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

Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 579 posts

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#501

Post by RichardCA »

kragen wrote: post #340
stavros wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> She makes things, and was accused by the publisher of "Make" magazine of being a fake, with some guy doing the actual work. That's fucked up. Why would someone accuse anyone of being a fake, just because they didn't look a certain way? Detestable.

Probably most of us reason from stereotypes a lot of the time. I'm ashamed to admit I've recommended not hiring a guy I interviewed for a sysadmin job basically because he showed up wearing a suit and tie.

Once I got past 40, the only reason to own a "good" suit was to attend funerals.

So I would show up to job interviews in a basic black suit, and I liked the way I felt when I wore it. The old-school attitude about "Dress for Success" is just one more thing that's become retro and ironic these days.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#502

Post by EarlKing »

WesternWind wrote: post #371
Jach wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A user (I'll leave them unstated) deleted a reply with a metaphor along the lines of "what do you expect if someone wears a clown suit when speaking at a technical conference?" Well, here's her speaking at a tech conference, in "context-appropriate" attire that is neither skimpy nor a clown suit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt1OLgGIqhc In "She wears skimpy outfits sometimes", sometimes is really the operative wor…

If you have the skills, it generally shouldn't matter what clothes you wear. Even if you don't have the skills, it generally shouldn't matter what clothes you wear. Like don't strap knives to your arms, and do wear a good mask, but generally we spend a lot of time policing other folk's bodies and attire, and for what?

This has never been true and will never be true for one very important reason: limited attention span. No one has an infinite attention span, and there are many stimuli competing for our attention. Thus, when someone shows up looking like a hobo claiming to have discovered the secrets of the universe, or someone decked out like a bimbo wants to talk about their latest art project, people rightly tune out. That doesn't make them bad people, but it does mark the person trying to get their attention as being painfully unaware that having knowledge of rhetoric is not optional if you want to succeed.

What you wear when you're not trying to convince anyone of anything is your own business, but when you're actually trying to reach someone, maybe it's not asking too much to demonstrate some basic self awareness? If you're not willing to go that far then why should anyone listen to you?

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#503

Post by chrischen »

DaltonCoffee wrote: post #345
chrischen wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A woman's boob is not equivalent to a man's penis. If anything, a vagina is is the equivalent to a penis, as both organs are used as part of sex. A boob is not normally used as part of sex. That being said, if we all agree that no genders can show their sexual organs then that's fine. That's at least an equally applied rule. However the issue here is that some men, and some women too, find it bothers them to see boob…

Wow, in what world is there a debate over who's fault it is that a woman gets raped? You didn't respond to my points about skin exposure being a social norm. We choose to show/hide genitals, breasts, ankles, feet, etc based on a region by region basis.

There are people who believe that if a woman who dresses sexy walks through a dangerous area and gets raped, it is her fault for “asking for it.”

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#504

Post by chrischen »

tsol wrote: post #462
chrischen wrote: post #193

For any Westerners here who seem to have a hard time understanding why this is wrong: Look at an even more women-oppressing culture such as that of Afghanistan under the Taliban. Women are required to cover their faces in public. Why? For "modesty." What it boils down to is that if women show their faces it could have a negative effect on men (sexual attraction). A lot of people where are shaming her for being essent…

No one is censoring her, it's just demonization. No one is compelled to pay her for her content. Advertisers aren't the Taliban if they are picky with what content they're associated with. Artists have been complaining about sponsors dictating the terms of art of centuries and its always been just a niche background conversation. I'm not entirely sure why this is different, it's still private corporations doing busin…

You are missing the point. The point is one group is forced to accommodate for problems caused by another group. The problem is the forcing.

No one should be forced to wear burkas nor to not wear them. But the status quo there is that they are forced to wear them. Yes I agree with you forcing women to not wear burkas is equally as bad as forcing them to not wear them.

I’m arguing that we should let each woman individually decide for herself their preferred body image (within the confines of equal laws applied to all genders). They can show their boobs, cover, them, cover their faces, shoe their armpit hair… whatever they want.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#505

Post by naasking »

igetspam wrote: post #491
naasking wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So why do we loudly shame those that don't want to adhere? Who does it benefit? It benefits them because they're expressing their values and preferences, which allows them to find others like them and build bonds over these shared values. A shitty way to do it maybe, but it always comes back to bonding. Edit: although some people shame out of genuine concern that the shamed party will not themselves be able to find…

> It benefits them because they're expressing their values and preferences, which allows them to find others like them and build bonds over these shared values. A shitty way to do it maybe, but it always comes back to bonding. I'm comforted by the admission of how shitty that is. I don't agree with your premise but I don't have to. The end result is that we can converge on the idea that people should stop being so fo…

> I may have agreed with you 10 years ago but now we have Incels and Red Pills and Men Going Their Own Way and people openly advocate raping women

I'll only close to say that I think the media exaggerates this phenomenon considerably because it drives clicks, so don't buy into it. It's the same effect where people saw terrorism everywhere and feared muslims back in the late 1990s to late 2000's because the media was constantly harping on it.

