Live data from Hacker News

We were wrong

kickstarter.com

211–220 of 546 posts

Re: We were wrong

#211
Just read this thread, and it applies to my newly learned wonder phrase:

"Tyranny is the suppression of nuance"

Not many people working with the nuance here, are there? Its gotten very black and white , and if you don't agree with one side, you must simply be a sexual predator.

Re: We were wrong

#212
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.

Of course, because some women want dominance from men, it means that all women loves it. If you unpermittedly invade the personal space of 100 women, and only 10 complain about it, then it's only 10% sexual harassment, right?

Re: We were wrong

#213

Women are sensitive, fragile, inferior creatures who require constant, vigilant protection from honorable men. If it becomes necessary to take a few quotes out of context in our noble quest to protect the fairer sex, so be it. Kudos to Kickstarter for adhering to feminist principles. > The thing that the commenters on social media are leaving out is that the advice was taken from a section in the guide offering advic…

”5) Get CLOSE to her, damn it! To quote Rob Judge, “Personal space is for pussies.” I already told you that the most successful seducers are those who can’t keep their hands off of women. Well you’re not gonna be able to do that if you aren’t in close! ” “All the greatest seducers in history could not keep their hands off of women. They aggressively escalated physically with every woman they were flirting with. They…

Excuse me miss may I please sit close to you and touch you? May I kiss you now?

How exactly do you think people should go about this kind of thing?

Re: We were wrong

#214
post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have some context: http://pastebin.com/zwHYzCZe Sincerely, A HNer who is ashamed of the lack of reading comprehension of this community right now.

Woah, really big difference here. I wish this was up towards the top of the comments so people got both sides of the issue before pointing fingers.

To be fair, it could just be some other random jerk on 'net writing something sympathetic.

Without the source document, though, it's not really easy to say either way.

I'm also not impressed with the author's writing in any event.

Re: We were wrong

#215
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Truth is not subject to voting and Kickstarter has proved that they consider women inferior and in need of protection by banning this type of content.

When companies reject racist manuals, they're not taking the position that non-whites are "inferior and in need of protection". They're simply making the ethical choice, to the dismay of the people who enjoy racist sorts of things. Same goes for the misogynist manuals they're now taking the ethical stance against. So much for your ad hominem. I'd give Kickstarter kudos, except ethics are what people are supposed to h…

Seduction manuals aren't morally wrong, though, (they may be factually wrong and/or sleazy, but not morally) but racism is.

Think of the difference between a book on the history of racism, with very explicit quotes, long, in dept conversations with racists, scientists and policy makers, the authors own experience in these groups, etc and the latest publication from the KKK.

A seduction guide is the first. "Rapists Quarterly" is the second.

Also nicely done working an adhomium in there.

Re: We were wrong

#216
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…

Have some context: http://pastebin.com/zwHYzCZe Sincerely, A HNer who is ashamed of the lack of reading comprehension of this community right now.

It's because someone didn't provide a tl;dr; and you know how we pretty much have our pitchforks ready having read one persons view on something and not finding out the facts for ourselves...

Context was obvious if you read the few lines around the quoted "trouble" text

Re: We were wrong

#217
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…

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?

This is a book on seduction, not a book on long-term relationships. I'm not defending the OP, but don't be intentionally dense.

Re: We were wrong

#218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two things: One. Freedom of speech is a first amendment right to protect you from censorship by the government and the government only. Anyone, anywhere running their own service is fully within their rights to boot you off. Two. A sleazy pickup artist book isn't anywhere remotely near any previous works of banned art. I would consider something as awful the film Cannibal Holocaust to be fine art before I used that t…

Not sure I agree with the parent poster, but I think he/she is well aware of the distinction you're drawing, and says so up front. Certainly, legal freedom-of-speech protections don't require Kickstarter to host any particular content. But Kickstarter can still espouse freedom of speech as a value they try to uphold in their practices, even if they're under no legal obligation to do so. I think as more and more of ou…

How far do you take this? Kickstarter is a business and needs to make money.

Should it be acceptable for people to Kickstart escort businesses, "legal high" websites, or Amway pyramid schemes? All of those things are legal but are seen by the public as being slimy and taboo. Why would Kickstarter want to associate with these people?

Re: We were wrong

#219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't disagree with that either. But, for me, and I can't say whether I'm in the majority or the minority, nor do I care, but I will now literally never use Kickstarter for anything lest my project be deemed to avant garde by the populace at large.

I do sincerely hope, not for Kickstarter, but for us, that this doesn't discourage truly innovative art projects from being crowdfunded, as I think that sets art back, contrary to Kickstarter's stated goals.

In short, they've made it all too easy for me to believe that a book series like Harry Potter could be shut down by the religious right, or that Huck Finn would never have been Kickstartable, nor Nine Inch Nails' "Pretty Hate Machine", etc.

Re: We were wrong

#220
I see the same quote about stopping if there's any rejection being repeated endlessly in this thread. Treating consent as a simple yes/no ignores the reality of a culture where women are taught to be quiet and compliant, and where they're punished when they don't go along. In a culture where half the population is treated as subservient objects, it's a good idea to seek explicit consent every time.
Post reply on HN