off the yoke of the Federal government. The likeliest future major war in the US looks like another civil war to me. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 05:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
To be fair as well, it's not like the lack of a draft necessarily stops conscription from occurring. Canada had a draft on two occasions (during both the First and Second World Wars), yet in both cases the law implementing the draft was only passed during war time (and was later rescinded). While the Canadian Parliament is arguably much stronger than the U.S. Congress, I don't immediately see why the same couldn't end up being the case south of the border. Perhaps someone better versed in American law and/or politics can jump in and tell me if/why I'm wrong.
Also, as an amusing side note, during both world wars, conscription barely accomplished anything in Canada due to tensions between anglophones and francophones (anglophones were largely pro-conscription while francophones were largely anti-conscription). Conscription was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario, so Parliament held off conscription as long as possible (one year before the war ended in both cases). Of course, this only led to crises in 1917 and 1944, and yet barely any conscripted troops made it to the front lines in either war because of how much time was spent dithering about it in Parliament. Hooray for efficient government! - Grant (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Because when you get down to it, nobody cares enough about kicking terrorist ass enough to get up and march off to recruitment like we did to go kick nazi or japanese ass. Any politicians who proposes "lets just force our boys on to the military!" would immediately face a vicious and terrible uphill battle against reelection. Theres nothing stopping a draft from being put back in, besides it's career suicide.--Miekal 05:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Well yes, it was effectively career suicide for the two Prime Ministers who enforced it here as well. Either way though, the point is that the draft itself is moot if that's the case. Using it is career suicide, and killing it off only to reinstate it is also career suicide. Why is ending it such a bother? Is there just that much bureaucracy tied to it? - Grant (talk) 06:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Lack of interest, probably, would be my answer, but somebody more versed (say, smerdis) may know more than me on it--Miekal 06:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
My impression is that politicians are mostly happy nobody's pressing it as an issue. Abolishing registration could be painted as "soft on terror", and there are plenty of voters who favor an aggressive foreign policy so long as they don't have to pay for it. On the other hand, proposals like this would put the issue in the public mind again, and most politicians would rather just let it lie there. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 16:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
That makes sense. Of course, I wonder how much keeping the draft going costs the government each year. Ending it would carry an expense as well, but in the long term it would be cheaper. Yet I imagine hawkish voters would find some way to trivialize the cost if attempts were made to end it. - Grant (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Given, afaict, it's "sign this piece of paper, mail it in, they will add your name ot the rolls if we ever actually reintroduce the real draft, then the mail you a card i've since lost" i cant imagine it costs much of anything, and what it does cost is signifigantly less than will make any difference in spending--Miekal 17:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Well its annual budget is measured in the tens of millions, which is a drop in the pond compared to many U.S. expenditures. However, tens of millions of dollars is still tens of millions of dollars, especially since that money is largely sunk into a system nobody cares about or plans to use any longer. - Grant (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Citizen soldiers are a supportable basis for a republic founded in "the government works for the people" sort of principles. Makes sure the general public has skin in any warlike games that so-called statesmen may try to foist off on them. Hired warriors, sometimes considered foreigners or "others," have gone along with imperial decline, in recorded history. Joining the military is one way for a kid (girl or boy) to find their way clear of a small town that might be felt as cramping their style. So I have heard, and I believe it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It's a symptom of the lack of original thinking in US right-wing politics that something blitheringly obvious has not occurred to them. We're supposed to have some kind of crisis involving Latin American immigrants, many of whom are cannon fodder age. We have the problem of the aggressive foreign policy they say they want, and where our options are seriously limited by the inability to put boots on the ground. Even the French figured this part out. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 03:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] America's dumbest politician

I didn't even have to mouse over, I automatically knew it would be Louie Gohmert--"Shut up, Brx." 16:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Gohmert does have a talent for standing out in a field of stupidity. His is a uniquely asinine voice. (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] white riot

Perhaps they had been listening to the clash and missed the point. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Bullshit Wiki?

Looking at Special:Contributions/ Is someone spamming RW?--ZooGuard (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

They just went and updated all links to the wiki on RW to its new domain.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] The Zoe Quinn Ordeal

[edit] Thunderf00t and attention-whoring

So Dawahfilms makes a "death threat"(something that is mentioned in the Thunderf00t page and found non-existant) and TF has no qualms about using this to claim victimhood multiple times.

Anita Sarkeesian gets threatened by someone(she used to get threatened a lot but I don't think with such focused intent) and has proof of this, yet this is simply "a new low in attention-mongering".