Yes these people exist, but I haven't seen any evidence that they are a problem on the scale the media would have you believe (unless you're on Twitter, which is an unrepresentative cesspool).

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#506

Post by xboxnolifes »

post_from_work wrote: post #84
SexyCyborg wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>its quite obvious that you are well endowed and using it to your advantage Yes, I play the cards I've been dealt. >by wearing revealing clothing. No, the clothing and gender expression predates YouTube and is for other reasons, is usually more conservative when I'm filming for YouTube, and is for myself. I've never worn anything for my audience. >Can we acknowledge that some probably significant proportion of your c…

Quoted post unavailable.

Having the opportunity to get implant surgery and deciding to pursue it is still playing your hand. The same way that being born into a scenario having access to computers and deciding to use them is. Or using makeup. Or being born with a healthy enough body to work out for muscle. Etc, etc, etc.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#507

Post by xboxnolifes »

bayesian_horse wrote: post #258
jessikat wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's basically the digital equivalent of body shaming. And this sort of thing will feed into biased AI algorithms, and shape the world of "acceptable media" in the years to come. It may seem harmless on the surface, but the ramifications run deep.

It's not body shaming, it's sexism by enforcing a questionable modesty standard. If anything, she is punished for looking too good.

That's still body shaming though. It's sexism because it doesn't apply to men, but it's body shaming because it's only applying since she is good looking and doesn't hide it.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#508

Post by liujy »

Freak_NL wrote: post #157
xenomachina wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They use it because they genuinely see Taiwan as 'that other part of China' that needs to be unified with the People's Republic of China, despite having been a sovereign democracy for over 70 years. Taiwan's official name is the Republic of China, so the folks I've heard use the "mainland" qualifier aren't saying "there are two parts of China" but rather that there are two countries that call themselves "China".

People from the Republic of China (i.e., Taiwan) with English language proficiency don't refer to themselves as 'island China' or 'the real China' (barring fringe elements), but may call themselves (ethnically) Chinese. Generally though, they call their country Taiwan and themselves Taiwanese in English. Besides, if ambiguity is the concern for people from the PRC, the phrase "I am from the People's Republic of China…

Expecting mainland Chinese to use the formal name of the PRC to self-identify is needlessly clunky and formal.

The reason why many Chinese, regardless of nationality, use the phrase “mainland Chinese” or “mainland China” in English is because it’s the direct translation of 中国大陆, the phrase used to identify the mainland. It doesn’t indicate political affiliation in any way.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#509

Post by bradlys »

igetspam wrote: post #492
bradlys wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on your position as a male. Barack Obama got made fun of for a tan/beige suit he wore once. Men get made fun of for what they wear all the time. So, I don’t get this argument that no one cares what men wear because we all certainly do. See mens wardrobe options vs womens. Compare the two - look at what is normal for one and normal for another. You’ll see one has far more selection than the other.

Yes but those are memorable and we laugh at them because they stand out. The volume of hate we throw at women is orders of magnitude worse. We don't even really pay attention to how often we slut/fat/ugly/etc shame women any more.

That has nothing to do with dress. We critique men's dress very often as we do women's.

I think another aspect is that men's fashion is inherently more limited - because - men are aware of the critiques and don't want to deal with it.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#510

Post by kragen »

kragen wrote: post #344
badRNG wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Secondly, whether you like it or not, women are more likely to complain of male nudity in a venue than men are to complain of female nudity in a venue, yet you want to portray the argument as "men are the problem". Source? Anecdotally living in the South, it is overwhelmingly men complaining about women not properly conforming to their sensibility regarding modesty. I've never heard it the other way around, and you…

I've mostly heard men and women complaining about female nudity, but then you have flashers.

Unfortunately the comment asking for clarification has been flagged into oblivion, so I'll repeat my clarifying comment here:

I definitely did not intend to say that Naomi Wu is like a flasher, and I appreciate your implicit request for clarification.

I meant that I frequently hear both men and women criticize specifically women for nudity, especially when the critics are from the US, and I very rarely hear them criticizing men for nudity. When men do get criticized for nudity, it's usually in a circumstance where the nudity is being interpreted as a threat, such as a flasher, which is a very different situation than posting a video of laser-cutting a dressmaker's dummy.

Post reply on HN