|
On September 18 2012 13:42 javy_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 12:38 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 18 2012 12:31 yeastiality wrote:On September 18 2012 12:30 Sabu113 wrote:
SRS has on more than a few occassion sicced downvoting bots on accounts of people who made a joke that wasn't politically correct.
Also I thought the beating reddits were more related to hardcore bdsm porn rather than home made domestic violence. I'll admit I haven't extensively researched the issue. SRS should probably be left as a separate topic. Otherwise, you're blocking out the obvious wrongs they've identified with a big sign that says "DEBATE THE MERITS OF SRS HERE" Wow, the absolute king in this thread of "let's lump all this horrible reddit shit together" is suddenly calling for distinctions and separate arguments to be made. Could you possibly be anymore hypocritical? he's a troll from SRS, it's to be expected.
Ah, well that would explain a lot, although I can't confirm it. I've actually reported about 3 of his posts, some of them are absolutely atrocious, like this:
On September 18 2012 13:00 yeastiality wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 12:58 peekn wrote:
This is foolish, a good analogy to this would be something on the lines of "Since child porn is sent through the internet, we should blame the ISP's for allowing this to happen!" I mean you can go on and on with similar analogies. Shouldn't villainize the site, but go after the people who do this. cu@highschool
I keep hoping it's hour long lag.
|
On September 18 2012 14:01 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 13:42 javy_ wrote:On September 18 2012 12:38 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 18 2012 12:31 yeastiality wrote:On September 18 2012 12:30 Sabu113 wrote:
SRS has on more than a few occassion sicced downvoting bots on accounts of people who made a joke that wasn't politically correct.
Also I thought the beating reddits were more related to hardcore bdsm porn rather than home made domestic violence. I'll admit I haven't extensively researched the issue. SRS should probably be left as a separate topic. Otherwise, you're blocking out the obvious wrongs they've identified with a big sign that says "DEBATE THE MERITS OF SRS HERE" Wow, the absolute king in this thread of "let's lump all this horrible reddit shit together" is suddenly calling for distinctions and separate arguments to be made. Could you possibly be anymore hypocritical? he's a troll from SRS, it's to be expected. Ah, well that would explain a lot, although I can't confirm it. I've actually reported about 3 of his posts, some of them are absolutely atrocious. It really makes me wonder when someone likes me gets several bans and this guy doesn't even get warned for posts like this: Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 13:00 yeastiality wrote:On September 18 2012 12:58 peekn wrote:
This is foolish, a good analogy to this would be something on the lines of "Since child porn is sent through the internet, we should blame the ISP's for allowing this to happen!" I mean you can go on and on with similar analogies. Shouldn't villainize the site, but go after the people who do this. cu@highschool I keep hoping it's hour long lag.
This post gives reasonable people a great inside in your high valuation of freedom of expression, freedom of speech and the chance of individual fulfillment you pretend to defend with your posts in this topic, just saying
|
|
|
On September 18 2012 13:25 happyness wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 13:12 Alay wrote:On September 18 2012 12:58 peekn wrote:
This is foolish, a good analogy to this would be something on the lines of "Since child porn is sent through the internet, we should blame the ISP's for allowing this to happen!" I mean you can go on and on with similar analogies. Shouldn't villainize the site, but go after the people who do this. I actually disagree. Because a website is different than the internet in general (that is, it is privately owned) it is well within the moral rational, I believe, to discontinue use and advocate against a website because you disagree with its limitations (or lack there of) on content. To use an analogy (probably not the best, but give me a bit of slack here) it would be like a Cafe that allowed its employees to do something that you dislike (leaving this ambiguous, be it racism, sexism, whatever.) It would be acceptable, I believe, if you ceased to go to that Cafe because of the lack of action by the business owners to adequately police their staff. As such, I think villainizing it would be fine if you find something objectable about it and wished to discontinue going there. It would be sad to not consider the positive aspects of it as well in your decision ( science, worldnews, etc that are very informative) but that does not allow you to disagree with the website owners moderation decisions. Ya that analogy is off. The people who post disgusting stuff on reddit are not employees, they would be more akin to customers. Now I suppose you could complain to the manager, but imagine being the manager and having millions of customers. You can't police all of that. Anyway the whole argument is silly. If you want to use a website analogy, just look at Google. If we should ban reddit because it gives access to inappropriate links then we should do the same for google because it does the same thing
Sure, then modify the analogy to them being other customers. Should a place allow someone to come inside and start spouting hateful stuff without management/owners doing anything, I don't see why it would be morally questionable to simply stop visiting a website.
