Naked celebrities: a new social statement?

[JimB]

We gain clarity. It's very popular these days to go broad-brushing. Clarity and focus never hurt anyone.

I am very suspicious of this statement when coming from someone who seems to misread everything said to him.

You must not be very fond of the internet, then.

The internet is not piracy, nor is it a pirate. It is a medium in which piracy is more prevalent than most. I feel free to disapprove of the criminal actions people take without condemning the environment for the criminals' choices.

Did you get the express consent of the artist to use that avatar?

Yes.

I'm not trying to dismiss that leaking nudes is bad mind you, only questioning the validity of your particular line of reasoning.

No, you're trying to score points by calling me a hypocrite, which is annoying when it comes from someone who was previously pretending this line of questioning is an attempt to understand me. Please stop that.

After all, a child predator watch list would violate someone's "decision how much of myself is revealed to the world, not the decision of a thief," would it not?

...Are you saying that you think the public's right to know whether their children are in the presence of a sexual predator whose proclivities cannot currently be cured by the field of medicine is equivalent to a hacker's right to steal naked pictures of celebrities? Because Jesus Christ, dude, context is a real thing.

As for the line of reasoning that it's fucked up because "how the victim is affected," then again, we refer back to the bad movie review. Which is clearly acceptable to exist, yet can affect the victim dramatically, and in similar ways.

Context, god damn it, context. A publicly released work of art being criticized under the guidelines of the First Amendment is so far from analogous to stealing another person's private images that are kept under the digital equivalent of lock and key that I have to question whether you're even being serious.

So yeah, to be fair, you kind of should stop accusing people of blatantly lying and making things up to suit them, and should probably recognize that they actually are just genuinely unable to understand the meaning you are trying to convey.

That they possess some incapacity to comprehend words does not mean they aren't still making shit up. It just means it's not deliberately malicious when they do so.

 

[Loonyyy]

lolwat.
Someone can run up your credit card and you won't loose money? Where did you learn economics?

The irony of course being, that's not what economics is. I'd ask you where you learned finance, accounting, or economics, but it's clear you've learnt none of those three.

Specifically what they seem to be referring to is that credit transactions can be reversed by banks. A great example is the new "Paywave" features on bank cards. You can pay for groceries etc with the card. You can pay for fuel. You cannot withdraw money with the wave. If I'm trying to perform a cashout transaction at the store, the only option is checking or savings, because these accounts have actual money. It's the same with paying for your pizza over the phone, or buying a game on steam.

If a charge on a credit card is illegitate, your financial institution can often reverse it, if you report it. That's usually what they do (Recently happened to my girlfriend). If someone gets your PIN, they can withdraw money from your SAVINGS. That doesn't come back nearly so easily, because the bank is at a loss.

 

[JimB]

What points? This is an internet forum, not a gameshow. If you got express consent, then you're not a hypocrite. Please calm down.

Except my hypocrisy doesn't matter. It doesn't make my observations wrong; it just means I don't act on them. A crime is still a crime whether I commit it or whether someone else does, so for you to try to deflect a discussion about how it's a crime to steal nude photos of people into being about me stealing a public domain piece of art suggests you don't actually care about the topic at all, and are just trying to win some imaginary bout. So I will ask you again to please knock it off.

I'm not saying I think they're the same; your previous line of reasoning would also apply to the public's right to know.

The public most explicitly does not have a right to know what Jennifer Lawrence's tits look like in defiance of her own wishes to keep such matters private, and shame on you for suggesting we do. Shame on you.

[My snipped quote] could apply to a child predator's right to keep information about his past private.

A criminal matter is by definition a public matter, not a private one, unless the courtroom is closed and the case is sealed by judicial order. I am unaware of any law which permits sex offenders to have their records sealed; therefore their criminal past is a public matter, not a private one.

I'm working off your lines of reasoning here, not mine.

No, you are not. There is no way on this Earth that what you are doing is a good faith attempt to understand my line of thought, because if you honestly cannot grasp the extremely simple principle I laid down earlier that stealing from people is bad, then I have to assume you are in some manner of guarded facility in which your access to the internet is both restricted and monitored by bonded officials.

If they're not being deliberately malicious, immediately putting them on the defensive by calling them out about it in a blatantly rude and abrasive way doesn't really help foster further discussion.

There comes a point, generally after the third post or so, after which I have to assume that whether deliberate or born of some mental disease or defect, the person who has repeatedly misconstrued me is incapable of doing otherwise and "further discussion" is not a goal to be pursued. The best one can hope for is that some negative feedback will inspire the other party to improve himself. Probably won't happen, but in the case of someone who thinks that arguing against hacking someone morally obligates me to camouflage convicted pedophiles from potential victims, I certainly don't think a kind pat on the head will make a bit of difference.

 

[Loonyyy]

Danger condemned male sexuality here.

Let's try and make this argument a bit more rational by taking the "little fireman in the shiny purple helmet" out of the equation.

"There's no way to stop really determined hackers from getting your credit card information, so it would be really great if more people just decided to take the wind out of their sails and showed they aren't ashamed of their financial information by posting their credit card number and expiration date in this thread."

