|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 05 2017 23:38 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 23:33 Nebuchad wrote:On July 05 2017 23:29 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:20 Ghostcom wrote:
How is his name in any shape or form newsworthy?
EDIT: As in: What does it add to the (non-)story of Trump retweeting a gif of him beating up a poorly shopped CNN-logo?
EDIT2: Also why didn't they simply write "The man who wishes to remain anonymous but is known as >insert handle< had this to say when CNN reached him for comment: >insert comment<. The man's identity is known to CNN" as is the standard phrasing in cases such as these. By making a story entirely about him they're making him the story. If they release his name now he'll be a target and their readers who agree with them will attack them. They're effectively holding him hostage to prevent him from expressing his views. It doesn't matter how horrendous his views are they're still his protected views that they're threatening. I wouldn't be surprised if someone could make a half baked first amendment violation argument out of this. Is there really no part of you that is bothered by the notion that you argue someone is prevented from expressing their views by the fact that their name will be associated to them? There's this thing called "real life", when you go there and you speak, people can associate your name to the things you say. We should really do something about that cause that really prevents a bunch of people from expressing their views. Its about protecting unpopular speech. Its not okay with an organization is going after people for expressing their protected right to free speech. A news organization doing this is only inviting people to go after other people because of what they belive. It can't matter morally what they believe be it its all the same.
I agree. Luckily nothing you've just said has relevance in this particular situation, and as such the fact that you are correct doesn't really impact it. I find it really concerning that you think this framing is the correct one for this situation.
|
On July 05 2017 23:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 23:40 farvacola wrote:
People go after one another for what they believe all over the internet, all the time, and folks have very little expectation of privacy in their public identity as constituted by public statements. CNN sucks and shouldn't have done this given its size and influence, but some of you just need to add some more salt in order for the pretzel to finish baking. Actually, this isn't really true when it comes to anonymous online statements. If you look at cases that concern online defamation -- particularly reviews posted on things like Yelp or Glassdoor -- courts are affording quite a bit of an expectation of privacy to the posters. For this reason, it's damned near impossible to use the judicial process to remove an online review.
Reviews on Yelp and Glassdoor are easily distinguishable from Tweets, particularly those posted with indicia of intent with regards to public disclosure. Reviews of products have a closer tie with anonymity than more freeform media like Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook. That said, I don't specifically know the extent to which this dumbass took steps to insulate his personal identity from his online one, but still, this isn't a good test case for anything aside from CNN being run by idiots and the US having its share of vaguely anti-semitic fools.
|
On July 05 2017 23:42 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 23:41 Plansix wrote:On July 05 2017 23:38 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:33 Nebuchad wrote:On July 05 2017 23:29 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:20 Ghostcom wrote:
How is his name in any shape or form newsworthy?
EDIT: As in: What does it add to the (non-)story of Trump retweeting a gif of him beating up a poorly shopped CNN-logo?
EDIT2: Also why didn't they simply write "The man who wishes to remain anonymous but is known as >insert handle< had this to say when CNN reached him for comment: >insert comment<. The man's identity is known to CNN" as is the standard phrasing in cases such as these. By making a story entirely about him they're making him the story. If they release his name now he'll be a target and their readers who agree with them will attack them. They're effectively holding him hostage to prevent him from expressing his views. It doesn't matter how horrendous his views are they're still his protected views that they're threatening. I wouldn't be surprised if someone could make a half baked first amendment violation argument out of this. Is there really no part of you that is bothered by the notion that you argue someone is prevented from expressing their views by the fact that their name will be associated to them? There's this thing called "real life", when you go there and you speak, people can associate your name to the things you say. We should really do something about that cause that really prevents a bunch of people from expressing their views. Its about protecting unpopular speech. Its not okay with an organization is going after people for expressing their protected right to free speech. A news organization doing this is only inviting people to go after other people because of what they belive. It can't matter morally what they believe be it its all the same. He is free to express himself. He just can’t do so without using his name. So now he is exactly like every single CNN reporter. Except for such petty things as "reach", and "influence", and "defining the media cycle".
The reporters for CNN did put a lot more time and effort into that part. But this guy reached millions with the help of the president. He was freely able to express his dislike of CNN and received the approval of one of the most powerful people in the world. And he was able to do it without signing his name because CNN agreed to let him keep his privacy.
|
On July 05 2017 23:44 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 23:38 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:33 Nebuchad wrote:On July 05 2017 23:29 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:20 Ghostcom wrote:
How is his name in any shape or form newsworthy?
EDIT: As in: What does it add to the (non-)story of Trump retweeting a gif of him beating up a poorly shopped CNN-logo?
EDIT2: Also why didn't they simply write "The man who wishes to remain anonymous but is known as >insert handle< had this to say when CNN reached him for comment: >insert comment<. The man's identity is known to CNN" as is the standard phrasing in cases such as these. By making a story entirely about him they're making him the story. If they release his name now he'll be a target and their readers who agree with them will attack them. They're effectively holding him hostage to prevent him from expressing his views. It doesn't matter how horrendous his views are they're still his protected views that they're threatening. I wouldn't be surprised if someone could make a half baked first amendment violation argument out of this. Is there really no part of you that is bothered by the notion that you argue someone is prevented from expressing their views by the fact that their name will be associated to them? There's this thing called "real life", when you go there and you speak, people can associate your name to the things you say. We should really do something about that cause that really prevents a bunch of people from expressing their views. Its about protecting unpopular speech. Its not okay with an organization is going after people for expressing their protected right to free speech. A news organization doing this is only inviting people to go after other people because of what they belive. It can't matter morally what they believe be it its all the same. I agree. Luckily nothing you've just said has relevance in this particular situation, and as such the fact that you are correct doesn't really impact it. I find it really concerning that you think this framing is the correct one for this situation.
