|
Ok so this is going to be a controversial one, if you heaven't heard there has been a pretty big leak of celebrity nude picture, taken from their PRIVATE phones/cloud storage (rumors it's iCloud doing the rounds) Now what kind of Ilk's me about this whole ideal is that the concept of "victim blaming" has peered out it's ugly head again. It's a word that's often used in any discussion about rape, as the trump card. The thing about these leaks is that its a much less sensitive subject and so personal emotions don't get in the way, and hence this monstrosity of a concept can finally be put to bed.
So what is Victim blaming first? Well in its purest proper form its a very bad thing. Basically the concept that some people blame victims of rape or other acts (such as leaked nude pictures), putting the fault on them for not taking what the blamer would consider "appropriate" precautions against these things happening.
So what's the issue? Well to my mind a distinction is often not made, which is that the victim could be blamed for not taking precaution but at the same time be totally blameless for the act itself. So if one was to leave their door and windows wide open while on holiday, it doesn't mean that person deserves harm upon them, this is defiantly true. But it does make them naive at best and an unintelligent fool at worst. Rape is considered probably one of the worst if not the worst crime a human can commit, so emotions get pretty high when anyone would even suggest any criticism of the victims lack of precaution. This is the point where the critic gets the victim blaming label, seen as someone justifying rape, and then the classic phrase comes out "perpetuating rape culture".
Now I have to say that criticizing an individual who is a victim of rape is criminally insensitive and should probably never been done, there is a worrying side to this. If we take the leaked pictures where the crime committed, while still defiantly a crime i might add, has less severe consequences, we might be able to have a better discussion. Jennifer Lawrence is a fool. There i said it. Did she deserve this to happen to her? No. Was she careless and also possibly engaged in activities that encourage this sort of behavior? Yes. Does this in any way make the criminal who did this any less evil, no. There is no doubt that the hacker who did this is a sick fuck quite frankly. And also a massive asshole. But there is this sentiment that by criticizing the action of celebrities (storing sensitive pictures (or data even) on electronic devices and online storage in 2014 is not sensible and also actively courting attention from their sexual image and making a fuck ton of money in the process) you are letting the criminal "off the hook" and that somehow the sole blame lies only with one party. Well that last bit is partly right, the sole blame of the crime is the criminals fault, they are a dick, plain and simple. But we should be able to criticize the victims in this case, and in the case of rape I wouldn't single anyone out, not because none of the victims have been careful but because they have had something truly awful happen to them and its inhuman to cause them any more emotional pain.
We need to be able to criticize lack of precaution though. We do it in every walk of life. You cannot assume that every human being is not going to do any wrong, and say that the SOLE focus should be on the criminal. While they are massively at fault we should still encourage people to take steps to make it harder, yes in an ideal world we should never have to do this. But we are not living in an ideal world, there are bad opportunist people out there and we should be self aware of this, and not be so naive. We cant catch them all overnight and stop them from being born, instead we should perhaps accept that a slight bit of cynicism should be taken.
TL;DR - Bad people are bad. Still makes you a fool if you don't prepare for them in life. Telling people they didn't take proper precaution doesn't magically put less policeman on the street to find criminals who committed the acts.
Update: Statement from apple, basically not their fault the passwords/security questions sucked:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SRx8g5j.gif)
We wanted to provide an update to our investigation into the theft of photos of certain celebrities. When we learned of the theft, we were outraged and immediately mobilized Apple's engineers to discover the source. Our customers' privacy and security are of utmost importance to us. After more than 40 hours of investigation, we have discovered that certain celebrity accounts were compromised by a very targeted attack on user names, passwords and security questions, a practice that has become all too common on the Internet. None of the cases we have investigated has resulted from any breach in any of Apple's systems including iCloud® or Find my iPhone. We are continuing to work with law enforcement to help identify the criminals involved. To protect against this type of attack, we advise all users to always use a stong password and enable two-step verification. Both of these are addressed on our website at http://support.apple.com/kb/ht4232.
 
|
I think one of the most important things that you wrote was "Was she careless and also possibly engaged in activities that encourage this sort of behavior?". I really feel bad for Kate Upton, Jennifer Lawrence, Victoria Justice, etc. However, I feel that if you're going to take nude photos and then get upset when people end up seeing them... well, just don't do it in the first place then. 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.
Going by your rape example, I guess I'd compare it more to women who get drunk and are sexually assaulted. I feel extremely bad for the women that this happens to, but there were lots of things they could have done differently. If you do dangerous/stupid things and then get hurt in the end, at least part of the blame falls on yourself. Not all of the blame, but at least part of it where you can reflect back and say "Wow, that was really dumb of me." No one deserves to be raped and it's not their fault for being raped, but you have to look out for yourself. Doing stupid things and lowering your defenses is never a smart thing to do. In a perfect world we'd hope that no one would ever get raped, but we know that's not the case. Since we know that there's always the chance, people should always think about their safety first. Fun is important and all, but putting yourself at jeopardy is never advisable.
It doesn't change the fact that no one deserves to be humiliated like this in front of basically the entire world, but I hope that the celebrities who had their pictures leaked at least learned something from this. It sucks that there are people that would do this to others, but it's up to you to protect yourself from this happening. None of them are minors, with the possible exception of McKayla Maroney (unsure as to when the pictures were taken), and they all knew what they could possibly be getting themselves into. There were other cases of this happening. If it was the first case, I'd say that they had no way of knowing and that it really sucks hard for them. But there have been so many past reports of this happening.
Note: I don't think it's all their fault and I don't think that they deserved to have this happen to them, but I am just saying that they should have been more responsible. What's done cannot be changed though, so I guess the only hope is that others learn from their mistakes and don't make irresponsible decisions that cause them this much embarrassment. Overall I'd agree with you, but I think it's important for people to understand that what Jennifer Lawrence did was stupid and that it's not like she did everything right and is not at blame. That's just promoting acting like an idiot, and there are probably thousands, if not millions, of kids who look up to her, so it would be pretty retarded to just make it seem like what happened to her is just bad luck or some asshole on the internet hacking into her account.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
If the pics were stolen from their phone's storage then I agree they can't be blamed
But if it was stolen from the cloud or some online file storage... -_-''
|
A bit off-topic but what bothers me most about this whole thing is how blown out of proportion it is compared to the hundreds of thousands if not millions of nudes intercepted on daily-basis.
|
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'...
|
On September 02 2014 21:27 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +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'...
Except for, you know, if they sent it to someone and that person then decided to leak the photos...