I look forward to everyone demonstrating how great it is to be unashamed of our inability to get justice from cyber-criminals.

... Where?

The part where he asked to put the sexual interest in such pictures aside to approach it from the perspective of the privacy issue?

Oddly enough, the people who whinge about anti-male sentiment or god forbid "Misandry", tend to make statements that are more misandrist and offensive to men than the people they're replying to.

I'm a man. My sexuality has nothing to do with encouraging women to post naked pictures for my sexual pleasure, with the particularly lame excuse that hackers will do it anyway, might as well beat them to it, it's "Powerful". I can think with something apart from my dick, and when discussing issues regarding people being sexually exploited, I can think with my brain and not my dick, and realise how utterly innappropriate the intrusion of what I'd like to masturbate to is on people who've had their private photos stolen for people to masturbate to.

 

[Lilani]

And to say "they should just post nudes themselves instead of waiting for hackers to get them" is like saying a person with an expensive house should just open it up to hoodlums as opposed to waiting for them to break in. If somebody wants to do that, good for them, but if they don't then the expectation shouldn't be there and the blame shouldn't be placed at their feet if something happens. Or to put it more dramatically, it's like saying a woman at a party should make sure she hooks up with a man consensually as soon as possible so she doesn't get raped later.

Well that escalated quickly. You can't equate Kaley Christine Cuoco willingly posting pictures she chose herself to rape and burglary for gods sake.

I...think you may have quoted the wrong person...? Or you severely misread what I was saying.

If those women posted those pictures for that reason, then that's fine. Whatever. More power to them. But many argue that more celebrities should be encouraged or even expected to do this regardless of how they feel about it, which isn't right. There should be no expectation for anybody to do that, and it should not in any way be seen as an alternative to discouraging these things and punishing those who do it. Nobody should be encouraged or expected to do anything with their private belongings that they don't want to do. Perhaps Cuoco was fine with doing that, but Jennifer Lawrence wasn't. And both have the right to keep their nude photos in whatever level of privacy they are comfortable with.

The difference really isn't significant enough to make their claim valid.

You originally said "Credit card info will leave you without cash, because someone can take it." They countered with the fact that credit isn't cash, which is true. And I countered with the fact that debts accrued by identity theft are almost always settled with the bank. You've yet to point out any nuances about credit which counters either of these, so at this point you're the only one with a claim that isn't valid.

 

[JimB]

I'm just saying, DMS has somewhat of a history of jumping right to that point the first time someone does it.

I think as far as that goes, you and I just have different standards. I am personally willing to adjust my perception of someone's politeness upward somewhat if I think the thing he's saying is both true and fair, so when DANGER- MUST SILENCE accuses people of making shit up after they tell him he said things he neither said nor even implied, that seems perfectly polite to me; whereas letting it pass would strike me as spinelessness. If you think otherwise, then that's cool. You strike me as a reasonable fellow and I'm prepared to disagree honorably on this one if you are (which I consider distinct from "agreeing to disagree" in that I welcome you expanding on your thoughts further, if you feel the urge to do so).

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Had to look up what the hell you were on about with the "little fireman in the shiny purple helmet" comment, ah you're referring to the male penis, I'm guessing further referring to male sexuality.

So if I'm following you, you believe having nude photos leaked online is tantamount to having credit card information leaked only without male sexual desire?

Honestly I can't agree with this statement at all, credit information can be changed and thus eliminating any risks of misuse of lost information, the same can't be said with one's body. Also it could be argued that use of nude photos vs. use of credit card information is detrimental to the victim in a different way, contrasting the two would be extremely hard.

I'm also a bit interested in your solution to having nude photos of yourself leaked, purely a hypothetical, but do you have any ideas for ways of combating the loss of personal information besides releasing it beforehand?

Before I go on, I want to say that I don't disagree with what you're saying about the differences between the two. But...

I think there's a general lack of understanding of analogies on this site. When you make an analogy you're not claiming that the two subjects are exactly comparable in every single way. You're claiming that they're similar in a particular regard.

That being said I think the OP was trying to make a joke (poor taste or not), so I don't think anyone was seriously advocating this (I seriously hope). The manner in which it was delivered was objectionable enough though with the "Well if these women are going to keep whining at least this way we get something out of it" sentiment.

And releasing your information beforehand doesn't combat it being leaked, it just changes it from having a chance of being leaked to being leaked for sure. Literally doing nothing is a better solution, you don't need to work hard to find one. As crazy as it is, a lot of people's objections are with the world seeing them naked as opposed to just the world seeing them naked without their thumbs up.

It's great some people are comfortable with the world seeing them naked, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. But those who aren't shouldn't be expected to and frankly I think that everyone who sought out their pictures or shared them is responsible for violating their privacy

EDIT:

Well that escalated quickly. You can't equate Kaley Christine Cuoco willingly posting pictures she chose herself to rape and burglary for gods sake.

I...think you may have quoted the wrong person...? Or you severely misread what I was saying.

And The Escapist strikes again!

I seriously believe that people here read analogies as "X is exactly as bad as Y" regardless of whether you flat out say that's not what you're comparing