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

We were wrong

kickstarter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 546 posts

Re: We were wrong

#191

Post by Apocryphon »

bmelton wrote: post #131
fusiongyro wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have kind of a funny idea of censorship. Kickstarter can't stop the book from being made, and authors are certainly not owed assistance by Kickstarter or anyone else to get their work published. It's actually never been easier to get books published and there's certainly no actual censorship happening here. The only role Kickstarter plays is aggregating funds. The author is not limited from pursuing that goal thr…

You're absolutely right. It was within Kickstarter's rights to defund the work, or to disallow the project, or to impose whatever burdens their whimsy could think up. Nor are they the government, from which the first amendment is intended to protect us. The author, meanwhile, is of course free to publish the book in whatever other means he chooses. That doesn't make it any more right in my book, and sets up a dangero…

They're a business. If a larger amount of their customer base doesn't want it, then they would presumably respond accordingly. Microsoft did it for the XBox One, after all.

Re: We were wrong

#192

Post by Nursie »

tomjen3 wrote: post #31
emingo wrote: post #2

Maybe I was raised by a bunch of rabid dogs... But after reading the cached page... I really don't understand what the creator did wrong? He was a guy that I a lot of people can identify with, whom is publishing a book about his experiences? Is seduction intrinsically bad?

Apparently for these people seduction = violence against women. I haven't seen such a broken thinking process anywhere else. If anything seduction is about giving women what they really want. That said it does have a somewhat, hmm, sketchy reputation which is no doubt related to a combination of loathing for men who have a difficult time getting laid and the extreme marketing tactics that those kinds of guides are us…

It has a sketchy reputation because it's about getting as many women into bed as possible and treating them as objects rather than people.

Re: We were wrong

#193

Post by angersock »

hacker789 wrote: post #181
ebbv wrote: post #107

Dear fellow HN dwellers, If you read the writings of the Guide's author and do not recognize that it is misogynistic and advocating sexual assault, you have a problem. That problem is that you are mistaking sexual assault for "taking the first step." You do not need to resort to pulling out your dick and forcibly placing the woman's hand on it in order to "make a move." There's literally hundreds of other things that…

"Take your exposed penis, and thrust it into her vagina. Don't wait for her to put it in for you. Be dominant." That could be instructions for rape. Or it could be instructions for the kind of a sex that millions of straight couples have every day . It all depends on the quote's context, right? Right? So stop taking quotes out of context from the author. > If women are loudly saying "This is assault.", you need to ta…

"Take your exposed penis, and thrust it into her vagina."

wait wait wait

that's what ive been doing wrong this whole time?

and here i was thinking i was just sterile!

EDIT: Really, folks? No sense of humor here sometimes, I swear. Not to worry--the NSA is keeping record of jokes for all posterity!

Re: We were wrong

#194

Post by merlincorey »

blocking_io wrote: post #157
merlincorey wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the author: > The thing that the commenters on social media are leaving out is that the advice was taken from a section in the guide offering advice on what to do AFTER a man has met a cute girl, gotten her phone number, gone on dates, spent time getting to know her, and now are alone behind closed doors fooling around. If "Don't wait for signs, make the first move" promotes sexual assault, then "Kiss the Girl"…

Sorry, but if you're using a Disney film as an example of a good portrayal of women, you've already lost.

Ummmm... wut?

I'm not using a Disney film as an example of a good portrayal of women, and neither is the author of the seduction book.

The implication is that the Disney movie, made and marketed for children, has a song called "Kiss the girl" which is about as rape-y as the advice in the seduction manual. Which is to say not at all.

Re: We were wrong

#195

Post by dionidium »

blocking_io wrote: post #86
emiljbs wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, wow, really? So just because some people are asking "Hey, is there something intrinsically wrong with these guides or what?" they're defending sexual assault.

Yes, because there is something intrinsically wrong with these guides.

I think what you're experiencing here is a crowd that isn't satisfied with claims of intrinsic wrongness that don't include evidence. You do realize that you're not allowed to just state opinions as facts, right? That's not really how arguments work around here.

Re: We were wrong

#196

Post by alan_cx »

citricsquid wrote: post #54
angersock wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you mind listing some of the quotes you found "rapey"?

The blog post linked from the kickstarter blog post includes lots of examples of what most people would consider to be "rapey" “Decide that you’re going to sit in a position where you can rub her leg and back. Physically pick her up and sit her on your lap. Don’t ask for permission. Be dominant. Force her to rebuff your advances.” http://caseymalone.com/post/53339539674/this-is-not-fucking-...

So, like when a car sales man insists you sit in the expensive car to see how it feels, so one is forced to rebuff him? Sounds similar yo me.

Why isn't this just taking the initiative then? Being proactive?

It seem to me that these days men are expected to sit around, do nothing, say little, and have a lawyer ready.

Re: We were wrong

#197

Post by ivanca »

kristofferR wrote: post #134
ebbv wrote: post #107

Dear fellow HN dwellers, If you read the writings of the Guide's author and do not recognize that it is misogynistic and advocating sexual assault, you have a problem. That problem is that you are mistaking sexual assault for "taking the first step." You do not need to resort to pulling out your dick and forcibly placing the woman's hand on it in order to "make a move." There's literally hundreds of other things that…

You do realize that you're saying exactly the same thing about consent that the book is, right? The misquoted parts is from the chapter about when you're already in a relationship, and ready to get physical.

Correct; this is yet another reaction started by radical feminists and followed by naive no-time-to-read-if-true followers; (e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2KPeMcYsuc)

Re: We were wrong

#198

Post by Apocryphon »

gradys wrote: post #154
Apocryphon wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty hilarious when libertarians and believers in unfettered free enterprise cry foul against corporations and businesses for having content standards.

Are you of the opinion that all libertarians think this way? None of the ones I know would fail to understand this.

I'm only referring to the specific ones who would be against Kickstarter's decision by arguments that it "violates free speech." Not all minarchists.

Re: We were wrong

#199

Post by Cushman »

hacker789 wrote: post #123
Cushman wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Women have been the target of systematic oppression for millenia, of which sexual violence has been a primary tool. Are you open to the possibility that that might not be over quite yet? That that might actually be deserving of a little sensitivity?

Oh yes. I'm sure everyone would agree history has been so much easier on men than on women. The world isn't black and white.

Everyone doesn't agree the Holocaust happened, either. It's not hard to understand why.

Re: We were wrong

#200

Post by mindcrime »

rimantas wrote: post #43
tomjen3 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently for these people seduction = violence against women. I haven't seen such a broken thinking process anywhere else. If anything seduction is about giving women what they really want. That said it does have a somewhat, hmm, sketchy reputation which is no doubt related to a combination of loathing for men who have a difficult time getting laid and the extreme marketing tactics that those kinds of guides are us…

Take a look at some survey on the subject what women want in terms of sexual fantasies. Dominance from men will be high at the top.

Just read My Secret Garden by Nancy Friday sometime. Women have some f%!#ng sick fantasies... but somehow men are painted as the sexual predators / deviants, from whom the pure, wholesome, virtuous, innocent girls must be protected...
Post reply on HN