Now, of course, the mass of users does come into effect, but the website owners have said themselves that anything that isn't directly illegal goes. As such, it seems reasonable to not give them traffic if you do not wish to because of that.
Anyway the whole argument is silly. If you want to use a website analogy, just look at Google. If we should ban reddit because it gives access to inappropriate links then we should do the same for google because it does the same thing
It's not quite the same, as a search engine indexes the web itself--it does not house the content. Google itself also has search filters that removes much of the profane/offensive material (gore, pornography, etc) though.
|
Why do people consider reddit "a" website? It's a link aggregation site split into many subforums. The only thing similar between r/gaming and r/football is that it is hosted by www.reddit.com
Each subreddit is basically a free domain rental. You could make your own subreddit dealing with how much you love carrots.
If you host CP, it will get deleted. r/jailbait was doing nothing illegal when it was removed (clothed pictures of 15 year olds is not illegal, real illegal submissions were removed). It was only acted upon because the reddit website was losing money due to the shitstorm somethingawful made about it.
Besides that, the admins literally do nothing to stop what you do on your subbredits, be it porn, gore, etc.
How is it different from renting domain?
|
Russian Federation266 Posts
On September 18 2012 13:48 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 13:40 ayaz2810 wrote:On September 18 2012 13:32 Zooper31 wrote:On September 18 2012 13:17 ayaz2810 wrote:On September 18 2012 10:44 Bigtony wrote:On September 18 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I quit reading the article completely after about the third time it called jailbait "child pornography." Nice hit piece though. People need to grow up and live their own lives, quit placating your own meaningless and insecurity with misplaced judgment and self-righteousness. Using pictures of children (even clothed) for erotic stimulation is morally questionable behavior, even if it's not 'child pornography.' Also, 'hacking' photobucket/facebook for suggestive photos of people is also bad. Wrong. Find my post in this thread earlier about us being biologically driven to desire teenage girls. You think you're so evolved that you've never seen a hot 16 year old and admitted that you would hit it given the chance? It's biology vs some arbitrary man made restriction on sexual activity. I'm not saying this restriction is bad. In fact quite the opposite. It fits our goals as a society. Education, jobs, etc before having children and continuing our species. But acting all outraged because people want to fap to a 16 year old in a bikini is just fucking ignorant. Theres 2 17yr old girls at my workplace that I'd hit in a moment, I'm 21. I question whether I would actually do anything if actually given a chance due to how I feel about them being under-age ofc but I'm definitely attracted. It' just biological to be attracted to fit attractive females. Though I hate myself a tiny bit for it lol. On topic about reddit. 100% they should remove all these subreddits dedicated to all this stuff about children and posting stolen pictures. Finally someone who is honest. Cheers to you sir. Though I do have to agree theres a difference between acting on those feelings or not. Would I search up for underage girls? No, theres plenty of 18+ attractive females that are better looking imo and I have moral obligations against it (aside from possibly being arrested). No one should be allowed to find these kinds of images and no one should act on those urges, theres such a thing as self control.
And why is that so? There nothing wrong with being attracted to or even having sex with postpubertal individuals, all restrictions on the matter are completely arbitrary. Age of consent is different in different countries or even in different States of the US, almost everywhere it isn't above 16, it's as low as 13 in some places (developed countries). It's also not even universally illegal to possess or watch child pornography - some countries' laws only forbid production and distribution of such materials.
|
On September 18 2012 14:04 AngryMag wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 14:01 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 18 2012 13:42 javy_ wrote:On September 18 2012 12:38 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 18 2012 12:31 yeastiality wrote:On September 18 2012 12:30 Sabu113 wrote:
SRS has on more than a few occassion sicced downvoting bots on accounts of people who made a joke that wasn't politically correct.
Also I thought the beating reddits were more related to hardcore bdsm porn rather than home made domestic violence. I'll admit I haven't extensively researched the issue. SRS should probably be left as a separate topic. Otherwise, you're blocking out the obvious wrongs they've identified with a big sign that says "DEBATE THE MERITS OF SRS HERE" Wow, the absolute king in this thread of "let's lump all this horrible reddit shit together" is suddenly calling for distinctions and separate arguments to be made. Could you possibly be anymore hypocritical? he's a troll from SRS, it's to be expected. Ah, well that would explain a lot, although I can't confirm it. I've actually reported about 3 of his posts, some of them are absolutely atrocious. It really makes me wonder when someone likes me gets several bans and this guy doesn't even get warned for posts like this: On September 18 2012 13:00 yeastiality wrote:On September 18 2012 12:58 peekn wrote:
This is foolish, a good analogy to this would be something on the lines of "Since child porn is sent through the internet, we should blame the ISP's for allowing this to happen!" I mean you can go on and on with similar analogies. Shouldn't villainize the site, but go after the people who do this. cu@highschool I keep hoping it's hour long lag. This post gives reasonable people a great inside in your high valuation of freedom of expression, freedom of speech and the chance of individual fulfillment you pretend to defend with your posts in this topic, just saying
I've literally not said a single word about freedom of expression or speech. You clearly are confusing me with someone else.
|
On September 18 2012 14:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 14:04 AngryMag wrote:On September 18 2012 14:01 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 18 2012 13:42 javy_ wrote:On September 18 2012 12:38 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 18 2012 12:31 yeastiality wrote:On September 18 2012 12:30 Sabu113 wrote:
SRS has on more than a few occassion sicced downvoting bots on accounts of people who made a joke that wasn't politically correct.
Also I thought the beating reddits were more related to hardcore bdsm porn rather than home made domestic violence. I'll admit I haven't extensively researched the issue. SRS should probably be left as a separate topic. Otherwise, you're blocking out the obvious wrongs they've identified with a big sign that says "DEBATE THE MERITS OF SRS HERE" Wow, the absolute king in this thread of "let's lump all this horrible reddit shit together" is suddenly calling for distinctions and separate arguments to be made. Could you possibly be anymore hypocritical? he's a troll from SRS, it's to be expected. Ah, well that would explain a lot, although I can't confirm it. I've actually reported about 3 of his posts, some of them are absolutely atrocious. It really makes me wonder when someone likes me gets several bans and this guy doesn't even get warned for posts like this: On September 18 2012 13:00 yeastiality wrote:On September 18 2012 12:58 peekn wrote:
This is foolish, a good analogy to this would be something on the lines of "Since child porn is sent through the internet, we should blame the ISP's for allowing this to happen!" I mean you can go on and on with similar analogies. Shouldn't villainize the site, but go after the people who do this. cu@highschool I keep hoping it's hour long lag. This post gives reasonable people a great inside in your high valuation of freedom of expression, freedom of speech and the chance of individual fulfillment you pretend to defend with your posts in this topic, just saying I've literally not said a single word about freedom of expression or speech. You clearly are confusing me with someone else.
Yeah sorry, I confused you with starfries, because he is a dark templar, too and I find his posts in this topic highly annoying, sorry
|
Hmm, I certainly don't find value in the site and am greatly annoyed by the general attitude of the community. But I'm not sure what the story is here. It sounds like they ban this stuff relatively efficiently. I suppose we could ask them to be quicker about it, but it seems like they're on the correct path.
Though, I must say the pseudointellectual, elitist, anti-establishment attitude of people trying so hard to fight for useless causes using absurd hyper-rationalism is getting so old on this general board. It makes it difficult to discuss things when we don't ground ourselves in reality, and instead try as hard as we can to attempt to prove the rest of the world is dumb and we are smart.
|
On September 18 2012 14:21 Evilmystic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 13:48 Zooper31 wrote:On September 18 2012 13:40 ayaz2810 wrote:On September 18 2012 13:32 Zooper31 wrote:On September 18 2012 13:17 ayaz2810 wrote:On September 18 2012 10:44 Bigtony wrote:On September 18 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I quit reading the article completely after about the third time it called jailbait "child pornography." Nice hit piece though. People need to grow up and live their own lives, quit placating your own meaningless and insecurity with misplaced judgment and self-righteousness. Using pictures of children (even clothed) for erotic stimulation is morally questionable behavior, even if it's not 'child pornography.' Also, 'hacking' photobucket/facebook for suggestive photos of people is also bad. Wrong. Find my post in this thread earlier about us being biologically driven to desire teenage girls. You think you're so evolved that you've never seen a hot 16 year old and admitted that you would hit it given the chance? It's biology vs some arbitrary man made restriction on sexual activity. I'm not saying this restriction is bad. In fact quite the opposite. It fits our goals as a society. Education, jobs, etc before having children and continuing our species. But acting all outraged because people want to fap to a 16 year old in a bikini is just fucking ignorant. Theres 2 17yr old girls at my workplace that I'd hit in a moment, I'm 21. I question whether I would actually do anything if actually given a chance due to how I feel about them being under-age ofc but I'm definitely attracted. It' just biological to be attracted to fit attractive females. Though I hate myself a tiny bit for it lol. On topic about reddit. 100% they should remove all these subreddits dedicated to all this stuff about children and posting stolen pictures. Finally someone who is honest. Cheers to you sir. Though I do have to agree theres a difference between acting on those feelings or not. Would I search up for underage girls? No, theres plenty of 18+ attractive females that are better looking imo and I have moral obligations against it (aside from possibly being arrested). No one should be allowed to find these kinds of images and no one should act on those urges, theres such a thing as self control. And why is that so? There nothing wrong with being attracted to or even having sex with postpubertal individuals, all restrictions on the matter are completely arbitrary. Age of consent is different in different countries or even in different States of the US, almost everywhere it isn't above 16, it's as low as 13 in some places (developed countries). It's also not even universally illegal to possess or watch child pornography - some countries' laws only forbid production and distribution of such materials.
Difference of opinion I guess. I don't think people under a certain age and some even over that age are capable of making consentful decisions in their lives yet and shouldn't be grouped with everyone else yet.
|
And I still don't know how to function that crappy site! don't know what I'm doing, not organized or anything, unlike TL 
|
On September 18 2012 14:42 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 14:21 Evilmystic wrote:On September 18 2012 13:48 Zooper31 wrote:On September 18 2012 13:40 ayaz2810 wrote:On September 18 2012 13:32 Zooper31 wrote:On September 18 2012 13:17 ayaz2810 wrote:On September 18 2012 10:44 Bigtony wrote:On September 18 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I quit reading the article completely after about the third time it called jailbait "child pornography." Nice hit piece though. People need to grow up and live their own lives, quit placating your own meaningless and insecurity with misplaced judgment and self-righteousness. Using pictures of children (even clothed) for erotic stimulation is morally questionable behavior, even if it's not 'child pornography.' Also, 'hacking' photobucket/facebook for suggestive photos of people is also bad. Wrong. Find my post in this thread earlier about us being biologically driven to desire teenage girls. You think you're so evolved that you've never seen a hot 16 year old and admitted that you would hit it given the chance? It's biology vs some arbitrary man made restriction on sexual activity. I'm not saying this restriction is bad. In fact quite the opposite. It fits our goals as a society. Education, jobs, etc before having children and continuing our species. But acting all outraged because people want to fap to a 16 year old in a bikini is just fucking ignorant. Theres 2 17yr old girls at my workplace that I'd hit in a moment, I'm 21. I question whether I would actually do anything if actually given a chance due to how I feel about them being under-age ofc but I'm definitely attracted. It' just biological to be attracted to fit attractive females. Though I hate myself a tiny bit for it lol. On topic about reddit. 100% they should remove all these subreddits dedicated to all this stuff about children and posting stolen pictures. Finally someone who is honest. Cheers to you sir. Though I do have to agree theres a difference between acting on those feelings or not. Would I search up for underage girls? No, theres plenty of 18+ attractive females that are better looking imo and I have moral obligations against it (aside from possibly being arrested). No one should be allowed to find these kinds of images and no one should act on those urges, theres such a thing as self control. And why is that so? There nothing wrong with being attracted to or even having sex with postpubertal individuals, all restrictions on the matter are completely arbitrary. Age of consent is different in different countries or even in different States of the US, almost everywhere it isn't above 16, it's as low as 13 in some places (developed countries). It's also not even universally illegal to possess or watch child pornography - some countries' laws only forbid production and distribution of such materials. Difference of opinion I guess. I don't think people under a certain age and some even over that age are capable of making consentful decisions in their lives yet and shouldn't be grouped with everyone else yet.
definitely agree with this.
