Reddit politics section bans links to Gawker over right to privacy of a mod of /r/creepshots

What in the god damn shit are you even talking about anymore, Jossi? What does accountability have to do with this? Nobody would be dumb enough to participate in those creepy acts under a name or identity that someone could connect to their real life, unless they either wanted to or didn't care. And I'm sure Maestro doesn't care either, because he's actually expressing reasonable opinions. But I ask again, what does that have to do with this thread?

I welcome you to google my name and see what nefarious acts I take part in.

Edit: Actually, just look through my old posts on here for some embarrassing behavior.
 
Well I had a well-reasoned response, but I hit the back button and now it's gone. I'll retype it later when I have the time.
 
Vegeta897 said:
What in the god damn shit are you even talking about anymore, Jossi? What does accountability have to do with this? Nobody would be dumb enough to participate in those creepy acts under a name or identity that someone could connect to their real life, unless they either wanted to or didn't care. And I'm sure Maestro doesn't care either, because he's actually expressing reasonable opinions. But I ask again, what does that have to do with this thread?

I welcome you to google my name and see what nefarious acts I take part in.
Click to expand...

What does accountability have to do with discussing a man who thought he could get away with anything he wanted to because he was anonymous?

Why do you think people do this shit in the first place? If you can't act like this in society, then it's going to catch up with you if you do it online, sooner or later.

What really bothers me is those who defend his rights, or whatever bullshit reason they have to somehow lessen the fact that he's the kind of person who gets the words "Pedophile" spray painted on the road in front of his house, and for good reason.
 
You know, this is starting to remind me of that one lolicon thread from 4 years ago.

http://www.valvetime.net/threads/fr...d-lolicon-the-first-amendment-and-you.149613/

I'm not really sure what you're saying in the last part of your post, probably because I forgot the details of the OP.
I would never defend someone who caused actual harm to anyone.
But posting pictures taken in public and having whatever kind of ****ed up fantasy they want to have about the pictures is not harming anyone, and their rights to do it should be defended, so long as it doesn't transcend into real-life acts of harm.
 
What about the rights of individuals to have some kind of control over their images though? If someone goes out in public should they just assume that people will take pictures of them to masturbate to? You say it does not cause harm, but is that really true. Can we say that or make that call. If you were a 15 year old girl who made the mistake of publishing some personal photos online, and then you later found a site of people talking about what they would do with you, all the while calling you degrading things, all in an environment of incredibly perversion and utter dismissal of you as a person, don't you think that would cause harm?

The barrier here is knowledge. It hurts the person IF they know about it. In this case, I'd say that there is knowing and potential harm. It could be totally and utterly devastating to a person and I can't let that slide.
 
Well, I'd ask what that 15 year old girl was doing on such a site. I'll clarify by saying I don't think that those kinds of discussions should be allowed on a site that an innocent person would come across without warning of what the site contains. This is why 18 or over warnings exist. There are plenty of ****ed up sites out there that would disturb a 15 year old girl, whether a photo of her is involved or not.

I could be wrong though. I see your logic in how that could harm the girl, but I think it violates too much freedom to solve such a rare occurrence. What are the chances of one of the people finding themselves on one of these sites unless they were looking for it? If one of those pervs actually sent the material to the 15 year old girl, then that itself would be an act of harm.

I don't see how someone publishing a photo of themselves is a 'mistake'. You have a strange view on things.
 
JossiRossi said:
What about the rights of individuals to have some kind of control over their images though? If someone goes out in public should they just assume that people will take pictures of them to masturbate to? You say it does not cause harm, but is that really true. Can we say that or make that call. If you were a 15 year old girl who made the mistake of publishing some personal photos online, and then you later found a site of people talking about what they would do with you, all the while calling you degrading things, all in an environment of incredibly perversion and utter dismissal of you as a person, don't you think that would cause harm?

The barrier here is knowledge. It hurts the person IF they know about it. In this case, I'd say that there is knowing and potential harm. It could be totally and utterly devastating to a person and I can't let that slide.
Click to expand...
To answer your first questions: Yes. Absolutely. You don't own your own image, in the sense that you can arbitrarily deprive others of it. You have a right to basic personal privacy, like not having cameras deliberately positioned near the ground to look directly up your knee-length skirt, but you cannot say "You are allowed to have my image, but only if you promise never to look at it while you jerk off."

As to the subject of subjective knowledge, I'll say a similar thing. You have the right to not have your image or reactions about your image to be deliberately mass-transmitted or used to harass/ridicule you or otherwise cause some harm (e.g. being stalked), but you can't just bar people from talking about it completely just because you could come across it.

If you don't want people to think about how you look in public while they masturbate, and for them to casually mention it if they feel like it, then my best advice is to stay indoors and avoid people.
 
Vegeta897 said:
Well, I'd ask what that 15 year old girl was doing on such a site. I'll clarify by saying I don't think that those kinds of discussions should be allowed on a site that an innocent person would come across without warning of what the site contains. This is why 18 or over warnings exist. There are plenty of ****ed up sites out there that would disturb a 15 year old girl, whether a photo of her is involved or not.

I could be wrong though. I see your logic in how that could harm the girl, but I think it violates too much freedom to solve such a rare occurrence. What are the chances of one of the people finding themselves on one of these sites unless they were looking for it? If one of those pervs actually sent the material to the 15 year old girl, then that itself would be an act of harm.