Speaking of new lows...Shadow Nirvana (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing new about this and of course opposite sides are going to view different things as attention whoring. Also, hypocrisy is very common in human behaviour and nothing much to be shocked about, especially when it's concerning some insignificant internet celebrity. Nullahnung (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it is "argument to moderation" fallacy to say "Hey it ain't no big deal babydoll, opposite sides are going to see different things as attention-whoring." :) What I mean is that it doesn't matter how he sees it, he is wrong in this particular instance. And yes, people can be hypocritical and that's no news to anybody(and let's be real, with a douche like Thunderfoot, how can you be shocked at anything he does), but that doesn't mean noone should call out bad and inconsistent behaviour. But I disagree with you that he is insignificant. Yes, he isn't irreplacable and if it wasn't him the MRAtheists would be fawning over someone else, but still he has quite an audience.Shadow Nirvana (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The sooner everyone sees him as just another asshole on the internet not worth their attention, the sooner he won't be able to make a big fuss anymore, is what I'm getting at. Nullahnung (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thunderf00t is basically my go-to internet character when it comes to evidence of the "Yeah atheist skeptics can be complete morons too" phenomenon. Ikanreed (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep in mind, Thunderfoot's main claim to fame was deconstructing the creationist arguments of (and getting into petty internet fights with) a mentally disturbed teenager. --Marlow (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
To be fair, he mainly used the death threats against him to point out how people like Dawah Films handle criticism. He wasn't saying he was persecuted or anything.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
If so, then apparently death threats over the internet aren't a big deal to him? Good for him, now if he could just stop getting into internet celebrity bitching about it, that would be swell. Nullahnung (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
And also he's never had to deal with anything on this scale. This is classic "I can't admit I was wrong now" syndrome. Ikanreed (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
'Only on the internet can you say "domestic violence is bad" and be met with "well, let's consider all sides of this debate."' - Sam Sykes - David Gerard (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Where did this come from? Kind of off topic.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Not particularly, I get the point that DG is making, and I've seen plenty of arguments "for domestic violence" from the Manosphere cesspool. It's the same with this, there are death threats made towards a person and her family, including references to their personal address, and gamers/MRAs, already disliking her hugely, go "well... maybe they are fake?" It was actually many peoples first reaction having read through the threads. They are utterly pathetic --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
It's a persistant female stereotype, especially among MRAs, that women lie for attention. I'm kinda starting to want to pull a YHWH and Lot, if anyone can show me just 50 MRAs who aren't disguised sexist shitbags, I'll spare their city. How about 40? 10? Ikanreed (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
You are being dishonest by using a label that's only applied to what you perceive as sexist shitbags and then going "Whelp, I knew it!" when the sexist shitbags turn out to be sexist shitbags, and then you feel justified in repeating your original stance. You are part of the problem. Nullahnung (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC) Scratch that, I'm actually the one who is part of the problem by unnecessarily antagonising someone instead of trying to understand how they feel and not be too cynical about it. Nullahnung (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I genuinely do go looking for a bit of decency from MRA centric pages. I don't find it often. I mean, I want to be an ally of anyone who's nominally in favor of dealing with systemic inequalities/unfaireness. But the MRA movement picked up a very harsh misogynistic edge early on, and I almost never see them trying to actually redress the major problems. Instead they seem to only ever crop up bringing up their complaints as a means to silence concerns of people they should be seeing as allies. Ikanreed (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
"for a bit of decency from MRA centric pages" That's your problem right there. You don't go to places where people have "an opposition" they can rail against as a common enemy and nobody is there to stop the circle jerk and then you expect to come out of it with a better opinion of the circle jerkers. (And that description applies to RationalWiki to a degree, which we should be careful about.) If you want to meet reasonable people who just happen to hold opinions you think are wrong, but you can see some decency in them, you go to places where there are still "moderates", by which I mean people who haven't taken a definite "side" yet in the discussion. Nullahnung (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Nah, even in places where it's not a circlejerk, MRAs just intercede in discussions about female issues with MRA talking points to justify dismissing those concerns. It's not "fair play" because that doesn't happen with any kind of regularity in the other direction. This isn't a "both sides" thing. MRAs bring too much misogyny to the table. Ikanreed (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
My point being you can't expect to get something out of debating a guy who has "already chosen his side", like whoever you're probably meaning by MRA (Yes, I dislike painting people with broad labels, I believe everyone is an individual with their own set of nuances). If you want a productive discussion you have to seek out the people who have not entered the discussion with an already-fortified position. Nullahnung (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── And I get that. But seriously, I'd like to see the non-shitty MRAs. That's the whole point I was making. Ikanreed (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