If they're really only taking the photos for themselves, why even bother taking the pictures?
|
On September 02 2014 21:30 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:Show nested quote +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'... Except for, you know, if they sent it to someone and that person then decided to leak the photos...
Which is, you know, not what happened...
|
i dont get why they have dozens of different nude pictures in the first place.
I havent lokked into it much since i find Kate Upton be be ugly, but apparently there are whole albums that she uploaded on her cloudstorage.
They probably didnt even know they uploaded them to the internet, seperated from the public by a very thin wall.
Thats the problem with the widespread use of all the modern mobile devices and software without any kind of knowledge about them at all.
|
On September 02 2014 21:34 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2014 21:30 MtlGuitarist97 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'... Except for, you know, if they sent it to someone and that person then decided to leak the photos... Which is, you know, not what happened...
The point is though, what if it did? They didn't just take the photos for themselves, and if they did then they're pretty retarded. Why the hell would you take dozens of nude photos as well as possibly (unconfirmed) videos as well if you're just going to keep them on your phone? If Jennifer Lawrence really wanted to see herself naked, it's not like she needs to look at a pic of it. And if she's sending it to someone, there's just as much risk that the person she's sending it to leaks it as it being hacked. It's a pretty retarded situation and one that I personally wouldn't put myself in.
|
On September 02 2014 21:48 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2014 21:34 Nebuchad wrote:On September 02 2014 21:30 MtlGuitarist97 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'... Except for, you know, if they sent it to someone and that person then decided to leak the photos... Which is, you know, not what happened... The point is though, what if it did? They didn't just take the photos for themselves, and if they did then they're pretty retarded. Why the hell would you take dozens of nude photos as well as possibly (unconfirmed) videos as well if you're just going to keep them on your phone? If Jennifer Lawrence really wanted to see herself naked, it's not like she needs to look at a pic of it. And if she's sending it to someone, there's just as much risk that the person she's sending it to leaks it as it being hacked. It's a pretty retarded situation and one that I personally wouldn't put myself in.
Well your point is terrible. Obviously these are pictures taken in the context of a relationship, where there was a certain amount of trust. Could the other member of the relationship have broken that trust? Yeah. But he didn't, and so that's completely irrelevant to the situation.
|
The only one to be blamed here is Apple for screwing up their security. Otherwise I think if you put something on the internet it's not private anymore, but not everyone has this level of awareness about the internet unfortunately. I have no desire to see these pictures myself but I don't really condemn people who get a kick or whatever out of it, though I think it's really childish.
|
its not irrelevant. by giving the photos to "someone you trust" you are still exposing your photos into a place where anyone with the means and knowledge can exploit. its not like smartphones, clouds and hacking is new. if you live in this century and you are oblivious to the fact that you are exposing yourself to potential hacks/leaks then you are a fool
and if you did it knowingly, well it still makes you a fool because you put yourself in that position in the first place.
|
The point is relatively simple; risky behaviour can have consequences.
Should you have the right to take naked photos of yourself without fear of them being leaked? Well yes, in a perfect world you should, but we all know that in reality the world doesn't work like that. Taking compromising pictures and storing them on a digital device is a risk, the same as not wearing a seat-belt when driving, or walking through a rough part of town alone at night, or choosing 1234 as your pin number. All of those things are choices which you are free to make, but you have to be willing to accept that bad things can happen, and that they are more likely to happen to people who expose themselves to those risks.
Edit: to clarify, I realise that this line of logic can be reduced to absurdity. "People who take planes are more likely to be in air crashes, people who go outside of their house are more likely to be hit by lightning" etc. Risk exists on a dimension, where there are behaviours that most people would agree are risky (eg: running across the street in busy traffic), and others that most people would agree are just a part of everyday life where you have to accept the risk involved (eg: driving to work).
Leaked pictures is a grey area, which is why you get all this controversy.
On one end of the spectrum, if you take pictures of yourself in private and leave them on your own digital camera stored in your house, and it gets stolen, then the risk taken was tiny.
If you take pictures of yourself and then upload them to a website or cloud service, the risk is a little bigger.
If you let someone else take pictures of you then the risk is bigger, whatever your relationship to that person may be.
On the other end of the spectrum, if you take pictures of yourself, leave them on your computer and then take it in to be serviced (ala Edison Chen), then you're taking a pretty big risk, especially if you're a celebrity or public figure.
I think that last point also matters. It makes a difference who you are. If you're a random college girl taking nude picture of yourself, then it would suck if they were leaked, but the potential consequences are not nearly as severe as if you were a celebrity. The risk is also arguably greater for celebrities, because hackers will spend more time and resources targeting them than targeting everyday people.
|
On September 02 2014 23:05 evilfatsh1t wrote:
its not irrelevant. by giving the photos to "someone you trust" you are still exposing your photos into a place where anyone with the means and knowledge can exploit. its not like smartphones, clouds and hacking is new. if you live in this century and you are oblivious to the fact that you are exposing yourself to potential hacks/leaks then you are a fool
and if you did it knowingly, well it still makes you a fool because you put yourself in that position in the first place.
Under that logic, you're a fool for using a car, as it increases the risk of having a car accident and you know it. Sure, if they didn't take any pics there would be nothing to hack. That's not how blame works. You have the two extremes, one of them being, like, walking into a gang neighborhood at night with a KKK shirt, and the second being using a car. What you need to do is to determine which one your situation is closest to. Taking nude pics is closer to the second than the first. Getting drunk while being a woman is also closer to the second than the first.
|
this story is hilarious
persons that are paid millions to show their ass / boobs / plastics to the whole world all year long, posing as victims
because of pictures ? of their ass ?
|
You can guarantee Celebs will disable icloud backup service. Obviously their privacy was invaded,but I don't think they are necessarily "victims", they are paid to show "some" skin and now it appears some have seen more. It's not like financial or other attacks happened.
|
On September 03 2014 00:07 Boonbag wrote:
this story is hilarious
persons that are paid millions to show their ass / boobs / plastics to the whole world all year long, posing as victims
because of pictures ? of their ass ?
The photo were private, it means they were not to be shared.
Also, give more respect, they aren't selling bodies, they are selling beauties.
Quite a few of the photo showed more than ass.
|
On September 02 2014 23:55 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2014 23:05 evilfatsh1t wrote:
its not irrelevant. by giving the photos to "someone you trust" you are still exposing your photos into a place where anyone with the means and knowledge can exploit. its not like smartphones, clouds and hacking is new. if you live in this century and you are oblivious to the fact that you are exposing yourself to potential hacks/leaks then you are a fool
and if you did it knowingly, well it still makes you a fool because you put yourself in that position in the first place. Under that logic, you're a fool for using a car, as it increases the risk of having a car accident and you know it. Sure, if they didn't take any pics there would be nothing to hack. That's not how blame works. You have the two extremes, one of them being, like, walking into a gang neighborhood at night with a KKK shirt, and the second being using a car. What you need to do is to determine which one your situation is closest to. Taking nude pics is closer to the second than the first. Getting drunk while being a woman is also closer to the second than the first.
