121–130 of 154 posts
Andrew Torba is following the footsteps of folks who pushed the boundaries like Larry.
No, Andrew Torba is a racist asshole who uses the guise of "free speech" to peddle hate. And I say this as someone who knew him many years ago during YC.
Rest In Peace Larry, you old curmudgeon! I had the pleasure of working for Larry and can say that in some ways he was a hero of mine. Not because he was a pornographer, but simply because he did what he pleased and fought like hell to protect that right. He risked everything he had to prove his points because he knew if he failed he would have nothing. I didn't always agree with what we were publishing and producing,…
>Not because he was a pornographer, but simply because he did what he pleased and fought like hell to protect that right. That's what's wrong with the "free" world. If something's legal doesn't mean it's moral. He did what he pleased for sure, but at what expense. Many would argue he contributed to objectifying women. There's always a flip side.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the southern "bastions of Free Speech" Historically, southern states were bastions of democratic party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Party_System
Yes. Most of the south flipped to the Republican party after the Democratic Party embraced the civil rights movement.
People are always touting how Lincoln was a republican, but when I read a bit about history it seemed that the parties switched sides after the war in terms of left/right alignment.
I have a friend who interviewed to be CTO of Larry Flynt Publications. She said that when she went in to interview, the first thing they did was sit her in a small office filled with examples of Hustler products and publications. They said, "We'll leave you here for a few minutes to look at what we do. If you decide you're not interested in working with us, you can just leave without checking in with anyone and we'll…
Guess Congress is going to have to start buying their own Hustlers. No way the company's going to continue that crusade. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/17/hustler-has...
Hah, safe to assume Mr. Sando is not British ( https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tossing )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Most of the south flipped to the Republican party after the Democratic Party embraced the civil rights movement.
I find this rather interesting. People are always touting how Lincoln was a republican, but when I read a bit about history it seemed that the parties switched sides after the war in terms of left/right alignment.
Lincoln wouldn't get far in today's GOP primaries...
Rest In Peace Larry, you old curmudgeon! I had the pleasure of working for Larry and can say that in some ways he was a hero of mine. Not because he was a pornographer, but simply because he did what he pleased and fought like hell to protect that right. He risked everything he had to prove his points because he knew if he failed he would have nothing. I didn't always agree with what we were publishing and producing,…
>Not because he was a pornographer, but simply because he did what he pleased and fought like hell to protect that right. That's what's wrong with the "free" world. If something's legal doesn't mean it's moral. He did what he pleased for sure, but at what expense. Many would argue he contributed to objectifying women. There's always a flip side.
Both of those sides won't really produce interesting discourse, unless you're very invested in making people more (or less) puritanical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Not because he was a pornographer, but simply because he did what he pleased and fought like hell to protect that right. That's what's wrong with the "free" world. If something's legal doesn't mean it's moral. He did what he pleased for sure, but at what expense. Many would argue he contributed to objectifying women. There's always a flip side.
Moral arguments are in the west almost always made from a puritanical standpoint, of which this post is a good example. To anyone who isn't puritanical, it's not very interesting to say that because they've already decided they don't think like that. To someone who is, you're posting something they essentially already agree with. Both of those sides won't really produce interesting discourse, unless you're very inves…
There are people without a militant views and people seeking to form views and people with weakly held options on the topic. I don’t know if we should shutdown conversations where there are 2 existing opposing camps with strong views
Not to turn this into that conversation elections are an example yet the winning party changes (except for Germany ;))
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Not because he was a pornographer, but simply because he did what he pleased and fought like hell to protect that right. That's what's wrong with the "free" world. If something's legal doesn't mean it's moral. He did what he pleased for sure, but at what expense. Many would argue he contributed to objectifying women. There's always a flip side.
Moral arguments are in the west almost always made from a puritanical standpoint, of which this post is a good example. To anyone who isn't puritanical, it's not very interesting to say that because they've already decided they don't think like that. To someone who is, you're posting something they essentially already agree with. Both of those sides won't really produce interesting discourse, unless you're very inves…
OP's criticism was quite civil and reasonable compared to some anti-pornography people I've seen before.
And it's absolutely true magazines like Hustler objectified women! Have you ever seen one? The entire point is to objectify women and sex!
That's entirely different than claiming you're evil or bad for producing porn...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Not because he was a pornographer, but simply because he did what he pleased and fought like hell to protect that right. That's what's wrong with the "free" world. If something's legal doesn't mean it's moral. He did what he pleased for sure, but at what expense. Many would argue he contributed to objectifying women. There's always a flip side.
Moral arguments are in the west almost always made from a puritanical standpoint, of which this post is a good example. To anyone who isn't puritanical, it's not very interesting to say that because they've already decided they don't think like that. To someone who is, you're posting something they essentially already agree with. Both of those sides won't really produce interesting discourse, unless you're very inves…
More than just the west lol.