There are no non-shitty MRAs, don't you get it? The whole term is loaded so that whenever you apply the label to someone it's because they're already shitty. That's why labels bring us nowhere. People who are undecided are not MRAs, they are "cowardly moderates" or "simply ignorant" (if you can't live without labeling people). They don't have a barrage of rehearsed and offensive talking points that they're ready to defend their position with. Nullahnung (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
FYI self-labeling is a thing. People who I wouldn't choose to qualify as feminist take on the label, e.g. Ikanreed (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I came late to this argument but there is a definite men's rights movement and that movement is definitely misogynistic. I don't go around referring to people that I meet as MRAs because I don't like what they are saying, I pretty much exclusively use the term when describing the posters on men's rights websites. I have looked hard for an active men's rights website that isn't an antifeminist echo chamber. There are some decent MRAs on r/mensrights but both the moderators and a good deal of the frequent posters are very misogynistic. I read the websites weekly and try to keep up to date with what goes on so I can keep informed with my arguments. I am telling you, the men's rights movement is misogynistic, both at its self-affirmed foundations in anti-suffragism and in its current leaders (Elam, Price, Farrell). I have listened to their arguments, read them over and over, tried to apply my own experiences as a man to them, but it is no good, these people have a negative effect on how people perceive my gender when they spew their bigotry in the name of "men's rights", harm the opportunity for people to talk seriously about depression and male rape. If we take them at face value, by doing little else than being aggressive towards women, men's rights activists actively harm their own cause. I don't go out of my way to find negative aspects of the men's rights movement, antifeminism is, at least in my eyes, what it consists of. Of course there are people advocating for men's rights that aren't bigots, but they do not support A Voice for Men or the Spearhead. It was not the people supporting men in domestic abuse shelters or staying up late on suicide hotlines who were harassing Anita Sarkeesian for making a feminist video. I know that MRA is a loaded term but it applies to a very real demographic of people. They are real people and you can see the effect they are having on the way people see feminism --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
+1. FuzzyCatPotaters talktalktalk 03:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I have seen people who self-label as MRA, yes, which I try to avoid. You guys have a fair point there. Nullahnung (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

[2] --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The whoever vs. whoever else thing the internet's got going is extremely petty and helps no-one. We should be looking to facilitate dialogue, not create divides. Nullahnung (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Antifeminism has existed since Suffrage, this movement isn't a new thing, I don't see any harm in making fun of sexist people. The divisions have existed since it started, it's only trying to present itself as moderate as its gained traction. Elam and his cohorts were significantly worse at the outset so naturally there is a movement against them, they offer very little and could undo decades of progress. How can I earnestly trust a movement that once attempted something like Register-Her? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
We are not referring to the same kinds of people then. I think it may be a good idea to abandon this conversation as we seem to have started off from different reference points. Nullahnung (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Which people were you talking about? Gamers in general or MRAs? The antifeminist movement is quite closely connected, the anonymous creator of Woman Against Feminism knows A Voice for Men's Janet Bloomfield and talked to the press through her. I find it all uncomfortable and all dishonest --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Gamers in general. They're annoyed by feminism and they're losing trust (like always, but more rapidly this time) in the games media, and they're young and immature as you might expect. Nullahnung (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Whoops, my bad then, I retract a fair amount of what I said when it is applied to gamers, and apologise for any misconceptions --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
What does gamer mean though? Lots of people play video games, myself included, and don't hold anything like the views espoused by the so-called gamer community. I've been thinking fanboy would be the more apt term - a community of adolescents and those in extended adolescence who have some serious problems with anyone who disagrees with them. This is borne out in their reaction not just to some rather mild feminist criticism, but to essentially any criticism of something that they like. Just look at the vitriol the spray at each other over something as trivial the difference between the Xbox 360 and PS3 or a negative review of Call of Duty 9: Modern Warfare 4 Ghost Commando 2. When someone they judge to be outside their group, a woman no less, questions the perfection of GTA they go absolutely ape shit. David Futrelle has some links to some good articles on the topic here (though the actual article isn't that interesting). --Marlow (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I think when people say "gamer", they mean the sort of person who you'll find on places like /r/games or /v/. (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to discuss how best to generalise people, so excuse me as I abandon this conversation. Nullahnung (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Recent possible hacking of iCloud and leakage of nudes