You can't really make a statement like that. Getting into a car without a seat belt driven by a friend who's been drinking and is an idiot behind the wheel is not the same as getting into a car to drive down to the shop in a 20mph zone driving like an old man. Same with the drunk girl thing, how drunk? With friends? What town/part of town she in? (very unfortunately but is the reality) what is she wearing? How does she act when shes drunk? Is she at a frat party and went alone with no female friends and drank insane amounts of vodka knowing half the guys there really fancy her and are asshole types wearing an anne summers slutty nurse outfit that reveals her underwear? Circumstances are everything. (note: just because the girl went to the party wearing that and drank loads ect doesn't mean shes asking for it, just means she is a fool)
|
Although the break of privacy is painful, I think in modern society these things will become more and more common until it's not that big of a deal anymore to have nudies on the internet. Who gives a fuck anyways, I saw them and now I've moved on.
|
|
|
On September 03 2014 00:32 Saechiis wrote:
Although the break of privacy is painful, I think in modern society these things will become more and more common until it's not that big of a deal anymore to have nudies on the internet. Who gives a fuck anyways, I saw them and now I've moved on.
Well, some of them are kind of a big deal. For instance, at least in the case of McKayla Maroney, there's some dispute as to whether or not it's considered child porn. I think the age of consent is a bit high in the US anyway, but I think that's a big deal considering she could be charged with distribution of child pornography and be considered a sex offender. Doubt that it would happen, but it's still a possibility.
|
On September 03 2014 00:24 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2014 00:07 Boonbag wrote:
this story is hilarious
persons that are paid millions to show their ass / boobs / plastics to the whole world all year long, posing as victims
because of pictures ? of their ass ?
The photo were private, it means they were not to be shared. Also, give more respect, they aren't selling bodies, they are selling beauties. Quite a few of the photo showed more than ass.
hollywood brainwashing is strong indeed
|
The whole point of the rule of law is so that you can engage in "risky" behaviour. It's perfectly reasonable to want to send nude photos of yourself to your significant other if you can't see each other for a long time. Just as it's perfectly reasonable to wear revealing clothing on a night out.
Sometimes it doesn't work perfectly and you need to take precautions that are inconvenient. Like keeping extra attention on your wallet or avoiding some parts of town altogether, especially at night. This sucks but it's the way it is. But when someone slips up and gets robbed don't fucking jump on them with your brilliant analysis on how they could have avoided it.
|
I don't see the big deal. Nudes are pretty common in the current social climate. I guess it can be constituted loss of income for people acting for a living. Since people want to see a little more that is a selling point that is kind of lost now.
Anything written on a digital medium or any picture stored on it can end up anywhere. That is how modern information works in general. You can lower the risk in many ways but never eliminate it. Either people accept lack of privacy or choose their habits.
|
The perpetrator might not be a dick or an asshole. Maybe he/she is a perfectly pleasant person to be around, who always goes the extra mile for friends and even strangers, who loves nature and sees beauty in every person.
I say this because I don't believe in blaming victims or demonizing perpetrators, but this only applies to in-court stuff, where I hate seeing attorneys attack peoples' character and intelligence. Outside of court, everything is fair game. You're not the judge or jury, you're just you. If you want to blame a victim, don't come up with some elaborate explanation for why you're doing it, you just do it, and if anyone asks why, you look them straight in the eye and say "Pick a stereotype and apply it to me, since that's what you're going to do anyhow after my potential explanation, which you will debate until the end of time." and then they will be like "Why are you getting so defensive?" to which you reply "I'm not being defensive, I'm just skipping a few steps to save time."
Sometimes, though, on certain websites, saying whatever you want will get you banned, if you happen to wander into the "unacceptable speech" territory. So really, you just have to weight the benefits of saying whatever you want with being the prospect of being banned.
|
I don't see the big deal. Nudes are pretty common in the current social climate. I guess it can be constituted loss of income for people acting for a living. Since people want to see a little more that is a selling point that is kind of lost now.
Anything written on a digital medium or any picture stored on it can end up anywhere. That is how modern information works in general. You can lower the risk in many ways but never eliminate it. Either people accept lack of privacy or choose their habits.
it's their body, they shld get to choose who they share it with
at what pt do we consider "everything that u say/do cant b considered private bc the internet/connectivity etc." as something that we want n should respect? wen does that become more important than allowing ppl basic privacy rights?
if someone decides to do something in the privacy of their own home, if they decide 2 share something w someone else in
the context that it is for them n them alone, etc., at what pt do we start to say "well u fucked up its ur own fault"?
its much easier to blame the ppl its happening to, or even the ppl who r exposing the ppl its happening to than it is to say, for the ppl who r going after/seeking/viewing these things, "i just dont have any respect for my felow human beings"
so hot tho
|
what I like the most about what they call the fappening is the name.
but I find it interesting that the icloud breach has been revealed just before apple released the new iphone 
|
Maybe JLaw can find some guy to sue but that's not going to work (and basically just a little vindictive though I don't see a problem with that) .I understand if she and the other victims are upset and there are actual cyberlaws saying you can't go around hacking stuff. However that will not prevent this from happening again, that dude who leaked ScarJo and Mila Kunis a couple years ago got 10 years (and 10 years is way too much and completely ridiculous) and people still did this again.
If the celebs are okay with this after having sued some kid for no money and a lot of jail time then cool. If they, and everybody else, want to prevent this from happening again they need to learn basic computer security. Like, if you're using a computer you're a risk. Minimize that risk. No computer system is secure, Sony got hacked, Adobe got hacked, some guy just hacked the danish social security register. Take your pictures, send them, delete them. Apple and Facebook and everybody else probably steals your data and noone secures it adequately.
Also this could also be a lot worse, could be credit card details or whatever, instead it's a pair of boobs and a misplaced curling iron. Like that other dude said, people think it's bigger than it is and soon we'll have forgotten everything about this anyway. If anyone thinks Apple and Microsoft or someone else can guarantee that they're never getting compromised again then of course not, this isn't the last time this happens.
|
On September 03 2014 01:16 Boonbag wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2014 00:24 ETisME wrote:On September 03 2014 00:07 Boonbag wrote:
this story is hilarious
persons that are paid millions to show their ass / boobs / plastics to the whole world all year long, posing as victims
because of pictures ? of their ass ?
The photo were private, it means they were not to be shared. Also, give more respect, they aren't selling bodies, they are selling beauties. Quite a few of the photo showed more than ass. hollywood brainwashing is strong indeed
I only know three actress at most
I didn't get brainwashed into believing that this aren't a big deal for them
|
On September 03 2014 07:49 ninazerg wrote:
If you want to blame a victim, don't come up with some elaborate explanation for why you're doing it, you just do it, and if anyone asks why, you look them straight in the eye and say "Pick a stereotype and apply it to me, since that's what you're going to do anyhow after my potential explanation, which you will debate until the end of time."
But how are they supposed to know which stereotype to apply? You need to give them something.
At least until enough people start doing that and it creates its own stereotypes.
|
On September 02 2014 21:56 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2014 21:48 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:On September 02 2014 21:34 Nebuchad wrote:On September 02 2014 21:30 MtlGuitarist97 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'... Except for, you know, if they sent it to someone and that person then decided to leak the photos... Which is, you know, not what happened... The point is though, what if it did? They didn't just take the photos for themselves, and if they did then they're pretty retarded. Why the hell would you take dozens of nude photos as well as possibly (unconfirmed) videos as well if you're just going to keep them on your phone? If Jennifer Lawrence really wanted to see herself naked, it's not like she needs to look at a pic of it. And if she's sending it to someone, there's just as much risk that the person she's sending it to leaks it as it being hacked. It's a pretty retarded situation and one that I personally wouldn't put myself in. Well your point is terrible. Obviously these are pictures taken in the context of a relationship, where there was a certain amount of trust. Could the other member of the relationship have broken that trust? Yeah. But he didn't, and so that's completely irrelevant to the situation.
People sex text all the time. If you take lude pictures of yourself as a celebrity when you know how TMZ, Paparazzi, leaked sex tapes and all that jazz work. Well shit, you're sort of asking for it just as much as the next person because guess what-- this doesn't just happen to celebrities. Sometimes it's best to know when to keep it in your darn pants especially if it means keeping a job because you know companies are sort of targeting those sort of things now too. It doesn't even have to be sex acts that they will find offensive. Heck, I know certain members of this community *cough* losing job offers at certain companies *Riot cough* for such antics. So next time you do something stupid. You might want to ask yourself if it's worth the risk. Good celebrities get off easy in this and they still benefit from such publicity. Don't get me wrong, the hackers are scum but if you don't want your private parts all over the net there are certain precautions you can take against such shit.
|
I just want to point out that part of this conversation should be changed. The pictures were taken and then shared. They were not wholly private as we think of it. Once that picture is shared with another person, even if the expressed intent is just one person, it is rare that, that becomes the case. While I don't condone hacking, and I think what happened is definitely a breach of these celebrities security and the privacy they should have in their bodies, this should not be framed the same way. When something goes online, it is no longer private and no longer protected speech. While I feel for these ladies, sharing these photos in the first place, if they didn't want others to see them, was a bad move simply by the way technology now works with mobile storage.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
I can't believe some people seem to be downplaying what happened. I don't really care if they get paid to pose whatever. The fact remains that these pictures were meant to be private and they got leaked by hackers. That's nothing short of an invasion of privacy and need for discipline. Let's put it this way: people are free to take whatever pictures they want even if its nude ones. It's true that they should be more cautious considering their status but just because they have a certain line of work doesn't mean that leaking nude photos of them is fine!
|
On September 03 2014 13:14 BigFan wrote:
I can't believe some people seem to be downplaying what happened. I don't really care if they get paid to pose whatever. The fact remains that these pictures were meant to be private and they got leaked by hackers. That's nothing short of an invasion of privacy and need for discipline. Let's put it this way: people are free to take whatever pictures they want even if its nude ones. It's true that they should be more cautious considering their status but just because they have a certain line of work doesn't mean that leaking nude photos of them is fine!
I considered it worse that they leaked pictures of people that are acting. Since it might constitute a loss of income in future contracts.
|
Comparing the "fappening" to rape proves how over dramatic you are. Same as the stupid bitch who called everyone sex offenders for looking at the pictures. Same as that other stupid bitch that called everyone who looked at them molesters. Privacy doesnt exist and this isnt the first time someones "icloud" was hacked or phone stolen. The "hacker" is a dick, the celebs made ill informed and outright dumb decisions, and the obligatory social media/nsa/telecomunications dont respect your privacy. More news at 11.
|
lol we should have a poll to see how many people have sex texted before or sent images of themselves in nonsensical positions.
Poll: Have you sex texted before?Fuck no. (14) 82% Sent images to your gf/bf. (2) 12% Sent images to someone else. (1) 6% 17 total votes Your vote: Have you sex texted before? (Vote): Sent images to your gf/bf.
(Vote): Sent images to someone else.
(Vote): Fuck no.
|
The default setting on your phone is to upload every picture you take to iCloud, I believe. Same with Android phones and your G+ holding area.
Privacy settings are reasonable, but they default to SHARE EVERYTHING EVER. Facebook is also guilty of this; their settings are great, but they default to you just sharing everything with everyone so facebook can show your habits to other people for ad revenue or whatever.
It's not always obvious it's doing it, either. The only reason I knew my droid was uploading my photos is that when I next logged into my mail on a PC I had notifications with the pictures I had taken in them.
It should never be a "well don't take pictures", because people can do what they want with their own person. It should never be a "well don't upload them", because the phone does it AUTOMATICALLY and it's not obvious that it's doing it when you pick up your phone.
The iCloud service needed to be more secure (Apple haven't been doing so well on that front with their SSL Epic Fail, etc), and people just need to not be dicks (like that will happen).
In a fit of "yeah I saw that coming", most of the people clamouring for more private pictures are the ones that also fight to protect their OWN privacy. Hypocrisy rules.
|
On September 03 2014 18:02 Gowerly wrote:
The default setting on your phone is to upload every picture you take to iCloud, I believe. Same with Android phones and your G+ holding area.
Privacy settings are reasonable, but they default to SHARE EVERYTHING EVER. Facebook is also guilty of this; their settings are great, but they default to you just sharing everything with everyone so facebook can show your habits to other people for ad revenue or whatever.
It's not always obvious it's doing it, either. The only reason I knew my droid was uploading my photos is that when I next logged into my mail on a PC I had notifications with the pictures I had taken in them.
It should never be a "well don't take pictures", because people can do what they want with their own person. It should never be a "well don't upload them", because the phone does it AUTOMATICALLY and it's not obvious that it's doing it when you pick up your phone.
The iCloud service needed to be more secure (Apple haven't been doing so well on that front with their SSL Epic Fail, etc), and people just need to not be dicks (like that will happen).
In a fit of "yeah I saw that coming", most of the people clamouring for more private pictures are the ones that also fight to protect their OWN privacy. Hypocrisy rules.
Just to clear something up, apple has confirmed their security wasn't the issue. Somehow the hackers figured out/obtained the passwords and or security questions. Updated the OP:
We wanted to provide an update to our investigation into the theft of photos of certain celebrities. When we learned of the theft, we were outraged and immediately mobilized Apple's engineers to discover the source. Our customers' privacy and security are of utmost importance to us. After more than 40 hours of investigation, we have discovered that certain celebrity accounts were compromised by a very targeted attack on user names, passwords and security questions, a practice that has become all too common on the Internet. None of the cases we have investigated has resulted from any breach in any of Apple's systems including iCloud® or Find my iPhone. We are continuing to work with law enforcement to help identify the criminals involved. To protect against this type of attack, we advise all users to always use a stong password and enable two-step verification. Both of these are addressed on our website at http://support.apple.com/kb/ht4232.
|
On September 03 2014 18:30 UdderChaos wrote:
Just to clear something up, apple has confirmed their security wasn't the issue. Somehow the hackers figured out/obtained the passwords and or security questions.
Well, admitting their security being the issue few days before revealing new iPhone would be a pretty bad idea, we'll never know but I won't blindly accept what they say
|
On September 03 2014 18:30 UdderChaos wrote:
Just to clear something up, apple has confirmed their security wasn't the issue. Somehow the hackers figured out/obtained the passwords and or security questions. Updated the OP:
The verb you're looking for is claimed.
|
On September 03 2014 18:30 UdderChaos wrote:Just to clear something up, apple has confirmed their security wasn't the issue. Somehow the hackers figured out/obtained the passwords and or security questions. Updated the OP: Show nested quote +We wanted to provide an update to our investigation into the theft of photos of certain celebrities. When we learned of the theft, we were outraged and immediately mobilized Apple's engineers to discover the source. Our customers' privacy and security are of utmost importance to us. After more than 40 hours of investigation, we have discovered that certain celebrity accounts were compromised by a very targeted attack on user names, passwords and security questions, a practice that has become all too common on the Internet. None of the cases we have investigated has resulted from any breach in any of Apple's systems including iCloud® or Find my iPhone. We are continuing to work with law enforcement to help identify the criminals involved. To protect against this type of attack, we advise all users to always use a stong password and enable two-step verification. Both of these are addressed on our website at http://support.apple.com/kb/ht4232.
hehehe
|
On September 03 2014 19:02 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2014 18:30 UdderChaos wrote:
Just to clear something up, apple has confirmed their security wasn't the issue. Somehow the hackers figured out/obtained the passwords and or security questions. Updated the OP:
The verb you're looking for is claimed.
So if Apple actually admitted a security flaw you wouldn't be ok with the use of 'confirmed' either? Look at the apple article they refer you to about password, says right there they consider a 'strong' password to contain at least one capital letter, number, no repeating characters, and not your username. The fact it doesn't even mention using a symbol but would be considered a 'strong' password in my opinion is a statement about how little Apple feels its userbase understands about security. It is certainly plausible many of these celebs used easy passwords.
If this article that was linked off the zdnet article earlier in the blog is any indication, this seemed pretty easy using google to get some personal info and some software already available: http://blog.crackpassword.com/2013/02/norwegian-teenagers-hacking-icloud-accounts/
Also haven't seen anything providing details regarding how long it took the hacker to obtain the information. They could have been obtaining credentials for months as people generally don't change their pw often, then grab everything at once. Obviously it raised the alarms but they probably got away with more data then picking people off one by one.
|
On September 03 2014 20:28 Battleaxe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2014 19:02 hypercube wrote:On September 03 2014 18:30 UdderChaos wrote:
Just to clear something up, apple has confirmed their security wasn't the issue. Somehow the hackers figured out/obtained the passwords and or security questions. Updated the OP:
The verb you're looking for is claimed. So if Apple actually admitted a security flaw you wouldn't be ok with the use of 'confirmed' either? Look at the apple article they refer you to about password, says right there they consider a 'strong' password to contain at least one capital letter, number, no repeating characters, and not your username. The fact it doesn't even mention using a symbol but would be considered a 'strong' password in my opinion is a statement about how little Apple feels its userbase understands about security. It is certainly plausible many of these celebs used easy passwords.
That's because one of the answers is convenient for Apple and the other isn't, so it makes sense to be cautious about one more than the other. The rest of what you said also makes sense, of course.
|
|
|
On September 02 2014 20:35 UdderChaos wrote:
There is no doubt that the hacker who did this is a sick fuck quite frankly.
hahahahaha.
not really.
|
On September 03 2014 23:29 krndandaman wrote:
I was just surprised so many people have nude photos of themselves, especially celebrities who definitely have a higher chance of getting such pictures leaked.
Am I the weird one for not having nudes of myself? lol
#LeakForJLaw
|
On September 03 2014 20:28 Battleaxe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2014 19:02 hypercube wrote:On September 03 2014 18:30 UdderChaos wrote:
Just to clear something up, apple has confirmed their security wasn't the issue. Somehow the hackers figured out/obtained the passwords and or security questions. Updated the OP:
The verb you're looking for is claimed. So if Apple actually admitted a security flaw you wouldn't be ok with the use of 'confirmed' either? Look at the apple article they refer you to about password, says right there they consider a 'strong' password to contain at least one capital letter, number, no repeating characters, and not your username. The fact it doesn't even mention using a symbol but would be considered a 'strong' password in my opinion is a statement about how little Apple feels its userbase understands about security. It is certainly plausible many of these celebs used easy passwords. If this article that was linked off the zdnet article earlier in the blog is any indication, this seemed pretty easy using google to get some personal info and some software already available: http://blog.crackpassword.com/2013/02/norwegian-teenagers-hacking-icloud-accounts/Also haven't seen anything providing details regarding how long it took the hacker to obtain the information. They could have been obtaining credentials for months as people generally don't change their pw often, then grab everything at once. Obviously it raised the alarms but they probably got away with more data then picking people off one by one.
According to some 4chan threads thats exactly what happened. The hacker(s) claims that they/he/she have many, many, more photos of other celebrities that they have not yet released.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On September 03 2014 14:06 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2014 13:14 BigFan wrote:
I can't believe some people seem to be downplaying what happened. I don't really care if they get paid to pose whatever. The fact remains that these pictures were meant to be private and they got leaked by hackers. That's nothing short of an invasion of privacy and need for discipline. Let's put it this way: people are free to take whatever pictures they want even if its nude ones. It's true that they should be more cautious considering their status but just because they have a certain line of work doesn't mean that leaking nude photos of them is fine! I considered it worse that they leaked pictures of people that are acting. Since it might constitute a loss of income in future contracts.
well, that too of course but it's all the people that seem to think what happened isn't a big deal because of the line of work these people are in. I'm not saying it compares to other heinous acts but it's a huge invasion of privacy and I hope they find the culprit, punish him as well as find the source of the leak and fix it.
|
On September 02 2014 21:27 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Imagine that you have a box under your bed with a lock on it, but every single lock pick in the world can attempt to break that lock, no matter where they live. And they can try as many times as they want to, until they get it right. That is what a "private" computer connected to the web is.
|
The sheer amount of hypocrisy that surrounds this whole ordeal is absolutely INSANE. You have all these news sources all up in arms about the leak of nudie pics and a bunch of people taking various philosophical and utopian and sometimes just contrary positions with these little bullshit moralizing stances that serve no purpose but people like to look down upon others, since they're so much better than the rest of us.
I could go on and on about the various little groups that have formed up against this, from the feminists who are using this to declare that they're still under attack to fucking Vice who are declaring that this represents a new kind of perverts. Yeah, leaked nudies are fucking new, apparently.
But by far the biggest hypocrites and funnily enough the people who have generated opinions for most of you to borrow and treat as your own opinions are the god damn media themselves. Every single outlet is now babbling about how the privacy of these poor little helpless, precious little flowers has been infringed upon, when the entire subculture (or more realistically, the entire culture) promoting obsession over these celebrities is generated by those news channels. The same people who pay heaps of money to get exclusive nip slips and cooch shots on famous women coming out of cars are the people who are now telling me that my curiosity makes me a bad person at best, and some form of rapist at worst (like holy shit...). Yet I never paid tens of thousands of dollars to get the rights to publish Britney Spear's vagina to the entire world.
The Huffington Post is perhaps the funniest example of a massive double standard that some brands of feminist don't seem to concern themselves with. They've posted a shitload of articles about "The Fappening" bringing immense and generalized awareness to the existence of the photos, declaring that the people who are responsible for them are essentially subhuman monsters. And yet what happens when men's pics are leaked, you think?
Anthony Weiner's pics. PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS!!!! They destroyed the man because it's fun to do and it generates views. I saw this man's bulge on my screen though I never asked for it. I never saw Jlaw's leaked pics on any news website though.
What did the Huffington Post do when Greg Oden's naked pictures surged? They didn't just report about it, they had a POLL for the readers to pass judgement on Greg's big black dick. And one of the options in the poll allowed THP's very refined and non-sexist readers to suggest that Greg should "pursue a different line of work", suggesting that this black dude should put his dick to work instead of playing basketball.
What if THP wrote an article judging JLaw tits, asking the readers "are those tits just alright or should she leave acting and do porn?". Would that be okay? Would suggesting that JLaw redirect her career toward something more tits-orientated qualify as good fun and a funny joke?
As for the "blaming the victim" thing, people ought to be cautious because no matter what, there are people to get you. It's unavoidable and it's true for all facets of life, people are fucking dicks and I hope that Jennifer Lawrence and the other people who were hit by this will be fine. That's not blaming the victim, it's being realistic. There are things to say about shitty services and bad security on websites, and weird systems that don't let you delete your pictures. There are things to say about society and how we can try to prevent people from being shitty. But let's be real, in today's world, you can't get around it, your privacy is something that you actively need to protect because of the new technologies. It's the new way of things. We can imagine an utopia wherein people are respectful to each other, and we can imagine riding fucking unicorns to Mars to have lunch with Duke Fucking Wayne. Good day.
|
On September 05 2014 00:05 vOdToasT wrote:Show nested quote +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?
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On September 05 2014 01:04 Djzapz wrote:
The sheer amount of hypocrisy that surrounds this whole ordeal is absolutely INSANE. You have all these news sources all up in arms about the leak of nudie pics and a bunch of people taking various philosophical and utopian and sometimes just contrary positions with these little bullshit moralizing stances that serve no purpose but people like to look down upon others, since they're so much better than the rest of us.
I could go on and on about the various little groups that have formed up against this, from the feminists who are using this to declare that they're still under attack to fucking Vice who are declaring that this represents a new kind of perverts. Yeah, leaked nudies are fucking new, apparently.
But by far the biggest hypocrites and funnily enough the people who have generated opinions for most of you to borrow and treat as your own opinions are the god damn media themselves. Every single outlet is now babbling about how the privacy of these poor little helpless, precious little flowers has been infringed upon, when the entire subculture (or more realistically, the entire culture) promoting obsession over these celebrities is generated by those news channels. The same people who pay heaps of money to get exclusive nip slips and cooch shots on famous women coming out of cars are the people who are now telling me that my curiosity, makes me a bad person at best, and some form of rapist at worst (like holy shit...). Yet I never paid tens of thousands of dollars to get the rights to publish Britney Spear's vagina to the entire world.
The Huffington Post is perhaps the funniest example of a massive double standard that some brands of feminist don't seem to concern themselves with. They've posted a shitload of articles about "The Fappening" bringing immense and generalized awareness to the existence of the photos, declaring that the people who are responsible for them are essentially subhuman monsters. And yet what happens when men's pics are leaked, you think?
Anthony Weiner's pics. PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS!!!! They destroyed the man because it's fun to do and it generates views. I saw this man's bulge on my screen though I never asked for it. I never saw Jlaw's leaked pics on any news website though.
What did the Huffington Post do when Greg Oden's naked pictures surged? They didn't just report about it, they had a POLL for the readers to pass judgement on Greg's big black dick. And one of the options in the poll allowed THP's very refined and non-sexist readers to suggest that Greg should "pursue a different line of work", suggesting that this black dude should put his dick to work instead of playing basketball.
What if THP wrote an article judging JLaw tits, asking the readers "are those tits just alright or should she leave acting and do porn?". Would that be okay? Would suggesting that JLaw redirect her career toward something more tits-orientated qualify as good fun and a funny joke?
As for the "blaming the victim" thing, people ought to be cautious because no matter what, there are people to get you. It's unavoidable and it's true for all facets of life, people are fucking dicks and I hope that Jennifer Lawrence and the other people who were hit by this will be fine. That's not blaming the victim, it's being realistic. There are things to say about shitty services and bad security on websites, and weird systems that don't let you delete your pictures. There are things to say about society and how we can try to prevent people from being shitty. But let's be real, in today's world, you can't get around it, your privacy is something that you actively need to protect because of the new technologies. It's the new way of things. We can imagine an utopia wherein people are respectful to each other, and we can imagine riding fucking unicorns to Mars to have lunch with Duke Fucking Wayne. Good day.
Quite a strong opinion lol not that I disagree with what you wrote. I missed those other leaks of Greg and Anthony so I never saw the pictures or polls etc... but if what you say is true, yes, it is ridiculous that there is a double standard in regards to this stuff. Had a good laugh at bolded part lol.
|
So there are two directions in your post, Djzapz. They're a bit contradictory. You're attacking them for not doing the same thing when men are concerned, and for me that's a fair point. At the same time you paint them as annoying and whiny, suggesting very clearly that you don't like what they're doing now. So, that means you want them to annoy you when men are concerned as well?
Either you want them to react the same on the other issues, or you attack them for their reaction on this one. If you do both, there's a problem.
|
On September 05 2014 02:16 Nebuchad wrote:
So there are two directions in your post, Djzapz. They're a bit contradictory. You're attacking them for not doing the same thing when men are concerned, and for me that's a fair point. At the same time you paint them as annoying and whiny, suggesting very clearly that you don't like what they're doing now. So, that means you want them to annoy you when men are concerned as well?
Either you want them to react the same on the other issues, or you attack them for their reaction on this one. If you do both, there's a problem.
My post
1- Medias have a double standard in that men pics leaking are fine but women pics leaking are horrible
2- Medias are fine with their own invasion of privacy on celebrities, which makes them hypocrites
The only reason why I paint the media as annoying and whiny is because they themselves participate to the problem on a MASSIVE scale. How can the media bitch and moan about how horrible this "4 CHAN PERSON" is (great journalism btw) when they themselves are guilty of propagating this culture of breaking into the lives of celebrities, and they themselves publish photographs which infringe on the private lives of those celebrities. If the media came to the defense of EVERYONE who had leaked pics (men and women) and if they themselves didn't provide the public with pictures which invade the privacy of people, then I would think the medias are participating to making society a little bit better. But instead they're just being hypocrites, consoling Jlaw and defending her honor, while fondling her ass ever so gently.
|
You can add a third hypocrisy. We're supposed to not have any contact with these pics now, "out of principle"... How come there was no problem using Sterling's words against him once they were leaked by his gf? If I want to get the pics, they're in public space now, I'm not doing anything wrong.
Granted all this, there's still no reason to paint their reaction now as annoying and whiny, unless you think that they are. In my mind at least, it weakens your criticism.
|
On September 05 2014 03:03 Nebuchad wrote:
You can add a third hypocrisy. We're supposed to not have any contact with these pics now, "out of principle"... How come there was no problem using Sterling's words against him once they were leaked by his gf? If I want to get the pics, they're in public space now, I'm not doing anything wrong.
Granted all this, there's still no reason to paint their reaction now as annoying and whiny, unless you think that they are. In my mind at least, it weakens your criticism.
They're only annoying and whiny because they're hypocrites. My point is that if they were innocent themselves and posted these articles condemning the people who leaked the pictures, I wouldn't have any problem with it.
|
On September 05 2014 01:04 Djzapz wrote:
The sheer amount of hypocrisy that surrounds this whole ordeal is absolutely INSANE. You have all these news sources all up in arms about the leak of nudie pics and a bunch of people taking various philosophical and utopian and sometimes just contrary positions with these little bullshit moralizing stances that serve no purpose but people like to look down upon others, since they're so much better than the rest of us.
I could go on and on about the various little groups that have formed up against this, from the feminists who are using this to declare that they're still under attack to fucking Vice who are declaring that this represents a new kind of perverts. Yeah, leaked nudies are fucking new, apparently.
But by far the biggest hypocrites and funnily enough the people who have generated opinions for most of you to borrow and treat as your own opinions are the god damn media themselves. Every single outlet is now babbling about how the privacy of these poor little helpless, precious little flowers has been infringed upon, when the entire subculture (or more realistically, the entire culture) promoting obsession over these celebrities is generated by those news channels. The same people who pay heaps of money to get exclusive nip slips and cooch shots on famous women coming out of cars are the people who are now telling me that my curiosity makes me a bad person at best, and some form of rapist at worst (like holy shit...). Yet I never paid tens of thousands of dollars to get the rights to publish Britney Spear's vagina to the entire world.
The Huffington Post is perhaps the funniest example of a massive double standard that some brands of feminist don't seem to concern themselves with. They've posted a shitload of articles about "The Fappening" bringing immense and generalized awareness to the existence of the photos, declaring that the people who are responsible for them are essentially subhuman monsters. And yet what happens when men's pics are leaked, you think?
Anthony Weiner's pics. PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS!!!! They destroyed the man because it's fun to do and it generates views. I saw this man's bulge on my screen though I never asked for it. I never saw Jlaw's leaked pics on any news website though.
What did the Huffington Post do when Greg Oden's naked pictures surged? They didn't just report about it, they had a POLL for the readers to pass judgement on Greg's big black dick. And one of the options in the poll allowed THP's very refined and non-sexist readers to suggest that Greg should "pursue a different line of work", suggesting that this black dude should put his dick to work instead of playing basketball.
What if THP wrote an article judging JLaw tits, asking the readers "are those tits just alright or should she leave acting and do porn?". Would that be okay? Would suggesting that JLaw redirect her career toward something more tits-orientated qualify as good fun and a funny joke?
As for the "blaming the victim" thing, people ought to be cautious because no matter what, there are people to get you. It's unavoidable and it's true for all facets of life, people are fucking dicks and I hope that Jennifer Lawrence and the other people who were hit by this will be fine. That's not blaming the victim, it's being realistic. There are things to say about shitty services and bad security on websites, and weird systems that don't let you delete your pictures. There are things to say about society and how we can try to prevent people from being shitty. But let's be real, in today's world, you can't get around it, your privacy is something that you actively need to protect because of the new technologies. It's the new way of things. We can imagine an utopia wherein people are respectful to each other, and we can imagine riding fucking unicorns to Mars to have lunch with Duke Fucking Wayne. Good day.
Good on you to rant about THP but I don't think that's really noteworthy. Anyone with half a brain can tell that HuffPost is garbage.
|
On September 05 2014 03:58 xes wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 01:04 Djzapz wrote:
The sheer amount of hypocrisy that surrounds this whole ordeal is absolutely INSANE. You have all these news sources all up in arms about the leak of nudie pics and a bunch of people taking various philosophical and utopian and sometimes just contrary positions with these little bullshit moralizing stances that serve no purpose but people like to look down upon others, since they're so much better than the rest of us.
I could go on and on about the various little groups that have formed up against this, from the feminists who are using this to declare that they're still under attack to fucking Vice who are declaring that this represents a new kind of perverts. Yeah, leaked nudies are fucking new, apparently.
But by far the biggest hypocrites and funnily enough the people who have generated opinions for most of you to borrow and treat as your own opinions are the god damn media themselves. Every single outlet is now babbling about how the privacy of these poor little helpless, precious little flowers has been infringed upon, when the entire subculture (or more realistically, the entire culture) promoting obsession over these celebrities is generated by those news channels. The same people who pay heaps of money to get exclusive nip slips and cooch shots on famous women coming out of cars are the people who are now telling me that my curiosity makes me a bad person at best, and some form of rapist at worst (like holy shit...). Yet I never paid tens of thousands of dollars to get the rights to publish Britney Spear's vagina to the entire world.
The Huffington Post is perhaps the funniest example of a massive double standard that some brands of feminist don't seem to concern themselves with. They've posted a shitload of articles about "The Fappening" bringing immense and generalized awareness to the existence of the photos, declaring that the people who are responsible for them are essentially subhuman monsters. And yet what happens when men's pics are leaked, you think?
Anthony Weiner's pics. PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS!!!! They destroyed the man because it's fun to do and it generates views. I saw this man's bulge on my screen though I never asked for it. I never saw Jlaw's leaked pics on any news website though.
What did the Huffington Post do when Greg Oden's naked pictures surged? They didn't just report about it, they had a POLL for the readers to pass judgement on Greg's big black dick. And one of the options in the poll allowed THP's very refined and non-sexist readers to suggest that Greg should "pursue a different line of work", suggesting that this black dude should put his dick to work instead of playing basketball.
What if THP wrote an article judging JLaw tits, asking the readers "are those tits just alright or should she leave acting and do porn?". Would that be okay? Would suggesting that JLaw redirect her career toward something more tits-orientated qualify as good fun and a funny joke?
As for the "blaming the victim" thing, people ought to be cautious because no matter what, there are people to get you. It's unavoidable and it's true for all facets of life, people are fucking dicks and I hope that Jennifer Lawrence and the other people who were hit by this will be fine. That's not blaming the victim, it's being realistic. There are things to say about shitty services and bad security on websites, and weird systems that don't let you delete your pictures. There are things to say about society and how we can try to prevent people from being shitty. But let's be real, in today's world, you can't get around it, your privacy is something that you actively need to protect because of the new technologies. It's the new way of things. We can imagine an utopia wherein people are respectful to each other, and we can imagine riding fucking unicorns to Mars to have lunch with Duke Fucking Wayne. Good day. Good on you to rant about THP but I don't think that's really noteworthy. Anyone with half a brain can tell that HuffPost is garbage.
THP is far from the only news outlet to do that shit. They all do it to a certain extent, some are worse than others. The Sun and tabloids do it, the BBC does it from time to time. Some news outlets don't do it very much if at all but they're few and far between. I only happened to pick THP because I had examples on hand.
Example of what I posted earlier:
http://imgur.com/gallery/CQ5qgvu
Now it doesn't matter that Gawker/Jezebel are complete filth, the point is that if they reversed them, the outcry would be so massive that Gawker would be run into the ground.
|
On September 05 2014 01:54 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On September 05 2014 05:12 vOdToasT wrote:Show nested quote +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"
|
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...
|
On September 05 2014 20:53 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 17:36 UdderChaos wrote: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.
Kind of what Chef said. I'm worried by your comments to be honest. It seems you only have a concept of singular blame in this, and that the waving the cash in the air person deserved to get robbed, this is not true. They didn't deserve to have something bad happen to him for being careless, you are in fact victim blaming in the true sense there.
The blame of the crime is on the perpetrator solely. The criticism of lack of caution is on the victim solely. They are different things. In the same way if you don't wear your seat belt and your brakes fail because of some freak reason no one is to blame. But you are a fool for not wearing the seat belt. You not wearing the seat belt didn't make the brakes fail, or make you in any any responsible. The two can be mutually exclusive.
|
You're mixing up some things. First, legal blame always falls upon the perpetrator of the crime, that won't change no matter how you think about it. This is about your perception of the blame.
"In both situations it is really hard to argue a person isn't tempting fate"
No, it isn't. It's very easy for me to argue that the expectation of the person who got drunk was to get drunk, not to get raped. It's very easy for me to argue that the expectation of the person who was dressed in a sexy outfit was to look sexy (or even to have sex), not to get raped. You will find studies that tell you wearing sexy outfits doesn't increase your chances of getting raped, in fact it might actually decrease it.
I don't have the same ease explaining what the expectation of the person who waved his cash in front of robbers was. I'm not finding a ton of studies about that.
|
On September 05 2014 20:53 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2014 17:36 UdderChaos wrote: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.
To say things like "male or female shouldnt drink heavily around people they dont know that well" isnt victim blaming, its simply common sense. You wouldnt "wave cash in someones face" just as you shouldnt throw caution the wind in situations that are shady. Its a unfortunate event when people dont follow common sense, which doesnt detract from the horrible experience or say the perpetrator shouldnt be punished. But rather there are certain things in life that you must do to reduce the chance things like this happen.
The fact remains all of this sucks but there are proper precautions people can take to reduce the chance they get burned for "playing with fire". Id liken it to someone not wearing their seat belt and getting into a car wreck caused by someone else and you sustain an injury. Does the other person deserve to be punished according to the law? Absolutely, regardless you still have to deal with your own decision of not wearing the seat belt originally.
Should people be allowed to take nudes? Sure, should they be allowed to share them with who they want? Sure. But that doesnt mean people cant call others on their lack of precuation.
Honestly between this and the zoe sarkhessian shit going on, im pretty sick of femninists. As someone else said, if a publication published the photos people wouldnt be as big a shit storm now. But because they didnt the magazines need to "condemn" the invasion of privacy. Yet they didnt respect robin williams privacy when he died, TMZ is notorius for invading celebs privacy, but apparently thats okay because they have benefits and a salary. But this 4chan person is the scum of the earth. Lolol
|
LPT: if you are gonna do noodz, edit in/out random moles or tattoos. Also make sure any identifying marks and your face are out. Also make sure your clothes and background aren't identifiable.
Then you get all the publicity and all the deniability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
