What's next, whores say they wont provide prostitution to a state that bans prostitution?
"You can't fire me, I quit!"
Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law
21–30 of 123 posts
Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law
#22The lack of self-awareness is pretty funny. Setting aside moral judgements, consider: a state passes a law based on traditional religious morality, and a company that violates traditional religious morality then refuses to do business in it as "punishment". At some level, I guess it's good. The Big Sort continues apace.
I see their point, or stance as "protest" but I can't see how this does anything than make those people who saw it fit to pass those laws pleased with the developments.
Those lawmakers will now hope people who run prostitution rings join the protest. Maybe even the bootleggers and...
On the other hand the hamster gets nice publicity out of it, so on balance its probably a net positive for them.
Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law
#23You say that like it's a bad thing.
That's what I thought!
The local gang said they'd stop robbing and murdering people to boycott my safe streets policy.
What do they expect me to say? "Oh.. no, don't, uh, stop trying to sell drugs to my kids..."
Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law
#24Would be more fun if xhamster required a certificate of sexual orientation before allowing you to switch to straight or gay porn.
What I haven't seen discussed is the real objection going on is that NC insists you use the bathroom as defined by your birth certificate, and you can change that post-op. So people think that's too onerous, so what _should_ the standard be? Should you simply file something stating you are whatever gender? Do you have to present as the gender to some degree? Who decides if you are doing it enough? Etc.
The problem with that approach is that not all transgender people elect to have operations, so making that the minimum bar is unreasonable. A much more reasonable (non-fear mongering) approach is to use the gender the person identifies with. I don't know how you set that bar, maybe it's obvious, maybe it requires a note from a physician or similar.
I think it would be fairly obvious to discern someone who's actually identifying with a given gender versus some guy who wishes to get into the women's restroom.
Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean the porn. It seems like a non sequitur to withhold something ideologically compatible and inessential, plus the notion of pornographers fighting for equality is a joke.
Why is the notion of pornographers fighting for equality a joke? XHamster seems to have a pretty progressive corporate view towards sexuality. Obviously not all the content on the site is that way, but you seem to be implying pornography is inherently bad? Besides, you're naive if you think the Republican lawmakers who push this type of legislation are actually so wholesome that this is totally irrelevant.
Sexual exploiters fight for "equality" to sexual exploit just like the local bank robber fights for a no-guns-allowed policy among the bank staff.
Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law
#26The lack of self-awareness is pretty funny. Setting aside moral judgements, consider: a state passes a law based on traditional religious morality, and a company that violates traditional religious morality then refuses to do business in it as "punishment". At some level, I guess it's good. The Big Sort continues apace.
It may seem like a lack of self-awareness at first, but I'm almost sure this is because NC is one of the states where lesbian porn is among the top searches, according to PornHub's annual map[0]. So really, it's more just xHamster trying to cut down on hypocrisy. [0]: https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/rolfkdrqf5pg2...
Exactly. Not that it would work, but if you could manage to cut out all porn from NC, it would serve as both a protest against them while also making them suffer in silence. Afterall, i doubt most of these conservative anti-gay groups believe porn is okay - it's an immoral sin, just as being gay is.
As i disclaimed, it's a big if, an impossible if. As much as i'd love to see these people suffer in this uniquely funny way, prohibition never works.
Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I haven't seen discussed is the real objection going on is that NC insists you use the bathroom as defined by your birth certificate, and you can change that post-op. So people think that's too onerous, so what _should_ the standard be? Should you simply file something stating you are whatever gender? Do you have to present as the gender to some degree? Who decides if you are doing it enough? Etc.
The problem with that approach is that not all transgender people elect to have operations, so making that the minimum bar is unreasonable. A much more reasonable (non-fear mongering) approach is to use the gender the person identifies with. I don't know how you set that bar, maybe it's obvious, maybe it requires a note from a physician or similar. I think it would be fairly obvious to discern someone who's actually…
It's easy, make all stalls unisex; add a separator so the urinals are not clearly visible. Or more expensively, just have individual bathrooms.
As an aside, if you are ever in other parts of the world, the East, many bathrooms are open to the world -no doors, and people do alright.
Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law
#28according to reddit, its not actually blocking users. It displays a popup that can be dismissed.
Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you mean the law or the porn?
I mean the porn. It seems like a non sequitur to withhold something ideologically compatible and inessential, plus the notion of pornographers fighting for equality is a joke.
I think the porn jabs at the hypocrisy of it all. Most of these anti-gay groups love to throw stones from their insanely tall horses. They pick and choose from the buffet of sins, and ignore the rest.
Porn is likely something they publicly are against, but i would be honestly impressed if it's something they (in their private homes) are against.
Hell, most of these people can't even stomach "Love thy neighbor". Let alone sins of the flesh.
Re: Porn site xHamster blocks North Carolina users to protest anti-LGBT law
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is the notion of pornographers fighting for equality a joke? XHamster seems to have a pretty progressive corporate view towards sexuality. Obviously not all the content on the site is that way, but you seem to be implying pornography is inherently bad? Besides, you're naive if you think the Republican lawmakers who push this type of legislation are actually so wholesome that this is totally irrelevant.
I'll go further than imply, and outright state that pornography is inherently and irredeemably bad. Enough has been written and said about it, so I'll leave that to you to sort out. I think though that for one of several dozen companies to shut down services just means that people will get it elsewhere, republican or not. They're just trying to look progressive, but real progress is fundamentally incompatible with th…
> I'll go further than imply, and outright state that pornography is inherently and irredeemably bad.
While I don't agree, I also think this is a reasonable stance for someone to take. I would encourage others who disagree with this comment to avoid downvoting it simply because you disagree with it.