Not a WIGO, but what are you people's opinion about the whole leakage of actress nudes that went on yesterday? I feel a bit disappointed how many people decided to share illegally obtained photos and not standing for justice, for once. Maybe I'm too optimistic? Shadow Nirvana (talk) 10:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The most disturbing thing is just how many people blamed the celebrities themselves for having the images saved on iCloud. I haven't come across many people defending their right to privacy outside of feminist forums. It makes me very concerned for the women that I know how little people care --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Right? Isn't safety one of cloud's features? That's what people are paying for. Isn't it nearly the same thing as storing the pictures on a computer with internet connection? And the logic... Even if they made a mistake trusting cloud, the fact that people go "Well, they shouldn't have done that." before damning the person who hacked their accounts seems a lot like saying "Look at what she's wearing." Yet, near zero speaking out against the criminal. Hell, I've even seen people saying that the hacker had done a great public service, was going to get into heaven for such a deed and getting so many prayers etc.
The people who were questioning the morals of these women and the ones who are accusing others who are speaking against this of being whiteknights were pretty disturbing, too. This whole session made me feel a bit depressed. Take the manosphere, dilute it a bit and spread it to the general public and you get this disaster.
After this I'm so for surveillance, even the NSA wouldn't be so pro-NSA. Shadow Nirvana (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
It's horrible, I doubt any of these people would appreciate it if it were them. It's the danger of anonymity on the internet. It allows people to be bestial and because society is so sexist, it's women who they attack, whilst simultaneously claiming that there is no need for feminism anymore. Absolute creeps --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if things would have been different, had the celebrities been men. Probably would have received just as much victim blaming. Nullahnung (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
That's a good point, it happens much less often but when it does there is the same victim blaming. I'm trying to find examples, the ones of Pete Wentz and Kanye West come to mind. I don't think people talked that much about West's but with the fan base that Fall Out Boy attracts Wentz's leak was quite a big deal. He seems to be cool with it now but it seems he was quite hurt by it at the time [3]. Unlike the current celebrities, there's nothing about it in either's Wikipedia profile though --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
It always annoys me when people always cry "___ism!" when something nasty happens. Thanks for providing an island of sanity. TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
That island was paid for with taxpayer money! Socialism! Shadow Nirvana (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
You're a famous person and a) you take nude selfies and b) you think the best place to keep them is some amorphous space out there "somewhere" that has passwords, so it's totally safe. What could possibly go wrong? PsyGremlin話しなさい 12:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
So it's their fault. Got it. Shadow Nirvana (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes it is victim blaming. The celebrities probably didn't know that iCloud is open to hacking. Apple are a pretty big company and it's recommended on the devide to have it on. My android phone used to back photos up without me realising through my Google+ account until I turned the option off. Sure, it could go wrong, but it's not like you can blame them for not understanding how it works. If anybody is to blame it's the hacker, the people sharing the photographs, and in some part Apple --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
As any tabloid editor will tell you, the frailties of the rich and famous have a dreadful fascination. If you look at the biggest selling papers then you'll find they're the ones with celebs in embarrassing situations, even if the papers have to make these stories up. 'Twas always thus and lamenting it, or expecting it to be different, is pointless. I'm not, for one moment, saying that the victims are to blame but I am saying that it is part of the price of fame. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh well that's a different argument, I agree that the press will always jump on stories like this, it's what happens when millions of people are invested in the life of an individual. Things like this do happen all the time to non-celebrities though, it doesn't make it any more right. I suppose that's what makes it a big story, that they are so famous, but I know somebody who had pictures stolen from their private Tumblr blog and posted on an image board after it was hacked into, it could happen to any of us. There's the revenge porn thing which is quite popular as well. It happens and there is a community built around it, this should hopefully bring the problem into the public eye. It's a shame that the option people offer is not to take them, it's a normal expression of sexuality. There are lots of cultural factors involved in this, including that of celebrity, but primarily I would blame it on the people consuming and spreading the images --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
too many people virtually liveblog their lives through the likes of Facebook twitter tumble etc. They seem to have no concept of their own privacy why would they give a fuck about anyone else's? With the fact that various governments and google reading your emails not generating more than a murmur, someones nudey pix going public is par for the course. Get used to everyone watching everything you do online AMassiveGay (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
It's still a huge breach of privacy. I wouldn't want hundreds of thousands of people masturbating over that sort of media involving me. When you consider that most new phones automatically upload to iCloud or Google Drive or whatever then we have a real problem that can't really be attributed to the individuals themselves. You certainly can't blame people for taking the pictures, I imagine they all intended for them to remain private. Look at it this way, imagine somebody breaks into a celebrities house and sets up a secret camera. They film the celebrity having sex and then upload it to the internet. Would you blame the celebrity for having sex? What if the secret camera was an unprotected webcam? If we cared enough we could prevent things like this from happening. There's a real problem and it seems that there is going to be some kind of governmental action against it. If it's illegal then it's illegal, there are people who use Tor to buy and sell credit card information. Would they be prosecuted if the police found out? Of course. We can pretty much accept that people will be using the internet to breach the privacy of others nowadays, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to have private lives. The fault here is in the people hacking and distributing the content. I think they should at least expect letters from their internet provider, if to just make the point that what happens online is real life --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
i am not blaming the victims for having accounts hacked and photos distributed online but I am far less concerned with such illegal breaches privacy. There are already laws against such things. People can and will be prosecuted. Its a non story. The legal breaches of privacy are more worrying and too few people care about those.AMassiveGay (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
"People can and will be prosecuted. Its a non story." Yeah, I'm sure hundreds of people who actively shared the pics and the hundreds of thousands who fell over themselves to view them will be prosecuted. I'm also sure the pictures will be removed from the interwebzz also. So, you are right, this is a non-story. Man, this mushroom is good.
After this "fiasco" and realising that people have zero interest in privacy anyhow, I am completely for government surveillance. I just wish that we could do away with internet anonymity in the process. Shadow Nirvana (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I personally think everybody who shared/downloaded the pictures should receive a letter in the post from their internet provider explaining what happened for the pictures to surface, much like the plan to prevent internet piracy. I know it's possible. No "you've commited a crime", just explaining that the pictures were hacked from a private server. It would at least stop them from thinking what happens online isn't real or doesn't harm real people --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