it screws up the rest of their lives, and they (we ) are unable to understand that/ forsee consequences
you gotta do what you gotta do
|
On September 18 2012 14:46 aRyuujin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 14:42 Zooper31 wrote:On September 18 2012 14:21 Evilmystic wrote:On September 18 2012 13:48 Zooper31 wrote:On September 18 2012 13:40 ayaz2810 wrote:On September 18 2012 13:32 Zooper31 wrote:On September 18 2012 13:17 ayaz2810 wrote:On September 18 2012 10:44 Bigtony wrote:On September 18 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I quit reading the article completely after about the third time it called jailbait "child pornography." Nice hit piece though. People need to grow up and live their own lives, quit placating your own meaningless and insecurity with misplaced judgment and self-righteousness. Using pictures of children (even clothed) for erotic stimulation is morally questionable behavior, even if it's not 'child pornography.' Also, 'hacking' photobucket/facebook for suggestive photos of people is also bad. Wrong. Find my post in this thread earlier about us being biologically driven to desire teenage girls. You think you're so evolved that you've never seen a hot 16 year old and admitted that you would hit it given the chance? It's biology vs some arbitrary man made restriction on sexual activity. I'm not saying this restriction is bad. In fact quite the opposite. It fits our goals as a society. Education, jobs, etc before having children and continuing our species. But acting all outraged because people want to fap to a 16 year old in a bikini is just fucking ignorant. Theres 2 17yr old girls at my workplace that I'd hit in a moment, I'm 21. I question whether I would actually do anything if actually given a chance due to how I feel about them being under-age ofc but I'm definitely attracted. It' just biological to be attracted to fit attractive females. Though I hate myself a tiny bit for it lol. On topic about reddit. 100% they should remove all these subreddits dedicated to all this stuff about children and posting stolen pictures. Finally someone who is honest. Cheers to you sir. Though I do have to agree theres a difference between acting on those feelings or not. Would I search up for underage girls? No, theres plenty of 18+ attractive females that are better looking imo and I have moral obligations against it (aside from possibly being arrested). No one should be allowed to find these kinds of images and no one should act on those urges, theres such a thing as self control. And why is that so? There nothing wrong with being attracted to or even having sex with postpubertal individuals, all restrictions on the matter are completely arbitrary. Age of consent is different in different countries or even in different States of the US, almost everywhere it isn't above 16, it's as low as 13 in some places (developed countries). It's also not even universally illegal to possess or watch child pornography - some countries' laws only forbid production and distribution of such materials. Difference of opinion I guess. I don't think people under a certain age and some even over that age are capable of making consentful decisions in their lives yet and shouldn't be grouped with everyone else yet. definitely agree with this. it screws up the rest of their lives, and they (we ) are unable to understand that/ forsee consequences you gotta do what you gotta do
or you gotta not do who you want.
|
REddit....represents people in general.
And this is what people in general do.
Just goes to show how messed up our world today is, and no one seems to care. Inf act, people are encouraging this world to be even more messed up.
|
On September 18 2012 14:37 AngryMag wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 14:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 18 2012 14:04 AngryMag wrote:On September 18 2012 14:01 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 18 2012 13:42 javy_ wrote:On September 18 2012 12:38 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 18 2012 12:31 yeastiality wrote:On September 18 2012 12:30 Sabu113 wrote:
SRS has on more than a few occassion sicced downvoting bots on accounts of people who made a joke that wasn't politically correct.
Also I thought the beating reddits were more related to hardcore bdsm porn rather than home made domestic violence. I'll admit I haven't extensively researched the issue. SRS should probably be left as a separate topic. Otherwise, you're blocking out the obvious wrongs they've identified with a big sign that says "DEBATE THE MERITS OF SRS HERE" Wow, the absolute king in this thread of "let's lump all this horrible reddit shit together" is suddenly calling for distinctions and separate arguments to be made. Could you possibly be anymore hypocritical? he's a troll from SRS, it's to be expected. Ah, well that would explain a lot, although I can't confirm it. I've actually reported about 3 of his posts, some of them are absolutely atrocious. It really makes me wonder when someone likes me gets several bans and this guy doesn't even get warned for posts like this: On September 18 2012 13:00 yeastiality wrote:On September 18 2012 12:58 peekn wrote:
This is foolish, a good analogy to this would be something on the lines of "Since child porn is sent through the internet, we should blame the ISP's for allowing this to happen!" I mean you can go on and on with similar analogies. Shouldn't villainize the site, but go after the people who do this. cu@highschool I keep hoping it's hour long lag. This post gives reasonable people a great inside in your high valuation of freedom of expression, freedom of speech and the chance of individual fulfillment you pretend to defend with your posts in this topic, just saying I've literally not said a single word about freedom of expression or speech. You clearly are confusing me with someone else. Yeah sorry, I confused you with starfries, because he is a dark templar, too and I find his posts in this topic highly annoying, sorry
I didn't say anything about freedom of expression or speech, either.
edit: I don't even know why you think we disagree.
|
I haven't visited any of these new subreddits nor did I even know they exist, but I did check the old jailbait one during the last reddit fuss and it wasn't child porn, child porn is something far more brutal than teen girls taking slutty pictures of themselves.
|
On September 18 2012 12:51 AngryMag wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 12:38 starfries wrote:On September 18 2012 12:18 yeastiality wrote:
I still don't see your argument. If someone says "CP" and you don't know what that is, sure you don't evoke the images becasue you're ignorant but once you understand CP refers to Child Pornography then it is no different... X is equal to X, they mean the same thing... You can't argue an acronym desensitized anything because once you expand it in your mind which takes a matter of miliseconds in your mind it is simply the same thing.
Part of the idea is that when people 'expand it in their mind' it does remove some of the meaning associated with the phrase. This is the case with any euphemism - when I read "CP", in my head I hear "CP". I don't picture a mathemagician splitting the letters and then writing 'hild ornography' next to them. We might be different here, though. I still want to know why everyday people (for instance, in newspapers/books/television/academia) do not say "CP". Why is it exclusive to internet people? Find me a sociology paper that says "CP" and isn't about 4chan or reddit. Everyday people don't say LOL either (although it's starting to change) but I don't see how that says anything about the laughter habits of people online. You might have an argument that people online are desensitized but citing the term "CP" is not a good example.
my argument which related to the thread and how everyone is trashing reddit is that Reddit is a free forum, whether you talk about raping monkeys to the election the idea of freedom is inherent with relation to laws (note the closing of CP threads). Whether you agree with the freedom to discuss topics is not up for debate at all so I don't see why this is even being brought up.
It's not up for debate because the internet has never been policed properly, and cocky nerds take this to mean that they've found the ultimate bastion of FREEDOM!!!!!!11 It's being debated because it's the cornerstone of this whole topic. The fact that reddit can be all cutesy about freedom and democratized aggregation and stuff doesn't excuse them allowing things to be glorified that could not be in any other sector of our society. The reddit admins only censor material that they think will cause them trouble legally, and that's their prerogative. I don't really understand why you're so angry. We can all agree there's nasty stuff on reddit, but it's a consequence of American laws that it's allowed. I don't think reddit specifically chose to do this in order to provide a safe haven for unsavoury types of people. My uneducated guess would be, that arguing against windmills got this poster riled up, because some people in this thread are not able to show even the slightest degree of understanding. Your analogy between LOL and CP is poor by the way. The term "CP" is infact a good example of desentisizing as it dismantles the antagonism between child and pornography which the whole term contains. LOL describes a positive act, laughing, it has no negative connotation or antagonism, thus your analogy is poor. Freedom to discuss topics is not up for debate, that's right but go to your working place and start talking about raping monkeys and see where it gets you "but it is legal" won't save your ass. That is because behavioural norms come into play, they exist apart from a legal framework. As an intelligent human being you should really be able grasp this concept. On September 18 2012 13:36 AngryMag wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 13:21 starfries wrote:On September 18 2012 12:51 AngryMag wrote:On September 18 2012 12:38 starfries wrote:On September 18 2012 12:18 yeastiality wrote:
I still don't see your argument. If someone says "CP" and you don't know what that is, sure you don't evoke the images becasue you're ignorant but once you understand CP refers to Child Pornography then it is no different... X is equal to X, they mean the same thing... You can't argue an acronym desensitized anything because once you expand it in your mind which takes a matter of miliseconds in your mind it is simply the same thing.
Part of the idea is that when people 'expand it in their mind' it does remove some of the meaning associated with the phrase. This is the case with any euphemism - when I read "CP", in my head I hear "CP". I don't picture a mathemagician splitting the letters and then writing 'hild ornography' next to them. We might be different here, though. I still want to know why everyday people (for instance, in newspapers/books/television/academia) do not say "CP". Why is it exclusive to internet people? Find me a sociology paper that says "CP" and isn't about 4chan or reddit. Everyday people don't say LOL either (although it's starting to change) but I don't see how that says anything about the laughter habits of people online. You might have an argument that people online are desensitized but citing the term "CP" is not a good example.
my argument which related to the thread and how everyone is trashing reddit is that Reddit is a free forum, whether you talk about raping monkeys to the election the idea of freedom is inherent with relation to laws (note the closing of CP threads). Whether you agree with the freedom to discuss topics is not up for debate at all so I don't see why this is even being brought up.
It's not up for debate because the internet has never been policed properly, and cocky nerds take this to mean that they've found the ultimate bastion of FREEDOM!!!!!!11 It's being debated because it's the cornerstone of this whole topic. The fact that reddit can be all cutesy about freedom and democratized aggregation and stuff doesn't excuse them allowing things to be glorified that could not be in any other sector of our society. The reddit admins only censor material that they think will cause them trouble legally, and that's their prerogative. I don't really understand why you're so angry. We can all agree there's nasty stuff on reddit, but it's a consequence of American laws that it's allowed. I don't think reddit specifically chose to do this in order to provide a safe haven for unsavoury types of people. My uneducated guess would be, that arguing against windmills can get you riled up, if they are not able to show even the slightest degree of understanding. Your analogy between LOL and CP is poor by the way. The term "CP" is infact a good example of desentisizing as it dismantles the antagonism between child and pornography which the whole term contains. LOL describes a positive act, laughing, it has no negative connotation or antagonism, thus your analogy is poor. Freedom to discuss topics is not up for debate, that's right but go to your working place and start talking about raping monkeys and see where it gets you "but it is legal" won't save your ass. That is because behavioural norms come into play, they exist apart from a legal framework. As an intelligent human being you should really grasp this concept. I would contend that the source of my revulsion for child pornography is not the "antagonism" between the words but what it actually IS. I don't see where you're going with your example of talking about "raping monkeys" on the job. My employer can fire me for making offensive comments, and that's his decision. TL can ban me for making offensive posts, and that's their decision. Reddit chooses not to, and that's their decision. You can argue that reddit is a worse community for it, but ultimately it's up to them whether it needs to be addressed through moderation. The talk about raping monkeys was taken out of a post you quoted, it shows the difference between being legal and being accepted. The rotten shit you partially get on reddit is an automatic consequence of the failure to enforce norms which apply in every other aspect of our daily lives, the typical freeloader problem. Terms like CP and other euphemisms for other sick shit are a sure sign of desentisizing of the community. In this thread you had some guys who told everybody where to find the sickest shit. This widely known access blinds people from the severity of the problem. And again, no reddit should of course not be forbidden, but it must start enforcing basic rules and stop hiding behind thought terminating cliches.
Please elaborate on how blind conformity and peer pressure are an expression of intelligence. I disagree quite strongly here and think it is obvious that it's the exact opposite of it, taking the place in decision-making processes that should be occupied by rationality instead. The urge to conform is instinctive behavior for social animals. It is emotion and thus about as far from an indicator for intelligence as you will get.
|
On September 18 2012 15:14 starfries wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 14:37 AngryMag wrote:On September 18 2012 14:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 18 2012 14:04 AngryMag wrote:On September 18 2012 14:01 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 18 2012 13:42 javy_ wrote:On September 18 2012 12:38 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 18 2012 12:31 yeastiality wrote:On September 18 2012 12:30 Sabu113 wrote:
SRS has on more than a few occassion sicced downvoting bots on accounts of people who made a joke that wasn't politically correct.
Also I thought the beating reddits were more related to hardcore bdsm porn rather than home made domestic violence. I'll admit I haven't extensively researched the issue. SRS should probably be left as a separate topic. Otherwise, you're blocking out the obvious wrongs they've identified with a big sign that says "DEBATE THE MERITS OF SRS HERE" Wow, the absolute king in this thread of "let's lump all this horrible reddit shit together" is suddenly calling for distinctions and separate arguments to be made. Could you possibly be anymore hypocritical? he's a troll from SRS, it's to be expected. Ah, well that would explain a lot, although I can't confirm it. I've actually reported about 3 of his posts, some of them are absolutely atrocious. It really makes me wonder when someone likes me gets several bans and this guy doesn't even get warned for posts like this: On September 18 2012 13:00 yeastiality wrote:On September 18 2012 12:58 peekn wrote:
This is foolish, a good analogy to this would be something on the lines of "Since child porn is sent through the internet, we should blame the ISP's for allowing this to happen!" I mean you can go on and on with similar analogies. Shouldn't villainize the site, but go after the people who do this. cu@highschool I keep hoping it's hour long lag. This post gives reasonable people a great inside in your high valuation of freedom of expression, freedom of speech and the chance of individual fulfillment you pretend to defend with your posts in this topic, just saying I've literally not said a single word about freedom of expression or speech. You clearly are confusing me with someone else. Yeah sorry, I confused you with starfries, because he is a dark templar, too and I find his posts in this topic highly annoying, sorry I didn't say anything about freedom of expression or speech, either. edit: I don't even know why you think we disagree.
He's just throwing shit at the walls hoping it will stick. It's not as bad as Yeastiality though "CU @ highschool" -.-?
|
Reddit is great, and I'm sure this is way smaller than it appears here. Sensationalized news everyday.
Of course that kind of shit is wrong but really, I don't think reddit protects pedophiles at all.
I'd rather have a free website where people can post what they want and discuss what they want like reddit and 4chan than there be nothing out there to do that at all. It should be addressed but it shouldn't be news like this, it should be reddit moderators discussing it in-house and trying to clean it up. They probably already try, but to be honest who wants to spend their free time going through child-porn and banning people?
|
On September 18 2012 14:46 aRyuujin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 14:42 Zooper31 wrote:On September 18 2012 14:21 Evilmystic wrote:On September 18 2012 13:48 Zooper31 wrote:On September 18 2012 13:40 ayaz2810 wrote:On September 18 2012 13:32 Zooper31 wrote:On September 18 2012 13:17 ayaz2810 wrote:On September 18 2012 10:44 Bigtony wrote:On September 18 2012 10:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I quit reading the article completely after about the third time it called jailbait "child pornography." Nice hit piece though. People need to grow up and live their own lives, quit placating your own meaningless and insecurity with misplaced judgment and self-righteousness. Using pictures of children (even clothed) for erotic stimulation is morally questionable behavior, even if it's not 'child pornography.' Also, 'hacking' photobucket/facebook for suggestive photos of people is also bad. Wrong. Find my post in this thread earlier about us being biologically driven to desire teenage girls. You think you're so evolved that you've never seen a hot 16 year old and admitted that you would hit it given the chance? It's biology vs some arbitrary man made restriction on sexual activity. I'm not saying this restriction is bad. In fact quite the opposite. It fits our goals as a society. Education, jobs, etc before having children and continuing our species. But acting all outraged because people want to fap to a 16 year old in a bikini is just fucking ignorant. Theres 2 17yr old girls at my workplace that I'd hit in a moment, I'm 21. I question whether I would actually do anything if actually given a chance due to how I feel about them being under-age ofc but I'm definitely attracted. It' just biological to be attracted to fit attractive females. Though I hate myself a tiny bit for it lol. On topic about reddit. 100% they should remove all these subreddits dedicated to all this stuff about children and posting stolen pictures. Finally someone who is honest. Cheers to you sir. Though I do have to agree theres a difference between acting on those feelings or not. Would I search up for underage girls? No, theres plenty of 18+ attractive females that are better looking imo and I have moral obligations against it (aside from possibly being arrested). No one should be allowed to find these kinds of images and no one should act on those urges, theres such a thing as self control. And why is that so? There nothing wrong with being attracted to or even having sex with postpubertal individuals, all restrictions on the matter are completely arbitrary. Age of consent is different in different countries or even in different States of the US, almost everywhere it isn't above 16, it's as low as 13 in some places (developed countries). It's also not even universally illegal to possess or watch child pornography - some countries' laws only forbid production and distribution of such materials. Difference of opinion I guess. I don't think people under a certain age and some even over that age are capable of making consentful decisions in their lives yet and shouldn't be grouped with everyone else yet. definitely agree with this. it screws up the rest of their lives, and they (we ) are unable to understand that/ forsee consequences you gotta do what you gotta do
Well, why not let people fuck up their lives? Why should we care?
In my opinion, most (80%+) of the human beings on the planet can't make "good decisions", look at the politicians being elected everywhere, look at populat shows on TV and so on, the fact that someone is 6, 12, 18 or 60 years old doesn't mean anything about their ability to make rational decisions, only the probability of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
3889
143
73
EPT