I have no idea what world you live in where what I said has no relevance to this situation. We have a news organization who specifically went after someone and found their real life identity because he made a meme about them. They then found out that he had posted white supremacist and racist posts other then the meme but the meme specifically has none of those. They're now threatening him because of his other posts and the meme has nothing to do with the story anymore. The story is about a guy on the internet whos posted white supremacist and racist posts and they're going to release his name if he doesn't stop. Replace white supremacist and racist with BLM and feminist and you'd have a problem with it. Moraly you can't differentiate between them on something like this.
|
On July 05 2017 23:26 xDaunt wrote:Now here's a fascinating example of unintended consequences: Show nested quote +A dearth of marriagable men has left an “oversupply” of educated women taking desperate steps to preserve their fertility, experts say.
The first global study into egg freezing found that shortages of eligible men were the prime reason why women had attempted to take matters into their own hands.
Experts said “terrifying” demographic shifts had created a “deficit” of educated men and a growing problem of “leftover” professional women, with female graduates vastly outnumbering males in in many countries.
The study led by Yale University, involved interviews with 150 women undergoing egg freezing at eight clinics.
Researchers found that in more than 90 per cent of cases, the women were attempting to buy extra time because they could not find a partner to settle down with, amid a “dearth of educated men”.
Experts said the research bust the myth that “selfish career women” were choosing to out their fertility on ice in a bid to put their careers first.
They said sweeping social changes meant that many professional women now struggled to find a partner that felt like an equal match.
....
The anthropologist suggested some women might need to be prepared to compromise some of their standards in order to find love. But she suggested society should act to increase the number of men going into higher education.
“It may be about rethinking the way we approach this,” she said.
“Most women who are educated would like to have an educated partner. Traditionally women have also wanted to ‘marry up’ to go for someone more successful, financially well off.”
“Maybe women need to be prepared to be more open to the idea of a relationship with someone not as educated. But also may be we need to be doing something about our boys and young men, to get them off to a better start.”
Some women were paying a high price for feminism, she suggested.
“As a feminist I think it’s great that women are doing so well but I think there has been a cost that has been paid,” she said, warning that many had been left in “sadness and isolation”.
In some cases, the women taking part in the in-depth interviews said they would be happy to be in a relationship with someone less educated, but they felt they were “intimidating” to the men who were available. Source.
Unintended, but predictable. The role of both men and women is devalued by the systematic erasure of our differences. Rather than working hard to provide for his family a man now works hard to... allow his family to work hard too. It's sad just how hard women have been played. They had the opportunity to choose between career or home life. Now, because of the obsession with the 'gender pay gap' etc, women are ceaselessly pushed towards a career oriented life that for many of them will be less enjoyable than the alternative while simultaneously disadvantaging their children if they even have the energy to have any. Meanwhile, their 'sexual liberation' means that men have no incentive to marry, and no role in the partnership if they do. Obviously people should have the choice, but it would be welcome if we could stop with the bullshit about people being able to make whatever choices they want without facing any criticism. Keep feeding young people the lie that they can live their life without any discipline and face no consequences and they will keep believing it. A world where everything is devalued other than your career is a world where people are nothing but fodder for corporations.
|
On July 05 2017 23:44 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 23:38 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:33 Nebuchad wrote:On July 05 2017 23:29 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:20 Ghostcom wrote:
How is his name in any shape or form newsworthy?
EDIT: As in: What does it add to the (non-)story of Trump retweeting a gif of him beating up a poorly shopped CNN-logo?
EDIT2: Also why didn't they simply write "The man who wishes to remain anonymous but is known as >insert handle< had this to say when CNN reached him for comment: >insert comment<. The man's identity is known to CNN" as is the standard phrasing in cases such as these. By making a story entirely about him they're making him the story. If they release his name now he'll be a target and their readers who agree with them will attack them. They're effectively holding him hostage to prevent him from expressing his views. It doesn't matter how horrendous his views are they're still his protected views that they're threatening. I wouldn't be surprised if someone could make a half baked first amendment violation argument out of this. Is there really no part of you that is bothered by the notion that you argue someone is prevented from expressing their views by the fact that their name will be associated to them? There's this thing called "real life", when you go there and you speak, people can associate your name to the things you say. We should really do something about that cause that really prevents a bunch of people from expressing their views. Its about protecting unpopular speech. Its not okay with an organization is going after people for expressing their protected right to free speech. A news organization doing this is only inviting people to go after other people because of what they belive. It can't matter morally what they believe be it its all the same. I agree. Luckily nothing you've just said has relevance in this particular situation, and as such the fact that you are correct doesn't really impact it. I find it really concerning that you think this framing is the correct one for this situation.
Whenever someone says something, they do so in the context of the conversation. That is, if they have a reasonable expectation of remaining anonymous they aren't going to weight their words as carefully as when they give a state of the union speech. When you talk dirty in bed you don't expect you mother-in-law to hear you.
Comparing shitposting to "real life" conversations is really not appropriate. Unless you argue that we should also all be held accountable for what we say within the confines of our home - and if that is truly the case I have a couple of dystopian books to recommend you.
EDIT:
On July 05 2017 23:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 23:42 Ghostcom wrote:On July 05 2017 23:41 Plansix wrote:On July 05 2017 23:38 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:33 Nebuchad wrote:On July 05 2017 23:29 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:20 Ghostcom wrote:
How is his name in any shape or form newsworthy?
EDIT: As in: What does it add to the (non-)story of Trump retweeting a gif of him beating up a poorly shopped CNN-logo?
EDIT2: Also why didn't they simply write "The man who wishes to remain anonymous but is known as >insert handle< had this to say when CNN reached him for comment: >insert comment<. The man's identity is known to CNN" as is the standard phrasing in cases such as these. By making a story entirely about him they're making him the story. If they release his name now he'll be a target and their readers who agree with them will attack them. They're effectively holding him hostage to prevent him from expressing his views. It doesn't matter how horrendous his views are they're still his protected views that they're threatening. I wouldn't be surprised if someone could make a half baked first amendment violation argument out of this. Is there really no part of you that is bothered by the notion that you argue someone is prevented from expressing their views by the fact that their name will be associated to them? There's this thing called "real life", when you go there and you speak, people can associate your name to the things you say. We should really do something about that cause that really prevents a bunch of people from expressing their views. Its about protecting unpopular speech. Its not okay with an organization is going after people for expressing their protected right to free speech. A news organization doing this is only inviting people to go after other people because of what they belive. It can't matter morally what they believe be it its all the same. He is free to express himself. He just can’t do so without using his name. So now he is exactly like every single CNN reporter. Except for such petty things as "reach", and "influence", and "defining the media cycle". The reporters for CNN did put a lot more time and effort into that part. But this guy reached millions with the help of the president. He was freely able to express his dislike of CNN and received the approval of one of the most powerful people in the world. And he was able to do it without signing his name because CNN agreed to let him keep his privacy.
Yes he was able to reach a wide audience in this one instance. Without his consent or pre-approval. And in a completely different context than CNN journalists. To compare the situation of a CNN journalist and that of a random shitposter on the internet is completely detached from reality.
|
I am diametrically opposed to the idea that a large corporation, or that anyone, can tell me "I don't like how you portrayed me here in this image/review/whatever - apologize, and don't do it again or else I will post your personal information for a large portion of the world to see."
|
On July 05 2017 23:50 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 23:44 Nebuchad wrote:On July 05 2017 23:38 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:33 Nebuchad wrote:On July 05 2017 23:29 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:20 Ghostcom wrote:
How is his name in any shape or form newsworthy?
EDIT: As in: What does it add to the (non-)story of Trump retweeting a gif of him beating up a poorly shopped CNN-logo?
EDIT2: Also why didn't they simply write "The man who wishes to remain anonymous but is known as >insert handle< had this to say when CNN reached him for comment: >insert comment<. The man's identity is known to CNN" as is the standard phrasing in cases such as these. By making a story entirely about him they're making him the story. If they release his name now he'll be a target and their readers who agree with them will attack them. They're effectively holding him hostage to prevent him from expressing his views. It doesn't matter how horrendous his views are they're still his protected views that they're threatening. I wouldn't be surprised if someone could make a half baked first amendment violation argument out of this. Is there really no part of you that is bothered by the notion that you argue someone is prevented from expressing their views by the fact that their name will be associated to them? There's this thing called "real life", when you go there and you speak, people can associate your name to the things you say. We should really do something about that cause that really prevents a bunch of people from expressing their views. Its about protecting unpopular speech. Its not okay with an organization is going after people for expressing their protected right to free speech. A news organization doing this is only inviting people to go after other people because of what they belive. It can't matter morally what they believe be it its all the same. I agree. Luckily nothing you've just said has relevance in this particular situation, and as such the fact that you are correct doesn't really impact it. I find it really concerning that you think this framing is the correct one for this situation. I have no idea what world you live in where what I said has no relevance to this situation. We have a news organization who specifically went after someone and found their real life identity because he made a meme about them. T hey then found out that he had posted white supremacist and racist posts other then the meme but the meme specifically has none of those. They're now threatening him because of his other posts and the meme has nothing to do with the story anymore. The story is about a guy on the internet whos posted white supremacist and racist posts and they're going to release his name if he doesn't stop. Replace white supremacist and racist with BLM and feminist and you'd have a problem with it. Moraly you can't differentiate between them on something like this.
I question if you read the story. CNN did not find that information, it was found by the internet in general after the creator took credit for the meme publically. CNN then figured out who it was based on his reddit posts and personal information within those posts. They contacted him, he did not answer and he then purged his account. After that, CNN spoke with him and they agreed to withhold his name. There is no evidence they threatened him.
On July 05 2017 23:54 JinDesu wrote:
I am diametrically opposed to the idea that a large corporation, or that anyone, can tell me "I don't like how you portrayed me here in this image/review/whatever - apologize, and don't do it again or else I will post your personal information for a large portion of the world to see."
In this case, they did not do it. If you speak up against powerful groups, news media or otherwise, there is a chance you will end up in the spotlight. That why people say it is brave to “speaking truth to power”.
|
On July 05 2017 23:50 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 23:44 Nebuchad wrote:On July 05 2017 23:38 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:33 Nebuchad wrote:On July 05 2017 23:29 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:20 Ghostcom wrote:
How is his name in any shape or form newsworthy?
EDIT: As in: What does it add to the (non-)story of Trump retweeting a gif of him beating up a poorly shopped CNN-logo?
EDIT2: Also why didn't they simply write "The man who wishes to remain anonymous but is known as >insert handle< had this to say when CNN reached him for comment: >insert comment<. The man's identity is known to CNN" as is the standard phrasing in cases such as these. By making a story entirely about him they're making him the story. If they release his name now he'll be a target and their readers who agree with them will attack them. They're effectively holding him hostage to prevent him from expressing his views. It doesn't matter how horrendous his views are they're still his protected views that they're threatening. I wouldn't be surprised if someone could make a half baked first amendment violation argument out of this. Is there really no part of you that is bothered by the notion that you argue someone is prevented from expressing their views by the fact that their name will be associated to them? There's this thing called "real life", when you go there and you speak, people can associate your name to the things you say. We should really do something about that cause that really prevents a bunch of people from expressing their views. Its about protecting unpopular speech. Its not okay with an organization is going after people for expressing their protected right to free speech. A news organization doing this is only inviting people to go after other people because of what they belive. It can't matter morally what they believe be it its all the same. I agree. Luckily nothing you've just said has relevance in this particular situation, and as such the fact that you are correct doesn't really impact it. I find it really concerning that you think this framing is the correct one for this situation. I have no idea what world you live in where what I said has no relevance to this situation. We have a news organization who specifically went after someone and found their real life identity because he made a meme about them. They then found out that he had posted white supremacist and racist posts other then the meme but the meme specifically has none of those. They're now threatening him because of his other posts and the meme has nothing to do with the story anymore. The story is about a guy on the internet whos posted white supremacist and racist posts and they're going to release his name if he doesn't stop. Replace white supremacist and racist with BLM and feminist and you'd have a problem with it. Moraly you can't differentiate between them on something like this.
