|
The fact that women just keep photos of their exposed ankles on their phones is just shocking to me. Don't they know how many hands are involved in maintaining the iCloud!?
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:00 |
|
|
Think of it it his way. We could suggest that people don't take naked pictures of themselves and share them, or we could teach people not to harass others with private, personal information that was shared with them confidentially. One is way less victim blamey than the other.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Frankly, I don't get anything out of dick/vagina pics, so it's fine with me if people don't send them to me, but I've had partners ask for pics of my boobs and there's no way I'm going to do it. So now they don't get pictures of boobs even though I have no moral objection to it. Pretty tragic, unlike my breasts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Clocks posted:Think of it it his way. We could suggest that people don't take naked pictures of themselves and share them, or we could teach people not to harass others with private, personal information that was shared with them confidentially. One is way less victim blamey than the other. That's the thing. Taking the pictures has a certain (frankly quite low) risk, the higher risk is dating someone who behaves like a poo poo when upset.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:
That seems culturally impractical. Like teaching kids to avoid stds with abstinence. It's definitely true and reasonable but it's not happening. A majority of them are still going to have sex with each other. People are going to keep taking naked pictures of themselves because that's where we currently are culturally. Hormonally based behaviors defy logic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Pinky Artichoke posted:That's the thing. Taking the pictures has a certain (frankly quite low) risk, the higher risk is dating someone who behaves like a poo poo when upset. But if you refuse to take pictures, it doesn't matter who you date. At least if this is the only thing that you're afraid of. I kind of wove last year's iCloud hack into there, too; because it was the first major time that a narrative began to be spun that you were a bad person if you looked at these photos since they were not intended for you. That was the focus of the On The Media episode I mentioned that basically told the audience that photos of genitalia are just part of common human understanding now and we should all learn to live with it. What needed to be understood by the public was that if these photos are intended for two people, the way they were transmitted invited other parties. When you upload anything to iCloud, you're giving at minimum the people who are authorized to access user data at Apple the chance that they might see it. And if it's not encrypted, it goes through more parties. And unfortunately the general public that has little else to hide BUT their boob/dick pictures isn't technically inclined enough to think this stuff through. They believe something is private because a marketing team told them it was, but at least the techies of the earlier internet admitted that they COULD snoop through all your stuff if they really wanted to. They don't do that anymore, and it then it shocks people when Microsoft used admin privileges and looked into an employee's Hotmail to bust their role in a Windows piracy ring. Communication in America is rapidly turning into a choice between a public-controlled system where it's illegal for anyone to look at what you're doing except for numerous layers of law enforcement and the security state who will over-analyze and store every little detail, or a private system that is less cooperative with government but willing to exploit your activity to the nth degree to achieve optimal profits. You either pick your poison between Minority Report or Google AdWords. And people who know this won't store their boobs'n'cocks on iCloud, or Google Drive, etc. One thing John Oliver has hammered on repeatedly is that women are disadvantaged in these situations when the people who control all the power are men. So maybe we need to start with men: Hey men, you won't have to worry about the women at the office laughing at your penis JPG if you never create a JPG to be spread around to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:I literally did not know the Ottoman Empire and Byzantium was even a thing until I played AOE3 and Europa Universalis. Byzantium wasn't really a thing 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
If someone you love and trust wants you to accommodate them sexually it's hard to say no, particularly if you're already engaged in foreplay or intercourse. In fact, a lot of things that seem like a bad idea when you're calmly sitting at work or whatever seem really incredible when you're turned on. (For example, if you think about it in clinical  terms, giving oral sex is gross, but in the heat of the moment it's great.) You also feel like you don't want to disrupt your partner's flow either - who hasn't felt slightly guilty about needing to interrupt the act for something mundane? I've never let my fiancé take photos of me naked and I can sit now and say I never would but if we were really getting into it then I'd find it hard to refuse.There's a lot of joking about dudes "thinking with the wrong head" but women totally do it too. In light of that, you can warn people all you want about taking sexy pictures and maybe stop some percentage of the people doing it, but people make bad decisions when they're turned on. That's why most women who can afford it use birth control or IUDs - people are bad at calculating risks so they think "pulling out just this once will be fine!" and then they mistime it and it's off to Walgreens at 2am for Plan B.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