shadow nirvana: the people who did the hacking and stole the photos are likely to face prosecution, you know the people that did the crime. I believe the feds are looking into it. As for people viewing them, they were on Perez Hilton's website at one point for all to see, so they could found with little effort. Do you know what angers me about the whole thing? The myriad of revenge porn and z list sex tapes have been finding their way into the public domain for years and no one gave a fuck. A poplar but bland actress get her account hacked and suddenly outrage. When it blows over more such material will continue to appear to nothing more than meh. Privacy is dead. That disgusts me. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Plenty of people gave a fuck. It is a shame that it takes this for people to care but I guarantee you that there are communities of people who put energy into fighting revenge porn. It's partly because of the activism of feminist groups that the laws were passed against it in some States. Search "revenge porn" on any feminist website, I'm sure you will find numerous articles on it. There are people who care about these issues out there, this should make more people aware of it --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it's pretty messed up to spread people's private pictures everywhere and justifying it by saying they shouldn't have put them up in the first place. But I don't think its fair to shout down anyone who says the celebrities shouldn't have put them on the internet in the first place. I mean, people shouldn't ignore the ones who hacked the accounts and spread the pictures everywhere, but the victims played a part in this whole thing, the way an Orca trainer might play a part in their own death (the animal's tame after all, and attacks are very rare, but it's still a 30-foot carnivore). So I guess I'm on the fence. It's an interesting issue really.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh no, you di'nt! Giving up a token "of course x is bad" and continuing to victim-blame, is still victim blaming. First of all, some of the actress' had their pictures stolen by different measures, like apparently Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who says she never uploaded to cloud and deleted to pictures 3 years ago. Okay, so let's talk about the others, who uploaded their pictures to iCloud. Some of them apparently left the backup option automatically open, as it is recommended. Some may have uploaded the pictures themselves. And I say, so what? Cloud technology and modern banking have similar working and logic. With both you give what you want to store(money or data) to a private specialised corporation, which they do for a fee on the digital plane. Security is one of their selling points. If someone's money was stolen from the bank, you would say "I'm very sorry this happened to you" and perhaps hug that person. I've never seen a person get chastised and asked why he'she would ever trust somebody else with their money. Similar to this, the only thing we should be saying to those who have had their cloud accounts hacked is "I'm very sorry this happened to you", not "You shouldn't have done that". These people didn't go "Hmm, here's some random place that I can dump these pics.". They trusted a company with not many errors like this in the past(that I know of) and their trust seems to be misplaced(although maybe not, the information just isn't solid enough.)
I'm not even mentioning the people who get their internet-connected computers hacked and their private info distributed prior to this. At what point of suggested precautions do you become the dude pouring sriracha sauce in a used condom to reduce the chance of getting spermjacked? Shadow Nirvana (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Suggesting that maybe you should be careful about what you do on the internet ≠ saying it's all your fault for this terrible thing that happened to you. I'm not sure why this is difficult for people to grasp, but I guess they've heard that argument so many times they've just decided it's fallacious.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, I've explained why it isn't people being careless that's the problem. Funny how you skipped that part. But I guess, it's just "difficult for people to grasp such a concept". People can and will continue to make small mistakes or trust seemingly secure stuff that they couldn't have known to be compromised. For example. Standing around waiting to throw a self-righteous "Hey, you have some of the blame" under acute situations seems more than lame. It is a fallacious argument(Historian's fallacy or hindsight bias/knew-it-all-along effect - here is a research that studied hindsight bias in victim-blaming, here is another. ) and criticising it isn't "shouting people down".(even writing that made me feel I'm arguing against someone who is saying that the liberal Cathedral is shouting down neoreactionaries). For more information about victim-blaming, one can read Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology, Chapter 5, Victim Blaming vs. Victim Defending.
But do go on. Tell us how maybe that girl at the party shouldn't drunk alcohol, too. Also, don't break up comments in the future, please. Thanks. Shadow Nirvana (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't mean to intrude upon the exchange you two are having, but technically: It's only victim blaming if you're actually meaning to lay any of the blame on the victim for a problem that happened, see. If you're just making a suggestion that you think may be a smart course of action, then technically you're just trying to be helpful. Nullahnung (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
It depends whether it's done it retrospect or not. It's one thing telling people you know how to better protect their iCloud after reading that this is possible. I messaged a few of my friends and gave them security tips for their iPhones. It's another making the point when the people have already had their devices hacked. What good does it do them now? It helps nobody and lots of people have been doing that to excuse their spreading of the photographs (i.e. well they should have better protected their phones, so it's fine what I'm doing) --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. Write all the blogposts and security lists before these types of incidents all you want. I don't necesarily think it will change too much, because this, for example, was a flaw not on the user-side but on software-side. But think twice before you talk after such incidents because like I said, hindsight is 20-20(she shouldn't have sent that photo to her then-boyfriend, then the ex-bf wouldn't have been able to release it etc.) and your intention isn't a magic shield that will protect you from being "misunderstood". Shadow Nirvana (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
You know that guy who talks to you about what you could have done better after the situation passed and you can no longer apply it? Yeah, that sounds like a coach, right? They'll tell you what you could have done so you can be better prepared for the next time, in the future. Nullahnung (talk) 11:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
A coach? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Or a bragging, self-righteous douche?(Not directed at anyone here, more towards the people in the comments section of news sites. Or maybe?...) Shadow Nirvana (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Intent isn't magic. Shadow Nirvana (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not telling you what to think, I'm just saying that technically intent decides whether it's victim blaming or not. Nullahnung (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I also think it's worth emphasizing the point made prior that in many cases, these cloud features are outright recommended or even enabled by default without any notice. Consider, for example, that most Android phones automatically upload any phone images to Google+ (to a private album) as soon as a Google account is linked to the phone. Those who know about that feature can turn it off by default, but those who don't may not even notice if they don't use Google+ or their Google account regularly.
It's also worth asking the question: at what point is it no longer the victim's fault? Online services (including online banking as Shadow Nirvana mentioned) are very much prevalent today, and it's generally considered fine to trust systems like Google Drive or GMail using two-factor authentication. However, if Google suffered a severe enough security breach, even two-factor authentication wouldn't save all of that information. Should the victims be chastised for using such systems? Sure it's far safer to encrypt every email using PGP or similar encryption schemes, but is it fair to expect that to be the norm and blame anyone who isn't that rigorous should their information be stolen due to a breach? Victim blaming is a dangerous game in situations like these, given that most technology significantly blurs the line between what's online and what's offline, often with little to no transparency. - Grant (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not intending to shout down people for saying they shouldn't have put them up, per se. We should educate people about the different security measures that can prevent it, such as two step verification [4], but people are always going to want to take pictures like that when the technology exists, especially those who spend time apart for business trips or because they are in long distance relationships. I personally think it's a normal expression of sexuality that is sadly very easily exploited by predatory scum. I'd like more to be done to prevent the hacks from happening in the first place --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't clarify: I wasn't referring to you when I made the comment about shouting down people. Just anyone else reading it who might have been doing that.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Who is shouting anyone down? Are you one of those people who go "They are shouting me down" when you get criticised in any way? Shadow Nirvana (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree, the conversation here has been relatively civil --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
A lot of talk here about how we're all supposed to not be 'blaming the victims' here. I agree with the general sentiment at least. On the other hand, carrying on about how horribly they've all been violated (!!!!) strikes me as more than a bit overheated, and itself constitutes a sort of victim blaming. The suggestion seems to be that being photographed or photographing yourself in a state of undress breaks an awful threshold and puts the resulting images in a moral category somehow different from other private snapshots. This reaction to mere nudity probably only makes it worse for them, and I think it too inherently blames the victims, by investing these particular images with fearful significance. When in fact part of a more reasonable reaction would include an acknowledgement that it isn't that big a deal. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 18:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
A person who probably hasn't ever been on the receiving end of such a violation, calls the leakage "not that big of a deal". Someone might call it privileged, I call it ignorant(the view, not you, although you do have a lot of bizzare antifeminist views). We don't walk around naked and we call our genitals our "privates"(at least a lot of us). To acknowledge this and the fact that a lot of people apparently view sex as an intimate and special activity, isn't victim-blaming. Shadow Nirvana (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
or maybe it really isn't that big deal these days. Embarrassing sure, but not much more than. You should see my gaydar profile. You don't even need to be a member. The actual hacking - thats the real crime. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
All of their friends, parents, bosses, colleagues etc saw the pics. Even if some of them chose not to view the pictures, facts are a lot of people in their social circles will have, even if by accident. More than just a little embarassment, I think.Shadow Nirvana (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I've thought about this more and I think there is some truth to what you say. Although not too much :P. Shadow Nirvana (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
This is one of many cases where noisy outrage will be counterproductive; that's the main point. All it does is to advertise the material's availability, and automatically makes it a bigger deal than it ought to be. 'Awareness' here is specifically unhelpful; once awareness is reached, the Streisand effect and Total Depravity™ do the rest. I wouldn't have heard of this until somebody decided they had to deplore it in public. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 04:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Just saw what you've written. How about "fuck no"? The pictures had already made the rounds on a lot of social media websites, had an entire subreddit for them, people even posting links on frigging Facebook and somehow it's the fault of those who spoke out against this injustice? No. "Awareness" had already been reached and even if it hadn't been, the fact that one can look at a picture after he/she knows that picture was meant to stay as private and was stolen(meaning that looking at it is non-consensual) means that one is not that much of a swell person either. End of story. No "but"s, no "what if"s. Shadow Nirvana (talk) 10:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't the people who are in the pictures get to decide if it's a violation or not, or whether or not it was a big deal? Lawrence clearly isn't happy about it, lots of websites have been hit with takedown notices. As I said earlier, taking/sending naked photographs is a normal expression of sexuality, so I get what you are saying, but consent is important. I'm just as much against "creep shots" and the such, that doesn't mean I'm not sex positive, I just hate the entitlement these people have and lack of respect for consent --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay yeah this thread is relatively civil. *Retract previous statement*. Also @Shadow Nirvana, sorry if I screw up other people's comments, I haven't quite figured all this out yet. And honestly, I would probably also trust a major corporation to protect my information too. Previously I was posting my initial thoughts that were not totally informed. Probably should have specified that.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
trusting major corporations to look after your data after so so many hacking attacks and their own nosing your private information seems increasingly naive these days. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
It's cool, as I think I said earlier, I know somebody who has had naked pictures of them stolen from a private Tumblr blog and posted on one of those image boards, so I knew a little about this before now. It happens more often than you think and people rarely just shrug it off, especially as they often find themselves reading the predatory comments on the public forums. There are real human beings behind these photos, a little empathy goes a long way. I'm sorry again if I haven't been civil in any way, this topic makes me quite angry but I've tried my best to discuss it calmly --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I also apologize if I have been ultra-snarky and insulting. This situation made me more than a little disgusted, I actually felt somewhat close to tears of frustration and sadness reading some of the callous comments made by people(not here, but generally. People here have generally created a good converstaion I think). I don't know how feminists do what they do and endure what the things thrown at them without having mental breakdowns every 3 minutes. Also, screw Larry Wachs and most ancaps/libertarians. :@ Shadow Nirvana (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
as has been said before its sad that folk are so willing to publish the private photos or data of people. But really the issue for me is not what people are doing with these things once they have been thrust into the public domain but how they came to be there in the first place. Trusted service providers have been hacked. Trusted service providers security , whose boast that their security is top notch, is joke. Repeatedly shown to be a joke. The trust is misplaced. Your data is not secure. This is the crime. This is what the focus should be. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how feminists do it either, it shows real strength to fight for women's issues in the face of an organised antifeminist movement. I get emotional sometimes too, it's frustrating to see so many hateful and ignorant people out there. I'm just happy websites like this exist. I think you've pretty much been on point Shadow Nirvana, I'm happy that we've managed to keep the discussion revolving around the people involved as well as the technical reasons why it happened. I agree, it's a huge issue, companies like Apple put more resources into creating new apps and design features than protecting their existing customers personal data. We should design new software to help prevent these attacks by hackers, as well as educate people on the dangers of cloud storage. It's going to be very satisfying when some of the people selling the pictures get caught too --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The "Reddit is innocent" comments in this article's comments section is hilarious. And by hilarious, I mean generally depressing and a presentation of exactly how people think what they have done is nothing wrong. Shadow Nirvana (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

you should know by now about the bottom half of the internet. 22:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah it's pretty fucked up, they did the same thing with the Zoe Quinn fiasco. They spent days harassing her, even going so far as to publish her personal details, hack into her accounts, and file tax fraud reports. To try and deflect their criticism, they donated to a charity set up to get more women working in the industry. Considering the number of people that it would take to sustain these online movements, as well as subreddit subscriber counts, I can imagine it's a small amount of the groups overall income. It's a way of avoiding criticism, or making them seem like they "aren't such bad guys". It won't work, and I respect the prostate cancer charity for returning the money, they probably need it --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me, but you do not simply ascribe all these things to the same amorphous mass of people and expect to have expressed something meaningful. These are all individuals with their own nuances we're talking about here. The people who harassed probably have overlap with but are not quite the same as the people who hacked and filed tax frauds reports who are not the same as the people who gave generously to a good cause. Caught unawares in the midst of all the flak are of course once again people who aren't even willing to become part of the shitstorm, who are just calling for cool heads to prevail and appealing for moderation because they don't know any better, and who just gave as soon as they saw what by all accounts is a good cause, like TotalBiscuit. Nullahnung (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I seriously doubt 4chan would have spearheaded such a campaign if it weren't for the criticism concerning the Quinn incident. And the people donating after the hack? Couldn't they donate under their own name rather than "the Fappening" in that case? The money was returned, they can redonate without giving positive press to these movements --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
(EC)Oh, you mean this?: http://www.viralglobalnews.com/entertainment/second-charity-turns-down-money-from-reddits-the-fappening-donors/16046/
Because I totally have not heard of that before you mentioned it (not being the type who likes to follow controversies).
What I meant was this: http://thefineyoungcapitalists.tumblr.com/post/95626418480/on-the-conspiracy
We really have got to stop starting conversations from different reference points...
This is the most I could find about the Fappening: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/the-fappening-celebgate and I really fail to see any connection to "the gaming community" and Quinnspiracy. I mean, I suppose you could ascribe some cross-pollination/inspiration, but to blame the same amorphous blob of people every time is not very meaningful. Nullahnung (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, in hindsight I probably should have looked at those verge links from above. I would have been made aware of the Fappening before Drowninginglimbo mentioned it... Mistakes were made. I still think I've got a point, though, about the TFYC donations! Nullahnung (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I guess I felt there were similarities, what with them both happening on the same websites (4chan/reddit), and both being campaigns targeting specific women. It seems to be a repeating trend from the outside that's all, what with there being overlap in userbase, and them both starting charity campaigns at the peak of their criticism. I've also spent a lot of time, probably too much time, engaging with these online communities in order to properly understand and criticise them, whilst also feeling some level of revulsion towards them, so I am definitely starting to generalise, something that I apologise for. I wouldn't otherwise choose to use 4chan or reddit and probably don't understand the nuances of their cultures. I presumed that, if the front page of /b/ was full of threads concerning Quinn one day, and the next day the "Fappening", then it is the same people posting, at least, if the threads are frequent? At what point does it stop being generalising and start being a valid criticism? While I'm here, I want to say that I have nothing against the gaming community en masse, my issue is primarily these particular sexist individuals within it. I think that might be why we argued earlier. A substantial amount of gaming journalists wrote in support of Quinn and I respect them for that. I am also sorry for lumping them in with the pervert hackers, that's not really fair. Well, other than the people posting her naked pictures. I guess that's a definite similarity. Again, I am sorry if I have spoke out of turn during these debates, I think I might take a break from all of this. I find it quite exhausting and I am probably beginning to make emotional arguments because of that --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I definitely have not been following these things as much as you did and even I need a break because I find the obsessive detailing as well as shallow generalising that runs through these controversies like the plague very draining (still referring to Quinnspiracy, again, I am sorry for slightly derailing this thread about the Fappening). Nullahnung (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