The guy is in the news because Trump retweeted him, not because he was mean to the news. You know that so I'm not sure why you even took the time to be dishonest there. Nothing you say here is connected to freedom of speech, which is why it has no relevance to freedom of speech and why I recommend you don't act like it does. Again, if you think your freedom of speech is impacted by people knowing you're the one speaking, you really need to do something about this thing called "real life", cause people tend to know who you are when you speak there.
|
On July 05 2017 23:51 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 23:26 xDaunt wrote:Now here's a fascinating example of unintended consequences: A dearth of marriagable men has left an “oversupply” of educated women taking desperate steps to preserve their fertility, experts say.
The first global study into egg freezing found that shortages of eligible men were the prime reason why women had attempted to take matters into their own hands.
Experts said “terrifying” demographic shifts had created a “deficit” of educated men and a growing problem of “leftover” professional women, with female graduates vastly outnumbering males in in many countries.
The study led by Yale University, involved interviews with 150 women undergoing egg freezing at eight clinics.
Researchers found that in more than 90 per cent of cases, the women were attempting to buy extra time because they could not find a partner to settle down with, amid a “dearth of educated men”.
Experts said the research bust the myth that “selfish career women” were choosing to out their fertility on ice in a bid to put their careers first.
They said sweeping social changes meant that many professional women now struggled to find a partner that felt like an equal match.
....
The anthropologist suggested some women might need to be prepared to compromise some of their standards in order to find love. But she suggested society should act to increase the number of men going into higher education.
“It may be about rethinking the way we approach this,” she said.
“Most women who are educated would like to have an educated partner. Traditionally women have also wanted to ‘marry up’ to go for someone more successful, financially well off.”
“Maybe women need to be prepared to be more open to the idea of a relationship with someone not as educated. But also may be we need to be doing something about our boys and young men, to get them off to a better start.”
Some women were paying a high price for feminism, she suggested.
“As a feminist I think it’s great that women are doing so well but I think there has been a cost that has been paid,” she said, warning that many had been left in “sadness and isolation”.
In some cases, the women taking part in the in-depth interviews said they would be happy to be in a relationship with someone less educated, but they felt they were “intimidating” to the men who were available. Source. Unintended, but predictable. The role of both men and women is devalued by the systematic erasure of our differences. Rather than working hard to provide for his family a man now works hard to... allow his family to work hard too. It's sad just how hard women have been played. They had the opportunity to choose between career or home life. Now, because of the obsession with the 'gender pay gap' etc, women are ceaselessly pushed towards a career oriented life that for many of them will be less enjoyable than the alternative while simultaneously disadvantaging their children if they even have the energy to have any. Meanwhile, their 'sexual liberation' means that men have no incentive to marry, and no role in the partnership if they do. Obviously people should have the choice, but it would be welcome if we could stop with the bullshit about people being able to make whatever choices they want without facing any criticism. Keep feeding young people the lie that they can live their life without any discipline and face no consequences and they will keep believing it.
What? The quote specifically mentions that what your saying is not true.
Its not about women being pushed to have a career instead of a family live but about the fact that women tend to marry up which leads 'career women' to have less choice in life partners.
|
On July 05 2017 23:26 xDaunt wrote:Now here's a fascinating example of unintended consequences: Show nested quote +A dearth of marriagable men has left an “oversupply” of educated women taking desperate steps to preserve their fertility, experts say.
The first global study into egg freezing found that shortages of eligible men were the prime reason why women had attempted to take matters into their own hands.
Experts said “terrifying” demographic shifts had created a “deficit” of educated men and a growing problem of “leftover” professional women, with female graduates vastly outnumbering males in in many countries.
The study led by Yale University, involved interviews with 150 women undergoing egg freezing at eight clinics.
Researchers found that in more than 90 per cent of cases, the women were attempting to buy extra time because they could not find a partner to settle down with, amid a “dearth of educated men”.
Experts said the research bust the myth that “selfish career women” were choosing to out their fertility on ice in a bid to put their careers first.
They said sweeping social changes meant that many professional women now struggled to find a partner that felt like an equal match.
....
The anthropologist suggested some women might need to be prepared to compromise some of their standards in order to find love. But she suggested society should act to increase the number of men going into higher education.
“It may be about rethinking the way we approach this,” she said.
“Most women who are educated would like to have an educated partner. Traditionally women have also wanted to ‘marry up’ to go for someone more successful, financially well off.”
“Maybe women need to be prepared to be more open to the idea of a relationship with someone not as educated. But also may be we need to be doing something about our boys and young men, to get them off to a better start.”
Some women were paying a high price for feminism, she suggested.
“As a feminist I think it’s great that women are doing so well but I think there has been a cost that has been paid,” she said, warning that many had been left in “sadness and isolation”.
In some cases, the women taking part in the in-depth interviews said they would be happy to be in a relationship with someone less educated, but they felt they were “intimidating” to the men who were available. Source.
Pretty much. It's becoming more and more common that career motivated women hit their 30s and then look into seriously starting a family and... what do you know, most of the guys that are what they are looking for got snatched up ages ago by somebody with different priorities. So the closest thing they can usually find is a recent divorcee who might not be interested in jumping back into that situation as is, but also has the benefit of going younger more easily than her.
By being socially more equal than previously in history, they're forgoing some of the natural advantages of finding a mate that being the birther provides when picking a mate. It's a societal change that will take a while for views to correct for overall for things to balance out more. Then there's also the problem that while helping young girls that are having trouble, traditionally science and math, in school is viewed as something to be championed and fought for, little is done for males, specifically, in writing and reading because if you do you're "supporting the patriarchy".
|
On July 05 2017 23:54 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 23:44 Nebuchad wrote:On July 05 2017 23:38 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:33 Nebuchad wrote:On July 05 2017 23:29 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:20 Ghostcom wrote:
How is his name in any shape or form newsworthy?
EDIT: As in: What does it add to the (non-)story of Trump retweeting a gif of him beating up a poorly shopped CNN-logo?
EDIT2: Also why didn't they simply write "The man who wishes to remain anonymous but is known as >insert handle< had this to say when CNN reached him for comment: >insert comment<. The man's identity is known to CNN" as is the standard phrasing in cases such as these. By making a story entirely about him they're making him the story. If they release his name now he'll be a target and their readers who agree with them will attack them. They're effectively holding him hostage to prevent him from expressing his views. It doesn't matter how horrendous his views are they're still his protected views that they're threatening. I wouldn't be surprised if someone could make a half baked first amendment violation argument out of this. Is there really no part of you that is bothered by the notion that you argue someone is prevented from expressing their views by the fact that their name will be associated to them? There's this thing called "real life", when you go there and you speak, people can associate your name to the things you say. We should really do something about that cause that really prevents a bunch of people from expressing their views. Its about protecting unpopular speech. Its not okay with an organization is going after people for expressing their protected right to free speech. A news organization doing this is only inviting people to go after other people because of what they belive. It can't matter morally what they believe be it its all the same. I agree. Luckily nothing you've just said has relevance in this particular situation, and as such the fact that you are correct doesn't really impact it. I find it really concerning that you think this framing is the correct one for this situation. Whenever someone says something, they do so in the context of the conversation. That is, if they have a reasonable expectation of remaining anonymous they aren't going to weight their words as carefully as when they give a state of the union speech. When you talk dirty in bed you don't expect you mother-in-law to hear you. Comparing shitposting to "real life" conversations is really not appropriate. Unless you argue that we should also all be held accountable for what we say within the confines of our home - and if that is truly the case I have a couple of dystopian books to recommend you.
And all of these obvious points are completely irrelevant to deciding that this is an issue where freedom of speech should be put into the equation.
|
On July 05 2017 23:58 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 23:51 bardtown wrote:On July 05 2017 23:26 xDaunt wrote:Now here's a fascinating example of unintended consequences: A dearth of marriagable men has left an “oversupply” of educated women taking desperate steps to preserve their fertility, experts say.
The first global study into egg freezing found that shortages of eligible men were the prime reason why women had attempted to take matters into their own hands.
Experts said “terrifying” demographic shifts had created a “deficit” of educated men and a growing problem of “leftover” professional women, with female graduates vastly outnumbering males in in many countries.
The study led by Yale University, involved interviews with 150 women undergoing egg freezing at eight clinics.
Researchers found that in more than 90 per cent of cases, the women were attempting to buy extra time because they could not find a partner to settle down with, amid a “dearth of educated men”.
Experts said the research bust the myth that “selfish career women” were choosing to out their fertility on ice in a bid to put their careers first.
They said sweeping social changes meant that many professional women now struggled to find a partner that felt like an equal match.
....
The anthropologist suggested some women might need to be prepared to compromise some of their standards in order to find love. But she suggested society should act to increase the number of men going into higher education.
“It may be about rethinking the way we approach this,” she said.
“Most women who are educated would like to have an educated partner. Traditionally women have also wanted to ‘marry up’ to go for someone more successful, financially well off.”
“Maybe women need to be prepared to be more open to the idea of a relationship with someone not as educated. But also may be we need to be doing something about our boys and young men, to get them off to a better start.”
Some women were paying a high price for feminism, she suggested.
“As a feminist I think it’s great that women are doing so well but I think there has been a cost that has been paid,” she said, warning that many had been left in “sadness and isolation”.
In some cases, the women taking part in the in-depth interviews said they would be happy to be in a relationship with someone less educated, but they felt they were “intimidating” to the men who were available. Source. Unintended, but predictable. The role of both men and women is devalued by the systematic erasure of our differences. Rather than working hard to provide for his family a man now works hard to... allow his family to work hard too. It's sad just how hard women have been played. They had the opportunity to choose between career or home life. Now, because of the obsession with the 'gender pay gap' etc, women are ceaselessly pushed towards a career oriented life that for many of them will be less enjoyable than the alternative while simultaneously disadvantaging their children if they even have the energy to have any. Meanwhile, their 'sexual liberation' means that men have no incentive to marry, and no role in the partnership if they do. Obviously people should have the choice, but it would be welcome if we could stop with the bullshit about people being able to make whatever choices they want without facing any criticism. Keep feeding young people the lie that they can live their life without any discipline and face no consequences and they will keep believing it. What? The quote specifically mentions that what your saying is not true. Its not about women being pushed to have a career instead of a family live but about the fact that women tend to marry up which leads 'career women' to have less choice in life partners.
He's drawing the obvious conclusions from the data that the article tries to whitewash over.
|
On July 05 2017 23:58 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 23:51 bardtown wrote:On July 05 2017 23:26 xDaunt wrote:Now here's a fascinating example of unintended consequences: A dearth of marriagable men has left an “oversupply” of educated women taking desperate steps to preserve their fertility, experts say.
The first global study into egg freezing found that shortages of eligible men were the prime reason why women had attempted to take matters into their own hands.
Experts said “terrifying” demographic shifts had created a “deficit” of educated men and a growing problem of “leftover” professional women, with female graduates vastly outnumbering males in in many countries.
The study led by Yale University, involved interviews with 150 women undergoing egg freezing at eight clinics.
Researchers found that in more than 90 per cent of cases, the women were attempting to buy extra time because they could not find a partner to settle down with, amid a “dearth of educated men”.
Experts said the research bust the myth that “selfish career women” were choosing to out their fertility on ice in a bid to put their careers first.
They said sweeping social changes meant that many professional women now struggled to find a partner that felt like an equal match.
....
The anthropologist suggested some women might need to be prepared to compromise some of their standards in order to find love. But she suggested society should act to increase the number of men going into higher education.
“It may be about rethinking the way we approach this,” she said.
“Most women who are educated would like to have an educated partner. Traditionally women have also wanted to ‘marry up’ to go for someone more successful, financially well off.”
“Maybe women need to be prepared to be more open to the idea of a relationship with someone not as educated. But also may be we need to be doing something about our boys and young men, to get them off to a better start.”
Some women were paying a high price for feminism, she suggested.
“As a feminist I think it’s great that women are doing so well but I think there has been a cost that has been paid,” she said, warning that many had been left in “sadness and isolation”.
In some cases, the women taking part in the in-depth interviews said they would be happy to be in a relationship with someone less educated, but they felt they were “intimidating” to the men who were available. Source. Unintended, but predictable. The role of both men and women is devalued by the systematic erasure of our differences. Rather than working hard to provide for his family a man now works hard to... allow his family to work hard too. It's sad just how hard women have been played. They had the opportunity to choose between career or home life. Now, because of the obsession with the 'gender pay gap' etc, women are ceaselessly pushed towards a career oriented life that for many of them will be less enjoyable than the alternative while simultaneously disadvantaging their children if they even have the energy to have any. Meanwhile, their 'sexual liberation' means that men have no incentive to marry, and no role in the partnership if they do. Obviously people should have the choice, but it would be welcome if we could stop with the bullshit about people being able to make whatever choices they want without facing any criticism. Keep feeding young people the lie that they can live their life without any discipline and face no consequences and they will keep believing it. What? The quote specifically mentions that what your saying is not true. Its not about women being pushed to have a career instead of a family live but about the fact that women tend to marry up which leads 'career women' to have less choice in life partners.
As I read your last sentence: it's not about x, it's about x. Most women would like to have a family life, but the push towards achieving career success jeopardises that.
|
On July 05 2017 23:59 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 23:54 Ghostcom wrote:On July 05 2017 23:44 Nebuchad wrote:On July 05 2017 23:38 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:33 Nebuchad wrote:On July 05 2017 23:29 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:20 Ghostcom wrote:
How is his name in any shape or form newsworthy?
EDIT: As in: What does it add to the (non-)story of Trump retweeting a gif of him beating up a poorly shopped CNN-logo?
EDIT2: Also why didn't they simply write "The man who wishes to remain anonymous but is known as >insert handle< had this to say when CNN reached him for comment: >insert comment<. The man's identity is known to CNN" as is the standard phrasing in cases such as these. By making a story entirely about him they're making him the story. If they release his name now he'll be a target and their readers who agree with them will attack them. They're effectively holding him hostage to prevent him from expressing his views. It doesn't matter how horrendous his views are they're still his protected views that they're threatening. I wouldn't be surprised if someone could make a half baked first amendment violation argument out of this. Is there really no part of you that is bothered by the notion that you argue someone is prevented from expressing their views by the fact that their name will be associated to them? There's this thing called "real life", when you go there and you speak, people can associate your name to the things you say. We should really do something about that cause that really prevents a bunch of people from expressing their views. Its about protecting unpopular speech. Its not okay with an organization is going after people for expressing their protected right to free speech. A news organization doing this is only inviting people to go after other people because of what they belive. It can't matter morally what they believe be it its all the same. I agree. Luckily nothing you've just said has relevance in this particular situation, and as such the fact that you are correct doesn't really impact it. I find it really concerning that you think this framing is the correct one for this situation. Whenever someone says something, they do so in the context of the conversation. That is, if they have a reasonable expectation of remaining anonymous they aren't going to weight their words as carefully as when they give a state of the union speech. When you talk dirty in bed you don't expect you mother-in-law to hear you. Comparing shitposting to "real life" conversations is really not appropriate. Unless you argue that we should also all be held accountable for what we say within the confines of our home - and if that is truly the case I have a couple of dystopian books to recommend you. And all of these obvious points are completely irrelevant to deciding that this is an issue where freedom of speech should be put into the equation.
But all of these obvious points are completely relevant to determine that what CNN has done is idiotic.
|
On July 05 2017 23:58 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 23:51 bardtown wrote:On July 05 2017 23:26 xDaunt wrote:Now here's a fascinating example of unintended consequences: A dearth of marriagable men has left an “oversupply” of educated women taking desperate steps to preserve their fertility, experts say.
The first global study into egg freezing found that shortages of eligible men were the prime reason why women had attempted to take matters into their own hands.
Experts said “terrifying” demographic shifts had created a “deficit” of educated men and a growing problem of “leftover” professional women, with female graduates vastly outnumbering males in in many countries.
The study led by Yale University, involved interviews with 150 women undergoing egg freezing at eight clinics.
Researchers found that in more than 90 per cent of cases, the women were attempting to buy extra time because they could not find a partner to settle down with, amid a “dearth of educated men”.
Experts said the research bust the myth that “selfish career women” were choosing to out their fertility on ice in a bid to put their careers first.
They said sweeping social changes meant that many professional women now struggled to find a partner that felt like an equal match.
....
The anthropologist suggested some women might need to be prepared to compromise some of their standards in order to find love. But she suggested society should act to increase the number of men going into higher education.
“It may be about rethinking the way we approach this,” she said.
“Most women who are educated would like to have an educated partner. Traditionally women have also wanted to ‘marry up’ to go for someone more successful, financially well off.”
“Maybe women need to be prepared to be more open to the idea of a relationship with someone not as educated. But also may be we need to be doing something about our boys and young men, to get them off to a better start.”
Some women were paying a high price for feminism, she suggested.
“As a feminist I think it’s great that women are doing so well but I think there has been a cost that has been paid,” she said, warning that many had been left in “sadness and isolation”.
In some cases, the women taking part in the in-depth interviews said they would be happy to be in a relationship with someone less educated, but they felt they were “intimidating” to the men who were available. Source. Unintended, but predictable. The role of both men and women is devalued by the systematic erasure of our differences. Rather than working hard to provide for his family a man now works hard to... allow his family to work hard too. It's sad just how hard women have been played. They had the opportunity to choose between career or home life. Now, because of the obsession with the 'gender pay gap' etc, women are ceaselessly pushed towards a career oriented life that for many of them will be less enjoyable than the alternative while simultaneously disadvantaging their children if they even have the energy to have any. Meanwhile, their 'sexual liberation' means that men have no incentive to marry, and no role in the partnership if they do. Obviously people should have the choice, but it would be welcome if we could stop with the bullshit about people being able to make whatever choices they want without facing any criticism. Keep feeding young people the lie that they can live their life without any discipline and face no consequences and they will keep believing it. What? The quote specifically mentions that what your saying is not true. Its not about women being pushed to have a career instead of a family live but about the fact that women tend to marry up which leads 'career women' to have less choice in life partners.
it's not marrying UP, but marrying EVEN. women outnumber men quite a bit at the college degree level iirc.
|
On July 06 2017 00:01 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 23:59 Nebuchad wrote:On July 05 2017 23:54 Ghostcom wrote:On July 05 2017 23:44 Nebuchad wrote:On July 05 2017 23:38 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:33 Nebuchad wrote:On July 05 2017 23:29 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:20 Ghostcom wrote:
How is his name in any shape or form newsworthy?
EDIT: As in: What does it add to the (non-)story of Trump retweeting a gif of him beating up a poorly shopped CNN-logo?
EDIT2: Also why didn't they simply write "The man who wishes to remain anonymous but is known as >insert handle< had this to say when CNN reached him for comment: >insert comment<. The man's identity is known to CNN" as is the standard phrasing in cases such as these. By making a story entirely about him they're making him the story. If they release his name now he'll be a target and their readers who agree with them will attack them. They're effectively holding him hostage to prevent him from expressing his views. It doesn't matter how horrendous his views are they're still his protected views that they're threatening. I wouldn't be surprised if someone could make a half baked first amendment violation argument out of this. Is there really no part of you that is bothered by the notion that you argue someone is prevented from expressing their views by the fact that their name will be associated to them? There's this thing called "real life", when you go there and you speak, people can associate your name to the things you say. We should really do something about that cause that really prevents a bunch of people from expressing their views. Its about protecting unpopular speech. Its not okay with an organization is going after people for expressing their protected right to free speech. A news organization doing this is only inviting people to go after other people because of what they belive. It can't matter morally what they believe be it its all the same. I agree. Luckily nothing you've just said has relevance in this particular situation, and as such the fact that you are correct doesn't really impact it. I find it really concerning that you think this framing is the correct one for this situation. Whenever someone says something, they do so in the context of the conversation. That is, if they have a reasonable expectation of remaining anonymous they aren't going to weight their words as carefully as when they give a state of the union speech. When you talk dirty in bed you don't expect you mother-in-law to hear you. Comparing shitposting to "real life" conversations is really not appropriate. Unless you argue that we should also all be held accountable for what we say within the confines of our home - and if that is truly the case I have a couple of dystopian books to recommend you. And all of these obvious points are completely irrelevant to deciding that this is an issue where freedom of speech should be put into the equation. But all of these obvious points are completely relevant to determine that what CNN has done is idiotic.
We could agree 100% on the level of idiocy of what CNN has done and it wouldn't impact the conversation I'm having with Sermo.
|
On July 06 2017 00:02 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 00:01 Ghostcom wrote:On July 05 2017 23:59 Nebuchad wrote:On July 05 2017 23:54 Ghostcom wrote:On July 05 2017 23:44 Nebuchad wrote:On July 05 2017 23:38 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:33 Nebuchad wrote:On July 05 2017 23:29 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:20 Ghostcom wrote:
How is his name in any shape or form newsworthy?
EDIT: As in: What does it add to the (non-)story of Trump retweeting a gif of him beating up a poorly shopped CNN-logo?
EDIT2: Also why didn't they simply write "The man who wishes to remain anonymous but is known as >insert handle< had this to say when CNN reached him for comment: >insert comment<. The man's identity is known to CNN" as is the standard phrasing in cases such as these. By making a story entirely about him they're making him the story. If they release his name now he'll be a target and their readers who agree with them will attack them. They're effectively holding him hostage to prevent him from expressing his views. It doesn't matter how horrendous his views are they're still his protected views that they're threatening. I wouldn't be surprised if someone could make a half baked first amendment violation argument out of this. Is there really no part of you that is bothered by the notion that you argue someone is prevented from expressing their views by the fact that their name will be associated to them? There's this thing called "real life", when you go there and you speak, people can associate your name to the things you say. We should really do something about that cause that really prevents a bunch of people from expressing their views. Its about protecting unpopular speech. Its not okay with an organization is going after people for expressing their protected right to free speech. A news organization doing this is only inviting people to go after other people because of what they belive. It can't matter morally what they believe be it its all the same. I agree. Luckily nothing you've just said has relevance in this particular situation, and as such the fact that you are correct doesn't really impact it. I find it really concerning that you think this framing is the correct one for this situation. Whenever someone says something, they do so in the context of the conversation. That is, if they have a reasonable expectation of remaining anonymous they aren't going to weight their words as carefully as when they give a state of the union speech. When you talk dirty in bed you don't expect you mother-in-law to hear you. Comparing shitposting to "real life" conversations is really not appropriate. Unless you argue that we should also all be held accountable for what we say within the confines of our home - and if that is truly the case I have a couple of dystopian books to recommend you. And all of these obvious points are completely irrelevant to deciding that this is an issue where freedom of speech should be put into the equation. But all of these obvious points are completely relevant to determine that what CNN has done is idiotic. We could agree 100% on the level of idiocy of what CNN has done and it wouldn't impact the conversation I'm having with Sermo.
Except for the fact that you tried to ridicule Sermo's POV by comparing random shitposting on the internet to "real life". The freedom of speech argument fails on other fronts. The comparison was shit.
|
On July 06 2017 00:00 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2017 23:58 Gorsameth wrote:On July 05 2017 23:51 bardtown wrote:On July 05 2017 23:26 xDaunt wrote:Now here's a fascinating example of unintended consequences: A dearth of marriagable men has left an “oversupply” of educated women taking desperate steps to preserve their fertility, experts say.
The first global study into egg freezing found that shortages of eligible men were the prime reason why women had attempted to take matters into their own hands.
Experts said “terrifying” demographic shifts had created a “deficit” of educated men and a growing problem of “leftover” professional women, with female graduates vastly outnumbering males in in many countries.
The study led by Yale University, involved interviews with 150 women undergoing egg freezing at eight clinics.
Researchers found that in more than 90 per cent of cases, the women were attempting to buy extra time because they could not find a partner to settle down with, amid a “dearth of educated men”.
Experts said the research bust the myth that “selfish career women” were choosing to out their fertility on ice in a bid to put their careers first.
They said sweeping social changes meant that many professional women now struggled to find a partner that felt like an equal match.
....
The anthropologist suggested some women might need to be prepared to compromise some of their standards in order to find love. But she suggested society should act to increase the number of men going into higher education.
“It may be about rethinking the way we approach this,” she said.
“Most women who are educated would like to have an educated partner. Traditionally women have also wanted to ‘marry up’ to go for someone more successful, financially well off.”
“Maybe women need to be prepared to be more open to the idea of a relationship with someone not as educated. But also may be we need to be doing something about our boys and young men, to get them off to a better start.”
Some women were paying a high price for feminism, she suggested.
“As a feminist I think it’s great that women are doing so well but I think there has been a cost that has been paid,” she said, warning that many had been left in “sadness and isolation”.
In some cases, the women taking part in the in-depth interviews said they would be happy to be in a relationship with someone less educated, but they felt they were “intimidating” to the men who were available. Source. Unintended, but predictable. The role of both men and women is devalued by the systematic erasure of our differences. Rather than working hard to provide for his family a man now works hard to... allow his family to work hard too. It's sad just how hard women have been played. They had the opportunity to choose between career or home life. Now, because of the obsession with the 'gender pay gap' etc, women are ceaselessly pushed towards a career oriented life that for many of them will be less enjoyable than the alternative while simultaneously disadvantaging their children if they even have the energy to have any. Meanwhile, their 'sexual liberation' means that men have no incentive to marry, and no role in the partnership if they do. Obviously people should have the choice, but it would be welcome if we could stop with the bullshit about people being able to make whatever choices they want without facing any criticism. Keep feeding young people the lie that they can live their life without any discipline and face no consequences and they will keep believing it. What? The quote specifically mentions that what your saying is not true. Its not about women being pushed to have a career instead of a family live but about the fact that women tend to marry up which leads 'career women' to have less choice in life partners. As I read your last sentence: it's not about x, it's about x. Most women would like to have a family life, but the push towards achieving career success jeopardises that.
The difference is in why its being jeopardized.
|
On July 06 2017 00:04 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 00:02 Nebuchad wrote:On July 06 2017 00:01 Ghostcom wrote:On July 05 2017 23:59 Nebuchad wrote:On July 05 2017 23:54 Ghostcom wrote:On July 05 2017 23:44 Nebuchad wrote:On July 05 2017 23:38 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:33 Nebuchad wrote:On July 05 2017 23:29 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2017 23:20 Ghostcom wrote:
How is his name in any shape or form newsworthy?
EDIT: As in: What does it add to the (non-)story of Trump retweeting a gif of him beating up a poorly shopped CNN-logo?
EDIT2: Also why didn't they simply write "The man who wishes to remain anonymous but is known as >insert handle< had this to say when CNN reached him for comment: >insert comment<. The man's identity is known to CNN" as is the standard phrasing in cases such as these. By making a story entirely about him they're making him the story. If they release his name now he'll be a target and their readers who agree with them will attack them. They're effectively holding him hostage to prevent him from expressing his views. It doesn't matter how horrendous his views are they're still his protected views that they're threatening. I wouldn't be surprised if someone could make a half baked first amendment violation argument out of this. Is there really no part of you that is bothered by the notion that you argue someone is prevented from expressing their views by the fact that their name will be associated to them? There's this thing called "real life", when you go there and you speak, people can associate your name to the things you say. We should really do something about that cause that really prevents a bunch of people from expressing their views. Its about protecting unpopular speech. Its not okay with an organization is going after people for expressing their protected right to free speech. A news organization doing this is only inviting people to go after other people because of what they belive. It can't matter morally what they believe be it its all the same. I agree. Luckily nothing you've just said has relevance in this particular situation, and as such the fact that you are correct doesn't really impact it. I find it really concerning that you think this framing is the correct one for this situation. Whenever someone says something, they do so in the context of the conversation. That is, if they have a reasonable expectation of remaining anonymous they aren't going to weight their words as carefully as when they give a state of the union speech. When you talk dirty in bed you don't expect you mother-in-law to hear you. Comparing shitposting to "real life" conversations is really not appropriate. Unless you argue that we should also all be held accountable for what we say within the confines of our home - and if that is truly the case I have a couple of dystopian books to recommend you. And all of these obvious points are completely irrelevant to deciding that this is an issue where freedom of speech should be put into the equation. But all of these obvious points are completely relevant to determine that what CNN has done is idiotic. We could agree 100% on the level of idiocy of what CNN has done and it wouldn't impact the conversation I'm having with Sermo. Except for the fact that you tried to ridicule Sermo's POV by comparing random shitposting on the internet to "real life". The freedom of speech argument fails on other fronts. The comparison was shit.
You haven't demonstrated that at all, you've just told me that you speak differently in different contexts. Which is true, and irrelevant. When you talk dirty in bed you don't expect your mother-in-law to hear you, but if your mother-in-law suddenly walks in and hears you talk, you don't go "HOLY SHIT WHAT ABOUT MY FREE SPEECH?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