I really have trouble wrapping my head around these gamergates and MRA and whatever other like minded groups call themselves, I just can't wrap my mind around how they think. Like, whatever is gamergate just seems like a bad joke to me that should of died out a year ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:But if you refuse to take pictures, it doesn't matter who you date. At least if this is the only thing that you're afraid of. It's really a "security through obscurity" thing: no one gives a poo poo about Jane Random's cooch, usually. The iCloud hack only mattered -- and was only worth doing -- because the victims were high profile individuals whose stock in trade is their physical appearances. Technically naive dumbassery like passing around passwords within a relationship ups the risk that someone who is motivated enough to bother you personally will be able to get access to stuff, but realistically voluntarily shared photos are going to be the ammo most of the time. And, realistically, revenge porn isn't the only way vindictive exes try to ruin each other's lives. It's just one that is very easy to understand and has a pretty visible infrastructure to attack. Other tactics like posting a CL ad claiming to be the victim seeking a stranger-rape encounter, SWATing, or even just good-old-fashioned credit card fraud don't require any material from the victim at all. Unless you're going to argue that letting your significant other know your street address is far too trusting, in which case I don't know what to tell you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I kind of wove last year's iCloud hack into there, too; because it was the first major time that a narrative began to be spun that you were a bad person if you looked at these photos since they were not intended for you. That was the focus of the On The Media episode I mentioned that basically told the audience that photos of genitalia are just part of common human understanding now and we should all learn to live with it. What needed to be understood by the public was that if these photos are intended for two people, the way they were transmitted invited other parties. When you upload anything to iCloud, you're giving at minimum the people who are authorized to access user data at Apple the chance that they might see it. And if it's not encrypted, it goes through more parties. Yes, these things seem to be kind of dangerously insecure. That does seem bad. But photos of genitalia are just part of common human understanding now. Changing literally everything else about data management and image rights (e.g. not having to explicitly copyright your own body) seems a heck of a lot easier than trying to influence sexual behavior. I have the (possibly mistaken) impression that most people who think you just shouldn't share pictures like that never have, and it's never occurred to them until they heard about it in a story where poo poo went wrong and ruined someone's life. So of course the idea just seems foolish from that perspective. But that's ignoring the fact that it's an increasingly normal sexual practice, and no one actually bothers to base their life decisions around the paranoid assumption that people you love are secretly vindictive assholes... and so inevitably people get hosed over. It's important to remember that people are being hosed over, without getting all dumb and smug about how we would avoid getting hosed over in their situation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Soylentbits posted:That seems culturally impractical. Like teaching kids to avoid stds with abstinence. It's definitely true and reasonable but it's not happening. A majority of them are still going to have sex with each other. People are going to keep taking naked pictures of themselves because that's where we currently are culturally. Hormonally based behaviors defy logic. This is a textbook strawman argument. Having sex and taking nude pictures are superficially similar: both tend to occur when someone's genitals are exposed. Both are "naughty" things to do, according to some authority pictures. Sex is the strawman here. Then, you argue against the strawman: sure, if no one has sex, no one gets STD's (it's STI's now, by the way--you really should be more sensitive!), but teenagers will have sex. And I can't argue with that. Teens are full of hormones, sexy hormones at that, and it's a biological imperative written into our DNA: GO OUT AND gently caress. And, from a scientific standpoint, it is literally the only thing that we actually exist to do. Finally, you sum it up by equalizing the status of sex and taking naked pictures. Your argument is thus complete. Thanks for providing such a clear example of a strawman argument. Often, people toss "strawman" out there when they don't know what else to say to a sound, reasoned argument. But not you. You went full strawman. You never go full strawman, man. The need to take naked pictures of our significant others, or even just our gently caress buddies, friends with benefits, or total strangers, is not a need in any sense of the word. It is not something written into our DNA. It is not necessary for us to propagate the species, which means it is not a biological imperative. It's something that people like to do, sure, but nobody has to do it, and doing it often leads to unintended, negative consequences. I'm not even going to tell people not to do it, because I'm nobody's boss. But I know I won't do it, and my advice is that if you don't want your mom to see it, then don't take a picture of it. Anything you put on a computer of any kind and think is private is available to someone who wants to get it, and if you give it to someone who may, in the future, want to make your life a living hell, it's going to be seen by everyone who you don't want seeing it. That, Soylentbits, is where we currently are, culturally: computers do not understand secrecy or decency, and people exploit that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:This is a textbook strawman argument. Having sex and taking nude pictures are superficially similar: both tend to occur when someone's genitals are exposed. Both are "naughty" things to do, according to some authority pictures. Sex is the strawman here. Then, you argue against the strawman: sure, if no one has sex, no one gets STD's (it's STI's now, by the way--you really should be more sensitive!), but teenagers will have sex. And I can't argue with that. Teens are full of hormones, sexy hormones at that, and it's a biological imperative written into our DNA: GO OUT AND gently caress. And, from a scientific standpoint, it is literally the only thing that we actually exist to do. Finally, you sum it up by equalizing the status of sex and taking naked pictures. Your argument is thus complete. It's also a general analogy. We are at a point where each passing generation is more comfortable with technology as an extension of their being and naked pictures, for better or worse, seem to have become part of the dating process for a surprisingly high portion of them. Immediately equating it to sex might have been an oversimplification on my part but it is becoming surprisingly ubiquitous among far more of our youth than ever before. It's not technically a biological imperative but it has become tied into the process of dating and that is tied into those same biological processes. I'm not saying that education is pointless. I'm saying that it will likely do little to stem it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:This is a textbook strawman argument. Having sex and taking nude pictures are superficially similar: both tend to occur when someone's genitals are exposed. Both are "naughty" things to do, according to some authority pictures. Sex is the strawman here. Then, you argue against the strawman: sure, if no one has sex, no one gets STD's (it's STI's now, by the way--you really should be more sensitive!), but teenagers will have sex. And I can't argue with that. Teens are full of hormones, sexy hormones at that, and it's a biological imperative written into our DNA: GO OUT AND gently caress. And, from a scientific standpoint, it is literally the only thing that we actually exist to do. Finally, you sum it up by equalizing the status of sex and taking naked pictures. Your argument is thus complete. holy loly quote:The need to take naked pictures of our significant others, or even just our gently caress buddies, friends with benefits, or total strangers, is not a need in any sense of the word. It is not something written into our DNA. It is not necessary for us to propagate the species, which means it is not a biological imperative. It's something that people like to do, sure, but nobody has to do it, and doing it often leads to unintended, negative consequences. There are literally thousands of years of erotica that directly contradict your main assertion. Cave paintings, fertility idols, ancient erotic literature, there's an entire book of the Bible that basically boils down to "Yeah I'm hitting that." Humanity has a real knack for taking every cultural/technological advance and asking how it can get us laid. Our desire to explore our sexuality seems pretty well engrained alongside that base desire. You can make this argument about the biological imperative all you want, but unless your sexy times are solely of the efficient, get-in get-out, making a baby variety, it doesn't really hold water.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
The Song of Songs *is* basically "Girl I'm going gently caress you right/I want the D". E: Which I suppose does in fact make it the song of songs. Mulva fucked around with this message at 03:31 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:This is a textbook strawman argument. Having sex and taking nude pictures are superficially similar: both tend to occur when someone's genitals are exposed. Both are "naughty" things to do, according to some authority pictures. Sex is the strawman here. Then, you argue against the strawman: sure, if no one has sex, no one gets STD's (it's STI's now, by the way--you really should be more sensitive!), but teenagers will have sex. And I can't argue with that. Teens are full of hormones, sexy hormones at that, and it's a biological imperative written into our DNA: GO OUT AND gently caress. And, from a scientific standpoint, it is literally the only thing that we actually exist to do. Finally, you sum it up by equalizing the status of sex and taking naked pictures. Your argument is thus complete. OK. I don't want people to know my credit card number, guess if some rear end in a top hat cracks a payment database and steals my info then it's my fault for wanting to have a bank account or pay for cable, rather than stuff my mattress with SSDs loaded with bitcoin and gold doubloons. Yes, that's taking it ad absurdium but no-one claims that instead of changing the law to deal with digital identity theft that maybe you just shouldn't use Amazon. Why is this different? And, by the way, the woman LWT used as an example for the revenge porn thing? She's one of the fortunate ones in that she just CONSIDERED suicide. People have actually killed themselves over having this done to them and the resulting harassment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
A better analogy is probably drinking at a party/bar. Another one that disproportionately impacts women. It's definitely not required, or a biological need, but people are probably going to do it, and it if your drink is unattended, or you are distracted, or whatever, you could get roofied. Telling victims of date rape, 'you really should haven't been drinking' is a dick move. On the other hand, I don't think it's 'blaming the victim' to encourage people to practice save behaviors with both drinking and the images of their bodies, just maybe right after they just told you what happened isn't the best time to do that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
mastajake posted:A better analogy is probably drinking at a party/bar. Another one that disproportionately impacts women. It's definitely not required, or a biological need, but people are probably going to do it, and it if your drink is unattended, or you are distracted, or whatever, you could get roofied. Telling victims of date rape, 'you really should haven't been drinking' is a dick move. On the other hand, I don't think it's 'blaming the victim' to encourage people to practice save behaviors with both drinking and the images of their bodies, just maybe right after they just told you what happened isn't the best time to do that. I'd another analogy would be a pastor/rabbi/coven mother sharing a personal matter you told them about in confidence with your community knowing that it would harm you. Churchgoers have an emotional bond with their pastor and have a reasonable expectation that their pastor cares for them, but some pastors are shitheels. You can't just tell people "well don't ever get tell your pastor anything" or "lol skywizard" because it's human nature to seek intimacy, whether that's emotional, sexual, spiritual, whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
This thread is now worse than it was when Irish Joe was posting. I really hope there's no follow up to this topic in the next show.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Why do we even need an analogy? Revenge porn just shouldn't be an expected consequence of intimacy. I don't see what's so difficult to understand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
I feel that if you are ok with revenge porn being legal, then you are pretty much ok with all of your texts, emails, IMs, and any other digital chat log becoming openly available to the public, and I can't imagine everyone wants to have that happen. For example, whenever I text one of my friends, instead of saying "hey" or "sup", I just text the word "dongs", and he sometimes says that back or even "butts". We've been doing this for over 10 years now so I can just imagine that we have sent each other thousands of dongs and butts messages. I'm perfectly fine with telling this to a forum, because maybe like 10 people in the entire world can immediately link up this SA account to the person that I happen to be, but I really wouldn't want my employer to see it. Because it is a private conversation between the two of us. Yeah, if I never made those texts, then my employer would literally never them, but they aren't exactly intended for them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Guys there's already a place to talk about this poo poo forever. and ever, and loving ever http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3727984
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:OK. I don't want people to know my credit card number, guess if some rear end in a top hat cracks a payment database and steals my info then it's my fault for wanting to have a bank account or pay for cable, rather than stuff my mattress with SSDs loaded with bitcoin and gold doubloons. Not really the same thing. And by "really" I mean "even close to being." If your account numbers get out, you can mitigate the damage, sometimes even recovering all of your losses, and you can get new account numbers. In rare situations, you can even do that with your SSN, and there are steps you can take to prevent it from happening again. The same can't be said of nude photos that are leaked to the Internet. They're out there forever, there's almost nothing you can do about it, and that's your new online legacy. Furthermore, it is unlikely--unless you're an idiot--that you're giving your girlfriend or boyfriend or whatever a file containing all of your account numbers with the understanding that she (going with girlfriend for the sake of simplicity) can look at them as much as she wants, but she isn't allowed to tell anyone. And why don't you give your access to your accounts to someone you're not planning on spending the rest of your life with? Probably because you don't want to get hosed over if things go south. Freaquency posted:There are literally thousands of years of erotica that directly contradict your main assertion. Cave paintings, fertility idols, ancient erotic literature, there's an entire book of the Bible that basically boils down to "Yeah I'm hitting that." Humanity has a real knack for taking every cultural/technological advance and asking how it can get us laid. Our desire to explore our sexuality seems pretty well engrained alongside that base desire. You can make this argument about the biological imperative all you want, but unless your sexy times are solely of the efficient, get-in get-out, making a baby variety, it doesn't really hold water. Actually, you're comparing apples to obstinance. When an artist creates erotica, he (or she) is generally not creating it with the expectation that no one will ever see it except for a very small group of people, perhaps only one. He is making something for display or distribution that he presumes won't adversely affect his life should the public at large see it, although in some cultures (and more often in the past), the artist might know the danger and risk it anyway because of the possible rewards of profit or notoriety. There are huge differences between a woman taking a picture of herself naked and texting it to her boyfriend and an artist painting a crude drawing of a dude having sex with a chick on a cave wall in 20,000 BC. Or, if you prefer, a Twilight fan writing an S&M fanfic. Or a video staring your favorite porn performer. When someone sends a nude pic of him/herself to someone they like with the understanding that it's for that person's eyes only, it is not the same thing as someone producing erotica. One of those actions carries an unrealistic, false, and/or ignorance-based expectation of privacy and discretion. The other carries an expectation that is pretty much the opposite. How on Earth you think those are the same thing is beyond me. Xibanya posted:I'd another analogy would be a pastor/rabbi/coven mother sharing a personal matter you told them about in confidence with your community knowing that it would harm you. Churchgoers have an emotional bond with their pastor and have a reasonable expectation that their pastor cares for them, but some pastors are shitheels. You can't just tell people "well don't ever get tell your pastor anything" or "lol skywizard" because it's human nature to seek intimacy, whether that's emotional, sexual, spiritual, whatever. You at least bothered to come up with a useful comparison. Nude pictures of one's self are like the private things you might share with appropriate clergy for the reasons you state, and like the sharing of nude photos between consenting adults, there is an expectation of privacy, seeing as how this information, like the pictures, could damage one's reputation or effectively ruin one's life. So I like the analogy here, and you have a point. I would counter, though, that the clergy have a vastly better reputation for keeping that information private* than the people you date, who have been airing dirty laundry about you as soon as you break up for the past few centuries or so. Also, it's pretty widely known now that there are people out there who will try to gain access to all you try to keep locked up, particularly if you're a celebrity. So it's not quite the same, but at least you have a valid counter-argument. Something to think about. I'm just not buying the notion that you have to take these pictures. I mean, you don't. And it's not even like the days when you could take Poloroids and at least have some control over the picture. That just isn't the case with digital images--they can be stolen remotely, copied infinitely, and once they're on the Internet, they're on the Internet. Do what you want, but know the risks first. And seriously... there are laws telling the guy who sells me a mattress that I have to be able to look at a tag to know what's in the mattress. We can't have laws that deal harshly with revenge porn and nude photo hacking? Because there are laws that prevent your doctors from sharing embarrassing, possibly life-ruining information that they know about you. Wherever you come down on this issue, I think most people would agree that the lack of legal protection and/or recourse is inexcusable. The web isn't brand new anymore. * With the notable exception of Scientologist auditors
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
These SJWs are ruining Home Box Office
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
You ignored pretty much my entire argument to go hunting for strawmen again. You claimed that there is no biological imperative or logical reason to engage in this behavior, even though there's a pretty clear streak throughout history that shows we did some wacky poo poo to get our rocks off. Humans like sex, we need sex, and we express our enjoyment of that in a bunch of different ways. If taking nude photos is not for you or you don't "get it," that's fine, but your argument is basically boiling down to "it's illogical to want to share your sexuality with someone in this way so it's your fault when someone else winds up with your nudie pics." It's a lot healthier socially to allow people to express themselves this way than it is to vilify them for it and say that they walked into it just because of a few bad actors. e: the thing is, I get what you're saying on regard to protecting oneself when sending or storing photos of this nature, but if someone has made a reasonable attempt at security and someone else has circumvented it for malicious reasons, saying that it's the users fault is crazy. You can go on and on about how you can't be 100% secure in this regard, but nothing comes without risk and of you try to completely mitigate all risk you wind up bitter and boring. Freaquency fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Freaquency posted:You ignored pretty much my entire argument to go hunting for strawmen again. You claimed that there is no biological imperative or logical reason to engage in this behavior, even though there's a pretty clear streak throughout history that shows we did some wacky poo poo to get our rocks off. Humans like sex, we need sex, and we express our enjoyment of that in a bunch of different ways. If taking nude photos is not for you or you don't "get it," that's fine, but your argument is basically boiling down to "it's illogical to want to share your sexuality with someone in this way so it's your fault when someone else winds up with your nudie pics." It's a lot healthier socially to allow people to express themselves this way than it is to vilify them for it and say that they walked into it just because of a few bad actors. The thing is, I wasn't searching for strawmen in your second argument. A strawman is required to be at least superficially similar to the thing being argued about. Put simply, your example was not. An artist's (or a culture's) creation of erotica in all its forms—literature, drawings, paintings, photographs, film, comic books, etc.—has almost no similarity to the intimate act of sharing a naked picture of yourself with your lover. One act is the creation of something designed to make people happy or aroused (or angry or disgusted, I suppose) and maybe even give you fame and money, although the art can be done for its own reward, especially if the artist wears pork pie hats and only drinks IPAs. The other is something you do for your lover and your lover only. They are two totally different things; comparing them to each other and drawing insight on one issue by looking at the other one is thus problematic. I get what you're trying to say, but not even the most ardent "don't tell them not to do that, that's blaming the victim!"-ers don't think that these naked selfies are anything like erotica. The whole point is that they're not, actually. They're personal. Erotica isn't. Totally different. You can't make a point about erotica that is relevant to this issue. quote:e: the thing is, I get what you're saying on regard to protecting oneself when sending or storing photos of this nature, but if someone has made a reasonable attempt at security and someone else has circumvented it for malicious reasons, saying that it's the users fault is crazy. You can go on and on about how you can't be 100% secure in this regard, but nothing comes without risk and of you try to completely mitigate all risk you wind up bitter and boring. I'm not saying it's the user's fault. I'm only saying that one shouldn't have an expectation of privacy in this situation, given the frequent incidence and damaging nature of revenge porn and hacked personal naked pictures. This is a high-profile problem, and until legal remedies are in place to deal with the problem, or until someone figures out how to secure the cloud or smartphones a lot better than they are now, people need to be aware of this and think about it before they send intimate pictures. And that said, when someone does get revenged porned or hacked, they didn't deserve it, and it's not their fault unless they did something that directly caused it, like accidentally emailing it to everyone at once.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:One act is the creation of something designed to make people happy or aroused (or angry or disgusted, I suppose) and maybe even give you fame and money, although the art can be done for its own reward, especially if the artist wears pork pie hats and only drinks IPAs. The other is something you do for your lover and your lover only. They are two totally different things; comparing them to each other and drawing insight on one issue by looking at the other one is thus problematic. You're assigning some strange significance to the act of texting someone a pic of your junk. Most people are trying to do exactly what's in the bolded portion above when they're sexting an SO or a bang buddy or whatever. The mention of erotica was to point out that beyond needing sex to propagate, we also need to enjoy it, and that was just a small example of the thousands of sex-related things people can and will do to enjoy it every day. You seem to be arguing from this place where you don't see the utility in it, so the risk has no reward for you. That's fine, but I'm trying to point out that there is utility in it for other people and that your value system doesn't apply to them when they make that choice. quote:I get what you're trying to say, but not even the most ardent "don't tell them not to do that, that's blaming the victim!"-ers don't think that these naked selfies are anything like erotica. The whole point is that they're not, actually. They're personal. Erotica isn't. Totally different. You can't make a point about erotica that is relevant to this issue. If you want to keep beating that drum, I'll give you the example of James Joyce's letters to his wife. He wrote incredibly explicit things in them and mailed them off to his wife several countries away. Anyone involved in delivering those letters could have opened and read them had they wanted to, but they would be kind of a dick, frankly, to do so. That doesn't mean he shouldn't have done it because of that possibility; in fact, if it gave him and his wife joy I would encourage it! quote:I'm not saying it's the user's fault. I'm only saying that one shouldn't have an expectation of privacy in this situation, given the frequent incidence and damaging nature of revenge porn and hacked personal naked pictures. This is a high-profile problem, and until legal remedies are in place to deal with the problem, or until someone figures out how to secure the cloud or smartphones a lot better than they are now, people need to be aware of this and think about it before they send intimate pictures. They should have an expectation of reasonable privacy because there are already laws against gaining access to secure systems without permission. If someone is taking your property without permission, not only are they morally repugnant, but they're also a criminal. It sure does seem like a lot of the time we handwave away what the bad guy did to put that girl who likes sex in her place though! quote:And that said, when someone does get revenged porned or hacked, they didn't deserve it, and it's not their fault unless they did something that directly caused it, like accidentally emailing it to everyone at once. I think what this boils down to is connotation. We throw around words like blame and fault and victim and it all comes off very negatively. If we want to truly keep other people from "falling victim" to something like their photos being leaked, we should stop thinking that it's so scandalous to enjoy sex. It's a totally different conversation when someone else finding a nude photo of you is akin to your parents showing off embarassing Polaroids of you as a young child.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:Not really the same thing. And by "really" I mean "even close to being." If your account numbers get out, you can mitigate the damage, sometimes even recovering all of your losses, and you can get new account numbers. In rare situations, you can even do that with your SSN, and there are steps you can take to prevent it from happening again. The same can't be said of nude photos that are leaked to the Internet. They're out there forever, there's almost nothing you can do about it, and that's your new online legacy. Furthermore, it is unlikely--unless you're an idiot--that you're giving your girlfriend or boyfriend or whatever a file containing all of your account numbers with the understanding that she (going with girlfriend for the sake of simplicity) can look at them as much as she wants, but she isn't allowed to tell anyone. And why don't you give your access to your accounts to someone you're not planning on spending the rest of your life with? Probably because you don't want to get hosed over if things go south. You really think this only ever happens to casual partners? And I was actually making the same point as Freaquency just did. You're arguing that you should never place anything you wouldn't want another human being to have access to online. My point is that even you have to concede that SOME level of privacy and security needs to be able to be assumed in the digital landscape or the digital economy would collapse. If we can be confident that our bank details are safe, why not our family photos? And if our family photos, why not dick pics? Or how about this, would your 'don't ever do it, ever ever ever' argument extend beyond simply selfies of your tits? What about sexting? Should you never ever send a dirty text or email to your partner? How about foreplay or just plain play in the form of phone sex? I mean, that could be being recorded by the other person to mess with you later. I think the issue is you're seeing it purely as 'don't put the info out there', when the problem with that is it amounts to never trusting ANYone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:You really think this only ever happens to casual partners? No, which is probably why I didn't say that. But I'll bet it happens more often to people who break up before marriage than after a divorce. quote:And I was actually making the same point as Freaquency just did. You're arguing that you should never place anything you wouldn't want another human being to have access to online. My point is that even you have to concede that SOME level of privacy and security needs to be able to be assumed in the digital landscape or the digital economy would collapse. If we can be confident that our bank details are safe, why not our family photos? And if our family photos, why not dick pics? First... family photos are the same as dick picks to you? I'm not really arguing that you should never place anything you wouldn't want another human being to have access to online. But I am arguing that you should carefully weigh the risks before doing so. I can recover from having my financial data stolen. Hell, I've done it before. It sucked, but it was possible using existing legal and commercially available remedies. The same isn't true of naked pictures of yourself. In some professions, the leaking of those images can get you fired and ruin your career (if you're a high school teacher, for example). And there's no way to deal with it. quote:Or how about this, would your 'don't ever do it, ever ever ever' argument extend beyond simply selfies of your tits? What about sexting? Should you never ever send a dirty text or email to your partner? How about foreplay or just plain play in the form of phone sex? I mean, that could be being recorded by the other person to mess with you later. Which is why I've always chosen not to do this over the phone. And that was true when all you had to worry about was someone recording you back when that was not easy for everyone to do. Memorializing this stuff in stored text messages on a phone where anyone could discover it? If that floats your boat, go for it. I don't do it because 1) my wife is right over there, so there's no need to do that with her, and 2) if I were cheating on her, leaving this much evidence would get me divorced, out of the house, and away from my son. High risk. And dick picks are like family pics to you? Seriously? quote:I think the issue is you're seeing it purely as 'don't put the info out there', when the problem with that is it amounts to never trusting ANYone. Sorry... still getting over how you're as worried about your family pictures getting out as you are about pictures of your dick. I'm not making the argument you think I'm making. There is a wide gray area between sending intimate pictures of yourself and buying a book on Amazon. If you can't see that, I don't know how I can help you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
tarlibone you are bad at understanding argument progression if you think he's rating all those things the same, or you're just skimming and missing some important details. Either way, try harder.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
I don't wanna go all THE TRUTH IS IN THE MIDDLE but I feel like we (as a society) should be able to agree that sexy pics have the following risks while still taking steps to at least make revenge porn or whatever illegal. Like there is always some risk of whatever information leaking or being hacked or whatever, but maybe there should be a legal system that I dunno, at least requires sites to take things down if someone asks? I admit that quickly gets tricky because ~international websites~ but at least it's something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Strobe posted:tarlibone you are bad at understanding argument progression if you think he's rating all those things the same, or you're just skimming and missing some important details. Either way, try harder. Honestly, thank you for acknowledging this, because after that  , I was worried I'd phrased it weirdly. And tarlibone, what argument are you making then, because "be careful about who and when you send poo poo to other people" is not a point I think anyone's disagreeing on. So the only thing about your stance that makes this make sense is that you're saying to never do it because you can't trust anyone. Maybe I am, in fact, missing something, but in that case, please make it clear.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:(Some) Historians are starting to take games seriously and critically. They can be useful teaching tools, but it`s important to understand how the game systems are set up and how they might distort students`view of how history develops and changes. Civilization, for example, is pretty Whiggish in that technological is a straightforward line towards The Future. EU4 obviously is kind hosed because the end goal for any non-western civilization is to Westernize. CK2 is fun but it emphasizes individuals over communities and societies etc. I think the important point if you're using games as educational tools is to emphasize their role as a jumping off point rather than the main source of information, and also to point out the biases built into the gameplay, either intentionally like the EU4 example (of course it's got a Eurocentric worldview - it's called Europa Universalis), or where historical accuracy has been cut for the purpose of streamlining gameplay, as with Civilization's tech tree and the end goal of the game essentially being some form of world domination (whether it's conquest, diplomatic, or cultural, the Civ games main conceit is that every civilization is in competition with each other, which is great for video games but not a very nuanced view of real life). The main goal really is to get people to see history as something that's interesting and engaging; see how the pieces fit together as events and consequences rather than just a list of names and dates when important things happened. A big issue with the "names and dates" approach is that while accuracy of information is obviously important to any kind of historical analysis, by putting so much emphasis on it you end up kind of obscuring why the stuff being discussed is actually interesting as a study of humans and their behaviour. I think one of the reasons why historical games end up being interesting is because by their very nature they aren't going to accurately reflect how history played out, but give off a vibe of "this didn't really happen, but it COULD have", which gets people interested in the period itself, or at least the basic idea that stories from history can be as interesting as any fictional story, and are often a hell of a lot crazier. I like the crash course series too - the broad strokes approach is another thing where it works really well to give people enough of a taste of the ideas that they'll be interested in learning more about them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:And tarlibone, what argument are you making then, because "be careful about who and when you send poo poo to other people" is not a point I think anyone's disagreeing on. So the only thing about your stance that makes this make sense is that you're saying to never do it because you can't trust anyone. Maybe I am, in fact, missing something, but in that case, please make it clear. My argument is that until the legal system catches up with revenge porn, people should just think twice before sending that naked picture. Do it if you want, if you trust the person you're sending it to. But think about it first, because the reality is that 1) people you like sometimes end up being dickbags; 2) dickbags do lovely things if they don't like you anymore, and 3) once something like this is out there, not only can you not get it back, but you can't count on being able to see to it that the perpetrator is punished. In many jurisdictions, revenge porn is either not illegal at all, or the legal authorities don't know how to enforce the laws that do exist, or they are apathetic. While this is still the status quo, it is important for people to think before they act. That is all I'm saying: think about it, because there is a risk, and it's not as small as people think. Now, if you take reasonable precautions and send that pic to only someone you trust, and that person later fucks you over, it's not your fault. You don't deserve the poo poo you're going to have to endure as a result. It is that rear end in a top hat's fault, not yours. My question: why is the suggestion that people either think twice or maybe not engage in this behavior--and remember, we're talking about a specific action: taking naked pictures and sending them over networks to other people--so offensive? And I'm not being sarcastic or lovely here, I'm honestly asking this question, and would appreciate a serious answer. I mean, is it a generational thing? I'm 40-ish. I grew up with "people who play stupid games win stupid prizes." Over the years, I've learned that just because you're doing something that's dumb, that doesn't mean you deserve what you end up getting. Am I just old? Because I'm OK with that. I knew what I was getting into.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
I had an amazing US history teacher for high school who was actually part of the foreign service for a few years - so he really went the extra mile to make class great. We not only read from the main "textbook", but he also had us read excerpts from Zinn's people's history of the US and some conservative equivalent. Pretty mindblowing poo poo for a sixteen year old honors student. For those curious about reconstruction, check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1877 Basically, one party removed all union troops from the south (and it took the better part of a year before reconstruction was completely destroyed - and the average freed slave lived in way worse conditions than when they were officially slaves) in exchange for being given the presidency. its crazy, crazy poo poo that absolutely no one talks about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 08:06
|
|
|
Narcissus1916 posted:its crazy, crazy poo poo that absolutely no one talks about. I didn't learn about this until I was in college, and that was only because the survey history course I was able to get into (I was a Music/English/Math student) covered US history from the post-Civil War period to... hell, I can't remember, probably "present day," which really meant the 1970s. (This was in 1996 or so; anything under 20 years wasn't "history.") I knew about the pre-Civil-Rights-era South, but I had no idea that during Reconstruction, blacks were elected to office in large numbers in the South. The prof said it matter-of-factly on, oh, day 3 of the class, and I was blown away, because at no point had anyone ever told me that, and I'd taken the standard history classes in high school. Then, it was explained how those reforms were, well, un-done with the demise of Reconstruction, and I was amazed. I mean, I went in thinking I'd hear about the Indian Wars and other stupid poo poo that happened before WWI and WWII. The few weeks we spent on Reconstruction and its demise changed me. I was a kid who grew up in Illinois but was born and raised up to the age of 5 in North Carolina, so I was full-on Confederate apologist, Civil War Defeat Was Inevitable Because of the Big Bad North. It really opened my eyes. And, this was a survey class! This was nothing that I couldn't have been told in high school.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 08:19
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:Actually, you're comparing apples to obstinance. When an artist creates erotica, he (or she) is generally not creating it with the expectation that no one will ever see it except for a very small group of people, perhaps only one. He is making something for display or distribution that he presumes won't adversely affect his life should the public at large see it, although in some cultures (and more often in the past), the artist might know the danger and risk it anyway because of the possible rewards of profit or notoriety. There are huge differences between a woman taking a picture of herself naked and texting it to her boyfriend and an artist painting a crude drawing of a dude having sex with a chick on a cave wall in 20,000 BC. Or, if you prefer, a Twilight fan writing an S&M fanfic. Or a video staring your favorite porn performer. When someone sends a nude pic of him/herself to someone they like with the understanding that it's for that person's eyes only, it is not the same thing as someone producing erotica. One of those actions carries an unrealistic, false, and/or ignorance-based expectation of privacy and discretion. The other carries an expectation that is pretty much the opposite. How on Earth you think those are the same thing is beyond me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 11:56
|
|
|
sweek0 posted:Private erotica has also existed for as long as it's been possible to create it. Many, many people have painted, drawn and written erotic things to their partners and only ever meant to share it with that partner. Yes, and private correspondence. Unless you think James Joyce had intended his erotic fart letters to be available to every single person on the planet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
You shouldn't post naked pictures of people who don't want you to. How you got those pictures is completely immaterial.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:00 |
|
|
Pick posted:Yes, and private correspondence. Unless you think James Joyce had intended his erotic fart letters to be available to every single person on the planet. Hey, we needed to know what Warren G Harding called his dick. For history.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 23:19
|
|