[edit] "5 million ‘compromised’ Google accounts leaked"

If anybody here has an Android mobile they should check the list and their log in history: [5] [6] [7] --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Chopra quote generator

Awesome! The strangest one I got was "Dogs are insects." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought that was whales. SophieWilderModerator 20:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Islam is Socialism

Anyone else click on this and get a 'Date Muslim Chicks" ad down one side?MatsFan (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it's "Date Muslim Chicks and educate them out of their evil socialistic ways"? Shadow Nirvana (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Obsidian Article

Man hits woman multiple times in an argument, knocking her out; this guy's saying "Feminism isn't about justice, it's about sacrificing men"(conclusion paragraph). This guy used to talk about how protesting street harassment was demonizing and illegalizing male sexuality and how rape was a natural part of male sexuality in the Dr Nerdlove comment sections back in the day. He is quite something.

Also, I couldn't read past the "NFL is completely feminized" part in the comments. dafuq?

P.S. I read past it a little bit, only to be stumped by a "black women are ratchets" comment. Can't believe I used to follow these guys. Shadow Nirvana (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

[edit] All this Illuminati BS, where is it coming from?

I don't consider random bullshit youtube videos about the Illuminati to be of any importance, they are a dime a dozen posted by the hundreds on a daily basis, so why the hell are they showing up so much in the clogs lately? I mean they are showing up a FUCKTON, more than I have ever seen before. I remember seeing them a lot in the paste week or so, but I look back now and there is only one, are they being removed? I mean people rambling about the Illuminati is not even "WTF" worthy anymore, it is not surprising what anyone in that mindset will say and we have pretty much heard it all from that particularly nutty corner of the internet. NolanSyKinsley (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It does get a bit samey. I haven't tended to vote on videos unless they're so outlandish I'd actually watch them (tv;dw). So yeah, I'd suggest applying downvotes as sensible, and that posters consider the novelty factor - David Gerard (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Those videos were (with one exception) months or even years old, so Weaseloid went through and removed them. That's why you only see one now. As to why they were there in the first place, one BoN was responsible for all of them. - Grant (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
One guy but he's changed IP a couple of times so may not have seen the message I put on his talk page. If it keeps up, maybe a temporary lock against non-autoconfirm edits would make him/her get the message. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Did Dan Brown publish another book about them? As a rule of thumb, when Dan Brown talks about a conspiracy theory every other conspiracy theorist in the USA starts talking about that conspiracy theory (tailored to suit there particular interests of course). Look at this graph <http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Illuminati> notice now the release of the Angels & Demons movie in 2009 coincides with (read: causes) a massive increase in interest in the Illuminati. Conspiracy theorists are nothing if not predictable. Alsto003 (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC) Alex

[edit] Richard Dawkins, again(yes, really.)

Not a WIGO, but Goddammit... Dawkins has gone full anti-feminist slimepitter this time. Remember the times he used to advocate for sociobiology against Gould and Lewontin? What a swell fellow. Shadow Nirvana (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Uh, context? Not that I have any sympathy left for his political views after "Dear Muslima" and "Pedophilia isn't so bad". Ikanreed (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
All I can find today are complaints on clickbaiting and "So are you now saying you'd jail a man, however poor the evidence, because STATISTICALLY rapes are common in the population?".-- Forerunner (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Those two arguments(one regarding criticism of Sam Harris's idiotic argument and his "excuse" post, the other regarding Shermer (Mark Oppenheimer article),never minding the fact that this wasn't an isolated incident and forget being jailed the guy didn't even get reprimanded for his behaviour despite the fact this stuff was blown open.), basically. Also peddling Christina Hoff Sommers, calling opponents Feedingfrenzy Thoughtpolice Bullies(he made an acronym joke, you guys.) etc etc etc.
Ophelia Benson's and other FTBers' take on the issue is also good. Although as the issues are the same if you read all of them it may get repetitive maybe.Shadow Nirvana (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools