Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An Open Letter to Patreon

openlettertopatreon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 245 posts

Re: An Open Letter to Patreon

#231

Post by Xeoncross »

icebraining wrote: post #190
Xeoncross wrote: post #158

> "Not only that, the most vulnerable among us – disproportionately queer, trans, disabled, people of color and those whose first language is not English – are literally scared for our lives. " The writer uses "people of color" and "whose first language is not English" to build a case for the author's own desire. The author doesn't truly serve in the interests of the black community, immigrants or any of these groups…

Which writer? There are 100 initial signers to the letter.

You can have many people who mostly agree with or support you, but would never have written as you did. All 100 signers did not write the post.

Re: An Open Letter to Patreon

#232

Post by lhnz »

timthelion wrote: post #194
dwild wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that it's extremely hard to discern between both.

Not at all difficult, really. It is only difficult in the sense that it is difficult to tell the difference between a snake and an elephant if all you can do is feel its tail. If you actually know what is happening then the distinction is obvious.

A pornographic photo does not necessarily imply a consent form.

Somebody that watches videos or looks at photos does not "actually know what is happening". They are trusting this exercise to the distributor, and if the distributor is just a medium that does not concern themselves with checking for consent (e.g. most free sites), then you have just delegated to somebody this is not performing this work for you. In that case, you have no way of being able to gauge whether some pornography has had somebody else's consent or not.

Consider also, the idea that not all pornographic actresses/actors are happy with having their content distributed to non-paying consumers, and I think it's highly likely that you and people you know have broken the law and not received consent for at least some of the content you've viewed.

Re: An Open Letter to Patreon

#233

Post by lhnz »

taohansen wrote: post #210
Mz wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That amounts to wildly misconstruing my comment.

i disagree. you’re welcome to explain how your statement does not amount to keeping men hooked on porn so they don’t rape (because that’s the alternative).

You are definitely misconstruing her comment here. The fact that porn addiction may lessen the number of men that commit rape could be empirically true without any implication that all men are rapists (etc.)

Re: An Open Letter to Patreon

#234

Post by timthelion »

lhnz wrote: post #232
timthelion wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all difficult, really. It is only difficult in the sense that it is difficult to tell the difference between a snake and an elephant if all you can do is feel its tail. If you actually know what is happening then the distinction is obvious.

A pornographic photo does not necessarily imply a consent form. Somebody that watches videos or looks at photos does not "actually know what is happening". They are trusting this exercise to the distributor, and if the distributor is just a medium that does not concern themselves with checking for consent (e.g. most free sites), then you have just delegated to somebody this is not performing this work for you. In tha…

In the US, pornography websites are required to maintain documentation of age and consent [1]. I'm delegating that trust to the FBI. If the FBI isn't doing it's job, well that's a different problem.

I will, however, grant that there are tremendous problems with the porn industry. That is absolutely besides the point. These problems are:

A) not unique in any way to porn. Large quantities of clothing and tennis shoes are made by indentured child laborers.

B) only go to further cement my opinion that the actual actresses should be paid for their work.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_film_industry_regulation...

Re: An Open Letter to Patreon

#235

Post by timthelion »

taohansen wrote: post #210
Mz wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That amounts to wildly misconstruing my comment.

i disagree. you’re welcome to explain how your statement does not amount to keeping men hooked on porn so they don’t rape (because that’s the alternative).

there is a difference between keeping men hooked on porn and allowing them to watch it. It's like the whole thing with Catholic priests being pedophiles. Non-Catholic priests aren't forced to marry, and yet they are far less likely to become pedophiles.

Re: An Open Letter to Patreon

#236

Post by dragonwriter »

timthelion wrote: post #235
taohansen wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i disagree. you’re welcome to explain how your statement does not amount to keeping men hooked on porn so they don’t rape (because that’s the alternative).

there is a difference between keeping men hooked on porn and allowing them to watch it. It's like the whole thing with Catholic priests being pedophiles. Non-Catholic priests aren't forced to marry, and yet they are far less likely to become pedophiles.

> It's like the whole thing with Catholic priests being pedophiles. Non-Catholic priests aren't forced to marry, and yet they are far less likely to become pedophiles.

While in many respects the response of the Catholic heirarchy to sexual abuse of minors by priests was beyond appalling and inexcusable, the incidence of such abuse (or accusations of such abuse) from every comparison I've seen was similar to other religions groups, schools, and youth organizations like scouting.

Re: An Open Letter to Patreon

#237

Post by timthelion »

dragonwriter wrote: post #236
timthelion wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there is a difference between keeping men hooked on porn and allowing them to watch it. It's like the whole thing with Catholic priests being pedophiles. Non-Catholic priests aren't forced to marry, and yet they are far less likely to become pedophiles.

> It's like the whole thing with Catholic priests being pedophiles. Non-Catholic priests aren't forced to marry, and yet they are far less likely to become pedophiles. While in many respects the response of the Catholic heirarchy to sexual abuse of minors by priests was beyond appalling and inexcusable, the incidence of such abuse (or accusations of such abuse) from every comparison I've seen was similar to other rel…

> from every comparison I've seen was similar to other religions groups, schools, and youth organizations like scouting.

I have just spent a while looking at the statistics. I have found a huge number of incomparable, incomplete, and incorrectly analyzed statistics, and many strong claims that catholic priests are no more likely to abuse. However, I have found nothing remotely objective pointing in either direction. Have you found any actually objective studies which show anything meaningful as to the question of whether priests are more, less, or equally likely to abuse?

Re: An Open Letter to Patreon

#238

Post by icebraining »

Xeoncross wrote: post #231
icebraining wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which writer? There are 100 initial signers to the letter.

You can have many people who mostly agree with or support you, but would never have written as you did. All 100 signers did not write the post.

Right, but you didn't just say the author wasn't a person of color or homeless; you also, and more importantly, said the author doesn't serve their interest and is just using them. And for that claim, whether the signatories includes people of the mentioned group(s) is relevant, because clearly they felt it was serving their interests.

Re: An Open Letter to Patreon

#239

Post by Mz »

timthelion wrote: post #237
dragonwriter wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's like the whole thing with Catholic priests being pedophiles. Non-Catholic priests aren't forced to marry, and yet they are far less likely to become pedophiles. While in many respects the response of the Catholic heirarchy to sexual abuse of minors by priests was beyond appalling and inexcusable, the incidence of such abuse (or accusations of such abuse) from every comparison I've seen was similar to other rel…

> from every comparison I've seen was similar to other religions groups, schools, and youth organizations like scouting. I have just spent a while looking at the statistics. I have found a huge number of incomparable, incomplete, and incorrectly analyzed statistics, and many strong claims that catholic priests are no more likely to abuse. However, I have found nothing remotely objective pointing in either direction.…

It's fine if you two want to dig into the stats, but I don't think that element is really essential to the point that "Similarly, not all unmarried people are child molesters, contrary to the impression you might have from all the pedophile Catholic priests in the news."

FWIW and similar provisos.

Re: An Open Letter to Patreon

#240

Post by [deleted] »

timthelion wrote: post #237
dragonwriter wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's like the whole thing with Catholic priests being pedophiles. Non-Catholic priests aren't forced to marry, and yet they are far less likely to become pedophiles. While in many respects the response of the Catholic heirarchy to sexual abuse of minors by priests was beyond appalling and inexcusable, the incidence of such abuse (or accusations of such abuse) from every comparison I've seen was similar to other rel…

> from every comparison I've seen was similar to other religions groups, schools, and youth organizations like scouting. I have just spent a while looking at the statistics. I have found a huge number of incomparable, incomplete, and incorrectly analyzed statistics, and many strong claims that catholic priests are no more likely to abuse. However, I have found nothing remotely objective pointing in either direction.…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN