|
On September 05 2014 05:42 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 05:12 vOdToasT wrote:On September 05 2014 01:54 Nebuchad wrote:On September 05 2014 00:05 vOdToasT wrote:On September 02 2014 21:27 Nebuchad wrote:On September 02 2014 21:02 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:
I know that they assumed that it was on their "private" phones, but I don't think there's any reason to trust that something like your phone or even your computer (assuming that it's connected to the internetz) is a safe place to put pictures of yourself that you wouldn't want others seeing.
Except for, you know, the definition of 'private'... Negro please, it's a computer. Computers connected to the web are accessible by every other human who has a computer connected to the web. It's not as safe as a box under your bed with a lock and key. And if I have a rock and I break your window, I can access your house. Does that mean your house isn't private property? Not every one can throw a rock at my house. People in China can't. People in other cities can't. You missed my point. Having a window is not as risky as having files that you don't want exposed, on computers with internet connection. You don't have a point. You're acting as if privacy was dependant on ease of access, which it isn't. If I let my door wide open and a robber comes in, he still violated my privacy. Insurance won't pay me back, but if the cops catch him, they aren't going to be like 'hey, the door was open, you know, it's all fine'. And even if you want to go with that analogy, they didn't let the door open, since it took a hacker to get in. "Well, you know, you chose to live in that dangerous neighborhood, so really it's your fault that you're getting robbed"
The definition of privacy has nothing to do with the practical point he's bringing up. He agrees that privacy is privacy. He's just saying that keeping private things on a device that's main function is to be accessing and accessible on the Internet 24/7 is unsafe. It's just a matter of being cautious with your private things because if you're not they'll stop being private and your privacy will be broken.
I swear people act like the notion of privacy is more than just a notion and a moral principle. People act like if we properly define what privacy is, then suddenly people will stop infringing on people privacy.
It doesn't matter if the door is open or closed, if you own something, it can be stolen, whether it be an xbox, a car or a private photo. Know that certain things increases your odds that your privacy will be violated, like leaving your door open and leaving your photos on a device that's connected to the internet. Doesn't mean it's your fault, but you could've been more cautious because you realistically should know that people do bad things.
|
On September 05 2014 05:58 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 05:42 Nebuchad wrote:On September 05 2014 05:12 vOdToasT wrote:On September 05 2014 01:54 Nebuchad wrote:On September 05 2014 00:05 vOdToasT wrote:On September 02 2014 21:27 Nebuchad wrote:On September 02 2014 21:02 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:
I know that they assumed that it was on their "private" phones, but I don't think there's any reason to trust that something like your phone or even your computer (assuming that it's connected to the internetz) is a safe place to put pictures of yourself that you wouldn't want others seeing.
Except for, you know, the definition of 'private'... Negro please, it's a computer. Computers connected to the web are accessible by every other human who has a computer connected to the web. It's not as safe as a box under your bed with a lock and key. And if I have a rock and I break your window, I can access your house. Does that mean your house isn't private property? Not every one can throw a rock at my house. People in China can't. People in other cities can't. You missed my point. Having a window is not as risky as having files that you don't want exposed, on computers with internet connection. You don't have a point. You're acting as if privacy was dependant on ease of access, which it isn't. If I let my door wide open and a robber comes in, he still violated my privacy. Insurance won't pay me back, but if the cops catch him, they aren't going to be like 'hey, the door was open, you know, it's all fine'. And even if you want to go with that analogy, they didn't let the door open, since it took a hacker to get in. "Well, you know, you chose to live in that dangerous neighborhood, so really it's your fault that you're getting robbed" The definition of privacy has nothing to do with the practical point he's bringing up. He agrees that privacy is privacy. He's just saying that keeping private things on a device that's main function is to be accessing and accessible on the Internet 24/7 is unsafe. It's just a matter of being cautious with your private things because if you're not they'll stop being private and your privacy will be broken. I swear people act like the notion of privacy is more than just a notion and a moral principle. People act like if we properly define what privacy is, then suddenly people will stop infringing on people privacy.
Why is it really important to bring up that internet is unsafe in that very moment? And why is it that you're doing it not to help people shield themselves in the future, but for calling out?
"I swear people act like the notion of privacy is more than just a notion and a moral principle."
...No I don't.
The moment you recognize it's not their fault is the moment your calling out becomes pointless.
|
On September 05 2014 06:02 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 05:58 Djzapz wrote:On September 05 2014 05:42 Nebuchad wrote:On September 05 2014 05:12 vOdToasT wrote:On September 05 2014 01:54 Nebuchad wrote:On September 05 2014 00:05 vOdToasT wrote:On September 02 2014 21:27 Nebuchad wrote:On September 02 2014 21:02 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:
I know that they assumed that it was on their "private" phones, but I don't think there's any reason to trust that something like your phone or even your computer (assuming that it's connected to the internetz) is a safe place to put pictures of yourself that you wouldn't want others seeing.
Except for, you know, the definition of 'private'... Negro please, it's a computer. Computers connected to the web are accessible by every other human who has a computer connected to the web. It's not as safe as a box under your bed with a lock and key. And if I have a rock and I break your window, I can access your house. Does that mean your house isn't private property? Not every one can throw a rock at my house. People in China can't. People in other cities can't. You missed my point. Having a window is not as risky as having files that you don't want exposed, on computers with internet connection. You don't have a point. You're acting as if privacy was dependant on ease of access, which it isn't. If I let my door wide open and a robber comes in, he still violated my privacy. Insurance won't pay me back, but if the cops catch him, they aren't going to be like 'hey, the door was open, you know, it's all fine'. And even if you want to go with that analogy, they didn't let the door open, since it took a hacker to get in. "Well, you know, you chose to live in that dangerous neighborhood, so really it's your fault that you're getting robbed" The definition of privacy has nothing to do with the practical point he's bringing up. He agrees that privacy is privacy. He's just saying that keeping private things on a device that's main function is to be accessing and accessible on the Internet 24/7 is unsafe. It's just a matter of being cautious with your private things because if you're not they'll stop being private and your privacy will be broken. I swear people act like the notion of privacy is more than just a notion and a moral principle. People act like if we properly define what privacy is, then suddenly people will stop infringing on people privacy. Why is it really important to bring up that internet is unsafe in that very moment? And why is it that you're doing it not to help people shield themselves in the future, but for calling out?
So now you're assuming that I'm somehow malicious when I say that people should take precautions? Should I wait a few weeks to tell people internet security is important? I'm not calling anyone out and I don't abide by your weirdly impractical view of political correctness... Forgive me if I misunderstood what you said.
I am in fact doing it to explain that people should shield themselves.
The moment you recognize it's not their fault is the moment your calling out becomes pointless.
If I don't lock my door and I don't have a security system and someone steals my shit, my privacy was violated, it's the thief's fault but I could've perhaps prevented it. I'm not saying it's my fault in that cause. But if you're going to flip your shit because I'm saying precautions can be taken, I'm not the one who's being unreasonable. Reasonable people know to be careful.
I think it takes some very unproductive people to say that some topics are off limit during certain times. Condemning the actions of criminals publicly perhaps feels good but it doesn't remind people to have their own back.
|
On September 05 2014 06:07 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 06:02 Nebuchad wrote:On September 05 2014 05:58 Djzapz wrote:On September 05 2014 05:42 Nebuchad wrote:On September 05 2014 05:12 vOdToasT wrote:On September 05 2014 01:54 Nebuchad wrote:On September 05 2014 00:05 vOdToasT wrote:On September 02 2014 21:27 Nebuchad wrote:On September 02 2014 21:02 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:
I know that they assumed that it was on their "private" phones, but I don't think there's any reason to trust that something like your phone or even your computer (assuming that it's connected to the internetz) is a safe place to put pictures of yourself that you wouldn't want others seeing.
Except for, you know, the definition of 'private'... Negro please, it's a computer. Computers connected to the web are accessible by every other human who has a computer connected to the web. It's not as safe as a box under your bed with a lock and key. And if I have a rock and I break your window, I can access your house. Does that mean your house isn't private property? Not every one can throw a rock at my house. People in China can't. People in other cities can't. You missed my point. Having a window is not as risky as having files that you don't want exposed, on computers with internet connection. You don't have a point. You're acting as if privacy was dependant on ease of access, which it isn't. If I let my door wide open and a robber comes in, he still violated my privacy. Insurance won't pay me back, but if the cops catch him, they aren't going to be like 'hey, the door was open, you know, it's all fine'. And even if you want to go with that analogy, they didn't let the door open, since it took a hacker to get in. "Well, you know, you chose to live in that dangerous neighborhood, so really it's your fault that you're getting robbed" The definition of privacy has nothing to do with the practical point he's bringing up. He agrees that privacy is privacy. He's just saying that keeping private things on a device that's main function is to be accessing and accessible on the Internet 24/7 is unsafe. It's just a matter of being cautious with your private things because if you're not they'll stop being private and your privacy will be broken. I swear people act like the notion of privacy is more than just a notion and a moral principle. People act like if we properly define what privacy is, then suddenly people will stop infringing on people privacy. Why is it really important to bring up that internet is unsafe in that very moment? And why is it that you're doing it not to help people shield themselves in the future, but for calling out? So now you're assuming that I'm somehow malicious when I say that people should take precautions? Should I wait a few weeks to tell people internet security is important? I'm not calling anyone out and I don't abide by your weirdly impractical view of political correctness... Forgive me if I misunderstood what you said. I am in fact doing it to explain that people should shield themselves. Show nested quote +The moment you recognize it's not their fault is the moment your calling out becomes pointless. If I don't lock my door and I don't have a security system and someone steals my shit, my privacy was violated, it's the thief's fault but I could've perhaps prevented it. I'm not saying it's my fault in that cause. But if you're going to flip your shit because I'm saying precautions can be taken, I'm not the one who's being unreasonable. Reasonable people know to be careful.
First, the thread is about "I should be able to call her an idiot without it being victim blaming", not about shielding yourself. Don't act like I created the situation. My complete take on it:
- Something bad happened.
- We have to determine who is at fault, and we have determined that the celebrities weren't.
- At this point, there is no question that they aren't.
- Could they have prevented it? Yeah, sure.
- I don't see why we should collectively give a fuck though.
|
On September 05 2014 06:17 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 06:07 Djzapz wrote:On September 05 2014 06:02 Nebuchad wrote:On September 05 2014 05:58 Djzapz wrote:On September 05 2014 05:42 Nebuchad wrote:On September 05 2014 05:12 vOdToasT wrote:On September 05 2014 01:54 Nebuchad wrote:On September 05 2014 00:05 vOdToasT wrote:On September 02 2014 21:27 Nebuchad wrote:On September 02 2014 21:02 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:
I know that they assumed that it was on their "private" phones, but I don't think there's any reason to trust that something like your phone or even your computer (assuming that it's connected to the internetz) is a safe place to put pictures of yourself that you wouldn't want others seeing.
Except for, you know, the definition of 'private'... Negro please, it's a computer. Computers connected to the web are accessible by every other human who has a computer connected to the web. It's not as safe as a box under your bed with a lock and key. And if I have a rock and I break your window, I can access your house. Does that mean your house isn't private property? Not every one can throw a rock at my house. People in China can't. People in other cities can't. You missed my point. Having a window is not as risky as having files that you don't want exposed, on computers with internet connection. You don't have a point. You're acting as if privacy was dependant on ease of access, which it isn't. If I let my door wide open and a robber comes in, he still violated my privacy. Insurance won't pay me back, but if the cops catch him, they aren't going to be like 'hey, the door was open, you know, it's all fine'. And even if you want to go with that analogy, they didn't let the door open, since it took a hacker to get in. "Well, you know, you chose to live in that dangerous neighborhood, so really it's your fault that you're getting robbed" The definition of privacy has nothing to do with the practical point he's bringing up. He agrees that privacy is privacy. He's just saying that keeping private things on a device that's main function is to be accessing and accessible on the Internet 24/7 is unsafe. It's just a matter of being cautious with your private things because if you're not they'll stop being private and your privacy will be broken. I swear people act like the notion of privacy is more than just a notion and a moral principle. People act like if we properly define what privacy is, then suddenly people will stop infringing on people privacy. Why is it really important to bring up that internet is unsafe in that very moment? And why is it that you're doing it not to help people shield themselves in the future, but for calling out? So now you're assuming that I'm somehow malicious when I say that people should take precautions? Should I wait a few weeks to tell people internet security is important? I'm not calling anyone out and I don't abide by your weirdly impractical view of political correctness... Forgive me if I misunderstood what you said. I am in fact doing it to explain that people should shield themselves. The moment you recognize it's not their fault is the moment your calling out becomes pointless. If I don't lock my door and I don't have a security system and someone steals my shit, my privacy was violated, it's the thief's fault but I could've perhaps prevented it. I'm not saying it's my fault in that cause. But if you're going to flip your shit because I'm saying precautions can be taken, I'm not the one who's being unreasonable. Reasonable people know to be careful. First, the thread is about "I should be able to call her an idiot without it being victim blaming", not about shielding yourself. Don't act like I created the situation. My complete take on it: - Something bad happened. - We have to determine who is at fault, and we have determined that the celebrities weren't. - At this point, there is no question that they aren't. - Could they have prevented it? Yeah, sure. I don't see how we should collectively give a fuck though.
I fail to see the interest in that. If I accept that the thread is about "I should be able to call her an idiot without it being victim blaming", I can't imagine we should just leave it at that because the answer is very simple: You should be able to bring up that there are precautions that can be taken, which doesn't mean that it's her fault. Calling the women idiots for not taking precautions is wrong as most people are ill informed about the risks. What can we do? We should take this opportunity to remind people to be careful with their things, and tell them how.
Plus the thread is not limited to OP, I think I'm on topic although I'm not directly answering the OP.
Frankly I don't even understand your position. All I'm hearing is "ooh I don't want to talk about this!". Come on now. That victim blaming shit is out of control and makes people completely stupid, which makes these threads really hard to navigate. My neighbor got a security system after being robbed, he was BLAMING THE VICTIM... Police posts tips on what a person should do if they're a victim of rape? BLAMING THE VICTIM, VICTIM SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN RAPED IN THE FIRST PLACE. What the fuck? It's a way of thinking that's so absurdly disconnected from reality I can't wrap my head around the reasoning of these people.
And btw since it seems to be necessary, I agree that it's not very nice of people to say things like "she shouldn't have taken those pictures she's an idiot" in a "told you so" way. Thing is, we're not all dumb children like that.
|
On September 05 2014 06:22 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 06:17 Nebuchad wrote:On September 05 2014 06:07 Djzapz wrote:On September 05 2014 06:02 Nebuchad wrote:On September 05 2014 05:58 Djzapz wrote:On September 05 2014 05:42 Nebuchad wrote:On September 05 2014 05:12 vOdToasT wrote:On September 05 2014 01:54 Nebuchad wrote:On September 05 2014 00:05 vOdToasT wrote:On September 02 2014 21:27 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Except for, you know, the definition of 'private'... Negro please, it's a computer. Computers connected to the web are accessible by every other human who has a computer connected to the web. It's not as safe as a box under your bed with a lock and key. And if I have a rock and I break your window, I can access your house. Does that mean your house isn't private property? Not every one can throw a rock at my house. People in China can't. People in other cities can't. You missed my point. Having a window is not as risky as having files that you don't want exposed, on computers with internet connection. You don't have a point. You're acting as if privacy was dependant on ease of access, which it isn't. If I let my door wide open and a robber comes in, he still violated my privacy. Insurance won't pay me back, but if the cops catch him, they aren't going to be like 'hey, the door was open, you know, it's all fine'. And even if you want to go with that analogy, they didn't let the door open, since it took a hacker to get in. "Well, you know, you chose to live in that dangerous neighborhood, so really it's your fault that you're getting robbed" The definition of privacy has nothing to do with the practical point he's bringing up. He agrees that privacy is privacy. He's just saying that keeping private things on a device that's main function is to be accessing and accessible on the Internet 24/7 is unsafe. It's just a matter of being cautious with your private things because if you're not they'll stop being private and your privacy will be broken. I swear people act like the notion of privacy is more than just a notion and a moral principle. People act like if we properly define what privacy is, then suddenly people will stop infringing on people privacy. Why is it really important to bring up that internet is unsafe in that very moment? And why is it that you're doing it not to help people shield themselves in the future, but for calling out? So now you're assuming that I'm somehow malicious when I say that people should take precautions? Should I wait a few weeks to tell people internet security is important? I'm not calling anyone out and I don't abide by your weirdly impractical view of political correctness... Forgive me if I misunderstood what you said. I am in fact doing it to explain that people should shield themselves. The moment you recognize it's not their fault is the moment your calling out becomes pointless. If I don't lock my door and I don't have a security system and someone steals my shit, my privacy was violated, it's the thief's fault but I could've perhaps prevented it. I'm not saying it's my fault in that cause. But if you're going to flip your shit because I'm saying precautions can be taken, I'm not the one who's being unreasonable. Reasonable people know to be careful. First, the thread is about "I should be able to call her an idiot without it being victim blaming", not about shielding yourself. Don't act like I created the situation. My complete take on it: - Something bad happened. - We have to determine who is at fault, and we have determined that the celebrities weren't. - At this point, there is no question that they aren't. - Could they have prevented it? Yeah, sure. I don't see how we should collectively give a fuck though. I fail to see the interest in that. If I accept that the thread is about "I should be able to call her an idiot without it being victim blaming", I can't imagine we should just leave it at that because the answer is very simple: You should be able to bring up that there are precautions that can be taken, which doesn't mean that it's her fault. Calling the women idiots for not taking precautions is wrong as most people are ill informed about the risks. What can we do? We should take this opportunity to remind people to be careful with their things, and tell them how. Plus the thread is not limited to OP, I think I'm on topic although I'm not directly answering the OP. Frankly I don't even understand your position. All I'm hearing is "ooh I don't want to talk about this!". Come on now.
So I have a deeper question. Why do you have a problem with what I said?
- I think privacy was still violated. You agree.
- You argued she could have been more cautious. I agree.
- I care more about her privacy being violated than her not having taken all the precautions. Is that where the disagreement is, priorities?
|
On September 05 2014 06:30 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 06:22 Djzapz wrote:On September 05 2014 06:17 Nebuchad wrote:On September 05 2014 06:07 Djzapz wrote:On September 05 2014 06:02 Nebuchad wrote:On September 05 2014 05:58 Djzapz wrote:On September 05 2014 05:42 Nebuchad wrote:On September 05 2014 05:12 vOdToasT wrote:On September 05 2014 01:54 Nebuchad wrote:On September 05 2014 00:05 vOdToasT wrote:
[quote]
Negro please, it's a computer. Computers connected to the web are accessible by every other human who has a computer connected to the web. It's not as safe as a box under your bed with a lock and key. And if I have a rock and I break your window, I can access your house. Does that mean your house isn't private property? Not every one can throw a rock at my house. People in China can't. People in other cities can't. You missed my point. Having a window is not as risky as having files that you don't want exposed, on computers with internet connection. You don't have a point. You're acting as if privacy was dependant on ease of access, which it isn't. If I let my door wide open and a robber comes in, he still violated my privacy. Insurance won't pay me back, but if the cops catch him, they aren't going to be like 'hey, the door was open, you know, it's all fine'. And even if you want to go with that analogy, they didn't let the door open, since it took a hacker to get in. "Well, you know, you chose to live in that dangerous neighborhood, so really it's your fault that you're getting robbed" The definition of privacy has nothing to do with the practical point he's bringing up. He agrees that privacy is privacy. He's just saying that keeping private things on a device that's main function is to be accessing and accessible on the Internet 24/7 is unsafe. It's just a matter of being cautious with your private things because if you're not they'll stop being private and your privacy will be broken. I swear people act like the notion of privacy is more than just a notion and a moral principle. People act like if we properly define what privacy is, then suddenly people will stop infringing on people privacy. Why is it really important to bring up that internet is unsafe in that very moment? And why is it that you're doing it not to help people shield themselves in the future, but for calling out? So now you're assuming that I'm somehow malicious when I say that people should take precautions? Should I wait a few weeks to tell people internet security is important? I'm not calling anyone out and I don't abide by your weirdly impractical view of political correctness... Forgive me if I misunderstood what you said. I am in fact doing it to explain that people should shield themselves. The moment you recognize it's not their fault is the moment your calling out becomes pointless. If I don't lock my door and I don't have a security system and someone steals my shit, my privacy was violated, it's the thief's fault but I could've perhaps prevented it. I'm not saying it's my fault in that cause. But if you're going to flip your shit because I'm saying precautions can be taken, I'm not the one who's being unreasonable. Reasonable people know to be careful. First, the thread is about "I should be able to call her an idiot without it being victim blaming", not about shielding yourself. Don't act like I created the situation. My complete take on it: - Something bad happened. - We have to determine who is at fault, and we have determined that the celebrities weren't. - At this point, there is no question that they aren't. - Could they have prevented it? Yeah, sure. I don't see how we should collectively give a fuck though. I fail to see the interest in that. If I accept that the thread is about "I should be able to call her an idiot without it being victim blaming", I can't imagine we should just leave it at that because the answer is very simple: You should be able to bring up that there are precautions that can be taken, which doesn't mean that it's her fault. Calling the women idiots for not taking precautions is wrong as most people are ill informed about the risks. What can we do? We should take this opportunity to remind people to be careful with their things, and tell them how. Plus the thread is not limited to OP, I think I'm on topic although I'm not directly answering the OP. Frankly I don't even understand your position. All I'm hearing is "ooh I don't want to talk about this!". Come on now. So I have a deeper question. Why do you have a problem with what I said? - I think privacy was still violated. You agree. - You argued she could have been more cautious. I agree. - I care more about her privacy being violated than her not having taken all the precautions. Is that where the disagreement is, priorities?
We have no disagreement, you're just trying to get me not to talk about her not taking precautions. You'll forgive me, I work in the public health domain (I'm not a medical doctor in the slightest) and I try to find indirect solutions to problems. When I have no solution to treat the source of the problem, I work on the symptoms.
It's just how my brain works. I can't prevent people's privacy from being violated, all I can do is tell them how to prevent it. I can't prevent people from lazing around on the couch all day and getting illnesses related from obesity, but I can build bike lanes and hope that people use them.
Why would your priority be her privacy being violated when nothing can be done about that? Especially not by us. I agree that it's the source of the problem whereas taking precautions is a treatment of a symptom but it really is all we've got.
|
On September 05 2014 06:35 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 06:30 Nebuchad wrote:On September 05 2014 06:22 Djzapz wrote:On September 05 2014 06:17 Nebuchad wrote:On September 05 2014 06:07 Djzapz wrote:On September 05 2014 06:02 Nebuchad wrote:On September 05 2014 05:58 Djzapz wrote:On September 05 2014 05:42 Nebuchad wrote:On September 05 2014 05:12 vOdToasT wrote:On September 05 2014 01:54 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
And if I have a rock and I break your window, I can access your house. Does that mean your house isn't private property? Not every one can throw a rock at my house. People in China can't. People in other cities can't. You missed my point. Having a window is not as risky as having files that you don't want exposed, on computers with internet connection. You don't have a point. You're acting as if privacy was dependant on ease of access, which it isn't. If I let my door wide open and a robber comes in, he still violated my privacy. Insurance won't pay me back, but if the cops catch him, they aren't going to be like 'hey, the door was open, you know, it's all fine'. And even if you want to go with that analogy, they didn't let the door open, since it took a hacker to get in. "Well, you know, you chose to live in that dangerous neighborhood, so really it's your fault that you're getting robbed" The definition of privacy has nothing to do with the practical point he's bringing up. He agrees that privacy is privacy. He's just saying that keeping private things on a device that's main function is to be accessing and accessible on the Internet 24/7 is unsafe. It's just a matter of being cautious with your private things because if you're not they'll stop being private and your privacy will be broken. I swear people act like the notion of privacy is more than just a notion and a moral principle. People act like if we properly define what privacy is, then suddenly people will stop infringing on people privacy. Why is it really important to bring up that internet is unsafe in that very moment? And why is it that you're doing it not to help people shield themselves in the future, but for calling out? So now you're assuming that I'm somehow malicious when I say that people should take precautions? Should I wait a few weeks to tell people internet security is important? I'm not calling anyone out and I don't abide by your weirdly impractical view of political correctness... Forgive me if I misunderstood what you said. I am in fact doing it to explain that people should shield themselves. The moment you recognize it's not their fault is the moment your calling out becomes pointless. If I don't lock my door and I don't have a security system and someone steals my shit, my privacy was violated, it's the thief's fault but I could've perhaps prevented it. I'm not saying it's my fault in that cause. But if you're going to flip your shit because I'm saying precautions can be taken, I'm not the one who's being unreasonable. Reasonable people know to be careful. First, the thread is about "I should be able to call her an idiot without it being victim blaming", not about shielding yourself. Don't act like I created the situation. My complete take on it: - Something bad happened. - We have to determine who is at fault, and we have determined that the celebrities weren't. - At this point, there is no question that they aren't. - Could they have prevented it? Yeah, sure. I don't see how we should collectively give a fuck though. I fail to see the interest in that. If I accept that the thread is about "I should be able to call her an idiot without it being victim blaming", I can't imagine we should just leave it at that because the answer is very simple: You should be able to bring up that there are precautions that can be taken, which doesn't mean that it's her fault. Calling the women idiots for not taking precautions is wrong as most people are ill informed about the risks. What can we do? We should take this opportunity to remind people to be careful with their things, and tell them how. Plus the thread is not limited to OP, I think I'm on topic although I'm not directly answering the OP. Frankly I don't even understand your position. All I'm hearing is "ooh I don't want to talk about this!". Come on now. So I have a deeper question. Why do you have a problem with what I said? - I think privacy was still violated. You agree. - You argued she could have been more cautious. I agree. - I care more about her privacy being violated than her not having taken all the precautions. Is that where the disagreement is, priorities? We have no disagreement, you're just trying to get me not to talk about her not taking precautions.
Tell me more about what I'm doing to you when you're the one who quoted me about this in the first place.
"Why would your priority be her privacy being violated when nothing can be done about that? Especially not by us."
One of the things is illegal and the other isn't. One of the things makes me uncomfortable and the other doesn't. One of the things is used by a-lot-of-people-though-apparently-not-you to put the blame on the celebrities and the other isn't.
|
On September 05 2014 06:36 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 06:35 Djzapz wrote:On September 05 2014 06:30 Nebuchad wrote:On September 05 2014 06:22 Djzapz wrote:On September 05 2014 06:17 Nebuchad wrote:On September 05 2014 06:07 Djzapz wrote:On September 05 2014 06:02 Nebuchad wrote:On September 05 2014 05:58 Djzapz wrote:On September 05 2014 05:42 Nebuchad wrote:On September 05 2014 05:12 vOdToasT wrote:
[quote]
Not every one can throw a rock at my house. People in China can't. People in other cities can't.
You missed my point. Having a window is not as risky as having files that you don't want exposed, on computers with internet connection. You don't have a point. You're acting as if privacy was dependant on ease of access, which it isn't. If I let my door wide open and a robber comes in, he still violated my privacy. Insurance won't pay me back, but if the cops catch him, they aren't going to be like 'hey, the door was open, you know, it's all fine'. And even if you want to go with that analogy, they didn't let the door open, since it took a hacker to get in. "Well, you know, you chose to live in that dangerous neighborhood, so really it's your fault that you're getting robbed" The definition of privacy has nothing to do with the practical point he's bringing up. He agrees that privacy is privacy. He's just saying that keeping private things on a device that's main function is to be accessing and accessible on the Internet 24/7 is unsafe. It's just a matter of being cautious with your private things because if you're not they'll stop being private and your privacy will be broken. I swear people act like the notion of privacy is more than just a notion and a moral principle. People act like if we properly define what privacy is, then suddenly people will stop infringing on people privacy. Why is it really important to bring up that internet is unsafe in that very moment? And why is it that you're doing it not to help people shield themselves in the future, but for calling out? So now you're assuming that I'm somehow malicious when I say that people should take precautions? Should I wait a few weeks to tell people internet security is important? I'm not calling anyone out and I don't abide by your weirdly impractical view of political correctness... Forgive me if I misunderstood what you said. I am in fact doing it to explain that people should shield themselves. The moment you recognize it's not their fault is the moment your calling out becomes pointless. If I don't lock my door and I don't have a security system and someone steals my shit, my privacy was violated, it's the thief's fault but I could've perhaps prevented it. I'm not saying it's my fault in that cause. But if you're going to flip your shit because I'm saying precautions can be taken, I'm not the one who's being unreasonable. Reasonable people know to be careful. First, the thread is about "I should be able to call her an idiot without it being victim blaming", not about shielding yourself. Don't act like I created the situation. My complete take on it: - Something bad happened. - We have to determine who is at fault, and we have determined that the celebrities weren't. - At this point, there is no question that they aren't. - Could they have prevented it? Yeah, sure. I don't see how we should collectively give a fuck though. I fail to see the interest in that. If I accept that the thread is about "I should be able to call her an idiot without it being victim blaming", I can't imagine we should just leave it at that because the answer is very simple: You should be able to bring up that there are precautions that can be taken, which doesn't mean that it's her fault. Calling the women idiots for not taking precautions is wrong as most people are ill informed about the risks. What can we do? We should take this opportunity to remind people to be careful with their things, and tell them how. Plus the thread is not limited to OP, I think I'm on topic although I'm not directly answering the OP. Frankly I don't even understand your position. All I'm hearing is "ooh I don't want to talk about this!". Come on now. So I have a deeper question. Why do you have a problem with what I said? - I think privacy was still violated. You agree. - You argued she could have been more cautious. I agree. - I care more about her privacy being violated than her not having taken all the precautions. Is that where the disagreement is, priorities? We have no disagreement, you're just trying to get me not to talk about her not taking precautions. Tell me more about what I'm doing to you when you're the one who quoted me about this in the first place.
I don't care to go back, you're not doing anything to me though and I'm sorry if you think I'm coming off as hostile or anything. Anyway as far as I can tell you're the first one who talked to me arguing that my post was a bit incoherent or whatever. But I don't have a problem with you or anything. Maybe I thought we disagreed on the details, and it seems we do.
|
On September 05 2014 06:38 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 06:36 Nebuchad wrote:On September 05 2014 06:35 Djzapz wrote:On September 05 2014 06:30 Nebuchad wrote:On September 05 2014 06:22 Djzapz wrote:On September 05 2014 06:17 Nebuchad wrote:On September 05 2014 06:07 Djzapz wrote:On September 05 2014 06:02 Nebuchad wrote:On September 05 2014 05:58 Djzapz wrote:On September 05 2014 05:42 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
You don't have a point. You're acting as if privacy was dependant on ease of access, which it isn't. If I let my door wide open and a robber comes in, he still violated my privacy. Insurance won't pay me back, but if the cops catch him, they aren't going to be like 'hey, the door was open, you know, it's all fine'. And even if you want to go with that analogy, they didn't let the door open, since it took a hacker to get in.
"Well, you know, you chose to live in that dangerous neighborhood, so really it's your fault that you're getting robbed" The definition of privacy has nothing to do with the practical point he's bringing up. He agrees that privacy is privacy. He's just saying that keeping private things on a device that's main function is to be accessing and accessible on the Internet 24/7 is unsafe. It's just a matter of being cautious with your private things because if you're not they'll stop being private and your privacy will be broken. I swear people act like the notion of privacy is more than just a notion and a moral principle. People act like if we properly define what privacy is, then suddenly people will stop infringing on people privacy. Why is it really important to bring up that internet is unsafe in that very moment? And why is it that you're doing it not to help people shield themselves in the future, but for calling out? So now you're assuming that I'm somehow malicious when I say that people should take precautions? Should I wait a few weeks to tell people internet security is important? I'm not calling anyone out and I don't abide by your weirdly impractical view of political correctness... Forgive me if I misunderstood what you said. I am in fact doing it to explain that people should shield themselves. The moment you recognize it's not their fault is the moment your calling out becomes pointless. If I don't lock my door and I don't have a security system and someone steals my shit, my privacy was violated, it's the thief's fault but I could've perhaps prevented it. I'm not saying it's my fault in that cause. But if you're going to flip your shit because I'm saying precautions can be taken, I'm not the one who's being unreasonable. Reasonable people know to be careful. First, the thread is about "I should be able to call her an idiot without it being victim blaming", not about shielding yourself. Don't act like I created the situation. My complete take on it: - Something bad happened. - We have to determine who is at fault, and we have determined that the celebrities weren't. - At this point, there is no question that they aren't. - Could they have prevented it? Yeah, sure. I don't see how we should collectively give a fuck though. I fail to see the interest in that. If I accept that the thread is about "I should be able to call her an idiot without it being victim blaming", I can't imagine we should just leave it at that because the answer is very simple: You should be able to bring up that there are precautions that can be taken, which doesn't mean that it's her fault. Calling the women idiots for not taking precautions is wrong as most people are ill informed about the risks. What can we do? We should take this opportunity to remind people to be careful with their things, and tell them how. Plus the thread is not limited to OP, I think I'm on topic although I'm not directly answering the OP. Frankly I don't even understand your position. All I'm hearing is "ooh I don't want to talk about this!". Come on now. So I have a deeper question. Why do you have a problem with what I said? - I think privacy was still violated. You agree. - You argued she could have been more cautious. I agree. - I care more about her privacy being violated than her not having taken all the precautions. Is that where the disagreement is, priorities? We have no disagreement, you're just trying to get me not to talk about her not taking precautions. Tell me more about what I'm doing to you when you're the one who quoted me about this in the first place. I don't care to go back, you're not doing anything to me though and I'm sorry if you think I'm coming off as hostile or anything. Anyway as far as I can tell you're the first one who talked to me arguing that my post was a bit incoherent or whatever. But I don't have a problem with you or anything. Maybe I thought we disagreed on the details, and it seems we do.
Your first post was about the media reaction, not about this - I consider those are separate discussions. In the second one, there's a stream of answers that come from the first post, which is why I assumed that you agreed with the whole calling them out stuff. I shouldn't have done that.
I'll give you time to answer cause it seems like we're editing over each other and that's not very good for clarity which it appears we already lack =)
|
Well I think we're good buddy, we've been jacking the thread anyway, gonna have to let other people post  . And yes I'm a compulsive post editor 
Cheers.
|
Ever notice how 99% of the time someone brings up "Victim blaming" it's in defense of a white woman?
If I walked around a bad neighborhood waving a handful of cash and I got mugged nobody would hesitate to call me a dumbass. And nobody would jump to my rescue and say "people need to be taught not to mug" and "stop blaming the victim."
The reason "victim blaming" is so selectively applied is because it's basically just bullshit created by left-wing bloggers and regurgitated by people that can't think for themselves. It's like the intellectual version of planking or the ice bucket challenge but far more annoying. At least with planking the person is silent, and I didn't have to hear about "Victim Blaming" or "White privilege" or "microaggressions" or "Fat shaming" or whatever nonsense these pretentious bandwagoning know-nothings just read on Huffingtonpost and now feel the need to lecture me about.
|
On September 05 2014 08:42 BlackJack wrote:
If I walked around a bad neighborhood waving a handful of cash and I got mugged nobody would hesitate to call me a dumbass. And nobody would jump to my rescue
Sounds like you have terrible friends.
|
On September 05 2014 10:50 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 08:42 BlackJack wrote:
If I walked around a bad neighborhood waving a handful of cash and I got mugged nobody would hesitate to call me a dumbass. And nobody would jump to my rescue
Sounds like you have terrible friends.
My friends are not there to make me feel good about myself. When I do something dangerous or dumb, I expect my friends to tell me, harshly if they must, that I'm fucking up.
|
On September 05 2014 08:42 BlackJack wrote:
If I walked around a bad neighborhood waving a handful of cash and I got mugged nobody would hesitate to call me a dumbass. And nobody would jump to my rescue and say "people need to be taught not to mug" and "stop blaming the victim."
That would be because you are actually asking for it there. When people say you shouldn't blame a rape victim, they're trying to change your perception that she asked for it by drinking too much, or by wearing a type of clothing. That doesn't mean there are no situations at all where people are actually at fault for what they get. I didn't think it was that hard to understand...
|
On September 05 2014 11:51 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 10:50 hypercube wrote:On September 05 2014 08:42 BlackJack wrote:
If I walked around a bad neighborhood waving a handful of cash and I got mugged nobody would hesitate to call me a dumbass. And nobody would jump to my rescue
Sounds like you have terrible friends. My friends are not there to make me feel good about myself. When I do something dangerous or dumb, I expect my friends to tell me, harshly if they must, that I'm fucking up.
Meh, in these situation it's pretty obvious what the mistake was. The only reason anyone would go into a lengthy explanation is because they want to be a dick about it.
|
On September 05 2014 11:57 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 08:42 BlackJack wrote:
If I walked around a bad neighborhood waving a handful of cash and I got mugged nobody would hesitate to call me a dumbass. And nobody would jump to my rescue and say "people need to be taught not to mug" and "stop blaming the victim."
That would be because you are actually asking for it there. When people say you shouldn't blame a rape victim, they're trying to change your perception that she asked for it by drinking too much, or by wearing a type of clothing. That doesn't mean there are no situations at all where people are actually at fault for what they get. I didn't think it was that hard to understand...
It's because I actually was asking for it? That's your rebuttal for my argument that this "victim blaming" thing is arbitrarily applied bullshit? Your rebuttal is to arbitrarily decide that I actually was asking for it and the rape victim wasn't? If anything that just proves my point.
|
On September 05 2014 13:31 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 11:57 Nebuchad wrote:On September 05 2014 08:42 BlackJack wrote:
If I walked around a bad neighborhood waving a handful of cash and I got mugged nobody would hesitate to call me a dumbass. And nobody would jump to my rescue and say "people need to be taught not to mug" and "stop blaming the victim."
That would be because you are actually asking for it there. When people say you shouldn't blame a rape victim, they're trying to change your perception that she asked for it by drinking too much, or by wearing a type of clothing. That doesn't mean there are no situations at all where people are actually at fault for what they get. I didn't think it was that hard to understand... It's because I actually was asking for it? That's your rebuttal for my argument that this "victim blaming" thing is arbitrarily applied bullshit? Your rebuttal is to arbitrarily decide that I actually was asking for it and the rape victim wasn't? If anything that just proves my point.
Yeah you kind of contradicted yourself there Nebuchad, either the victim of a crime can be blamed for not taking precaution or they can't, doesn't matter what the crime was.
To further the other discussion, I do think in some cases it benefits society to shame victims who were not too physically/emotionally damaged (ie not rape) if they failed to take precaution, like with the leaked pictures. We discourage this behavior elsewhere, like calling someone an idiot for not wearing a seat belt, why can't we do the same otherwise? Taking risky behavior that puts your physical or emotional wellbeing in jeopardy is within the public interest to discourage.
|
On September 05 2014 17:36 UdderChaos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 13:31 BlackJack wrote:On September 05 2014 11:57 Nebuchad wrote:On September 05 2014 08:42 BlackJack wrote:
If I walked around a bad neighborhood waving a handful of cash and I got mugged nobody would hesitate to call me a dumbass. And nobody would jump to my rescue and say "people need to be taught not to mug" and "stop blaming the victim."
That would be because you are actually asking for it there. When people say you shouldn't blame a rape victim, they're trying to change your perception that she asked for it by drinking too much, or by wearing a type of clothing. That doesn't mean there are no situations at all where people are actually at fault for what they get. I didn't think it was that hard to understand... It's because I actually was asking for it? That's your rebuttal for my argument that this "victim blaming" thing is arbitrarily applied bullshit? Your rebuttal is to arbitrarily decide that I actually was asking for it and the rape victim wasn't? If anything that just proves my point. Yeah you kind of contradicted yourself there Nebuchad, either the victim of a crime can be blamed for not taking precaution or they can't, doesn't matter what the crime was.
There's a process that's called distributing blame. Most of you have established that you don't think the celebs are at fault for what happened. Of course, in your particular case, you didn't do that in good faith, you did that to avoid backlash, because you didn't want to be associated with the term "blaming the victim", but whatever. If you determine that no blame falls on the victim, then it's a bad thing to blame her afterwards, that's self-explanatory.
That doesn't mean you don't have to make that determination. In the case of a guy waving his cash in the face of potential robbers, I make no such determination. The original perception on the topic of rape was that drinking too much, or wearing certain types of clothing, was actually the same thing as waving your cash in the face of potential robbers. This is the perception that is being fought; it's not some kind of ethereal idea where nobody can ever do anything wrong if they end up harmed by it afterwards.
If your argument is, rather, that having pics on your private phone is the same thing as waving your cash around in the face of robbers, then make that case. That's thankfully not what has been going on anywhere.
|
The original perception on the topic of rape was that drinking too much, or wearing certain types of clothing, was actually the same thing as waving your cash in the face of potential robbers. This is the perception that is being fought
I don't think that's the case. In both situations it is really hard to argue a person isn't tempting fate if they engage in that behaviour around people they don't know if they can trust. I think the point is that in both cases, that doesn't make the perpetrator less guilty for committing the crime. The idea of blaming the victim is that it's giving the perpetrator excuses for their behaviour, as if being sexually aroused biologically got rid of all self-control, or being tempted by stealing cash eliminated all self control. I don't think making a distinction between a terrible crime and an even more heinous crime really makes a good case for when it's okay to blame the victim and when it isn't.
I think it's totally fine to say that a person is tempting fate more than necessary. I don't think you could ever say it's the victim's fault the crime was committed though, and understanding that distinction is the key to not having dumb arguments on the internet about it. Ultimately the crime was committed by the perpetrator, not the victim. That's why we don't lessen the sentence or the punishment of the perpetrator just because maybe something the victim had a legal right to do tempted the perpetrator. That's what blaming the victim would actually mean. Legal culpability...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