I don't see how someone publishing a photo of themselves is a 'mistake'. You have a strange view on things.
Click to expand...

In the reddit things, many photos came from Facebook, when people improperly set their facebook settings (or when facebook arbitrarily set images from private to public). I didn't explain that properly, but a girl may put up a risque photo in an assumed private location only to have it snagged by people like Violentacrez.

Also for the mistake comment, people who post self images of themselves when they are young just don't have the proper judgement at the time. I recall things I did when I was that young and I'm glad technology wasn't as present then as it is now.

I guess the crux of my issue is that there seems to be a sentiment that we should protect creeps who don't respect other people, but to also look down on those that go after the creeps.

both of them might be wrong, but at least one of them doesn't masturbate to photos of people who did not consent to it.
 
JossiRossi said:
In the reddit things, many photos came from Facebook, when people improperly set their facebook settings (or when facebook arbitrarily set images from private to public). I didn't explain that properly, but a girl may put up a risque photo in an assumed private location only to have it snagged by people like Violentacrez.
Click to expand...
Then that's unfortunate, but I fail to see why that's a reason for why we should make it illegal to masturbate over a publicly available photo.

JossiRossi said:
Also for the mistake comment, people who post self images of themselves when they are young just don't have the proper judgement at the time..
Click to expand...
That lies at the fault of the parents/guardians/whoever-gave-them-the-internet, then. Kids shouldn't be given technology without some education on how to use it responsibly.

JossiRossi said:
I guess the crux of my issue is that there seems to be a sentiment that we should protect creeps who don't respect other people, but to also look down on those that go after the creeps.
Click to expand...
We should protect basic freedoms and by all means prevent the concept of thought-crime. I look down on those who wish to do the opposite.

I'm sorry, but consent should not be required to have someone masturbate to a photo you posted. That's just insanity.
 
It is a social trangression with a social answer. We saw it in action with Violentacrez. Be a creep, get outed, lose your job, friends, and standing in the local community.

I don't believe I have tried to make a case for questioning the legality of this. Also, I don't think it should be illegal to post pictures in that context, but if you do, you will probably get what is coming and I don't think that anyone should try to defend these creeps.
 
Sorry, you're being really ambiguous with the word 'defend'.

If someone made the mistake of acting really creepy on the internet, and then being found out in real life to be that creepy guy, then that's too bad for him. What is there to 'defend'? I assumed you were talking about his right to do what he did, which he has. Obviously society in general isn't going to be okay with it, and that's just the way it should be. Sexual perversions are a private thing, existing in your own mind or shared with other like-minded folk. The risk you take of doing it online is one you should be aware of, and precautions should be taken to prevent tying that online persona to your real identity.

So if you're not talking about defending his right to do it, what are you talking about exactly?
 
Vegeta897 said:
Sorry, you're being really ambiguous with the word 'defend'.
I assumed you were talking about his right to do what he did, which he has.
Click to expand...

Haha, sure, sure.
The OP, the articles linked to in the OP, the article that caused all the fuss were all about "outing" this dude, not whether it should be legal. Most of the posts in this thread were about that aspect of the issue, even some you hit "like" on such as Maestro's.
I guess you weren't paying attention to any of that and arguing a point with yourself which nobody else was interested in.
 
Um, I was directly responding to things Jossi was saying that I didn't agree with, that didn't have to do with that aspect. It got mixed in along the way and I forgot about what he meant, but that wasn't the only thing we were arguing.
 
Law enforcement investigations have verified that pedophiles almost always collect child pornography or child erotica. Collection is the key word here. It does not mean that pedophiles merely view pornography: They save it. It comes to represent their most cherished sexual fantasies. They typically collect books, magazines, articles, newspapers, photographs, negatives, slides, movies, albums, drawings, audiotapes, videotapes and equipment, personal letters, diaries, clothing, sexual aids, souvenirs, toys, games, lists, paintings, ledgers, photographic equipment, etc.—all relating to children in a sexual, scientific, or social way.
Click to expand...

http://www.ccoso.org/library articles/Lanning - molestor behavior analysis.pdf

what you and others seem to be saying in that thread is that loli =/= pedophilia. it's intellectually dishonest to claim that there is no relation when evidence says the opposite. obviously not all collectors are pedos however (almost) all pedos have collections. you can agrue against that til the cows come home however you'd still be ignoring the obvious

personal question for hallife.netters: if you had kids how comfortable would you be around someone that collects images of children? drawings or otherwise? personally I wouldnt want them within punching range
 
ZP8rq.gif
 
You know I was going to post what got eaten by the back button a couple days ago, but this thread has gone well on its merry way without me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mrhairspary
Someone claming to be a valve employee posted a thread on reddit about Half Life 3
Replies
7
Views
5K
WEL$H_GANGSTA_99
WEL$H_GANGSTA_99
-smash-
Valve's moving to a new & much larger office
Replies
3
Views
49K
-smash-
-smash-
Omnomnick
Valve To Remove Steam Workshop Mod Payment Scheme
Replies
33
Views
8K
Lolcomputer
Lolcomputer
mrhairspary
Valve are handing out free copies of Half Life 2
Replies
6
Views
7K
amtherik
A
Pikminiman
[Update: It's over.] Gabe Newell's Reddit AMA Round-Up
2
Replies
40
Views
17K
Pikminiman
Pikminiman
Back
Top