Earlier quoted context omitted.
HN is ground zero for privilege denying wealthy cis white men.
What's the insinuation here?
Many HN commenters do not understand, nor want to understand, the reality of the experiences of marginalised groups.
We were wrong
291–300 of 546 posts
Re: We were wrong
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bullshit excuse I keep seeing about " taking quotes out of context " is making me mad. The author himself, removed those specific passages from his Reddit thread when the shit storm started brewing. If he worded what he wanted to say correctly and with the proper context, why remove them?
>If he worded what he wanted to say correctly and with the proper context, why remove them? Why refuse to speak to the police without an attorney present if you have nothing to hide? Your question is no more fair than that one. If I were stirring up a "shit storm" by offending people about a hot-button topic I would certainly start deleting everything I could. Seriously, the guy got a measly $16,000 for this and peop…
My question is fair because the author is the one that removed the context. The context which he stated, was taken wrong.
You comparing being interviewed by the police without an attorney present and what I said is ludicrous.
Re: We were wrong
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, because there is something intrinsically wrong with these guides.
That kind of arguments are not worthy of HN. Nothing here is beyond debate (it may be of topic but that is different), nothing, no matter how strongly you feel about it is beyond debate here and shutting down a debate and declaring the other a monster simply for opening a debate is tantamount to admitting that you hold believes that you are so weakly tied to that you can't defend them.
I am not shutting down the debate. I am not declaring anyone a monster. I am merely pointing out that if you are defending the guide, you are defending a sexual assault manual. That is the reality of the situation.
Re: We were wrong
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 aren't sexual assault that you could do before resorting to that. Is it sexual assault if I do that to my girlfriend of 5 years? In many contexts it would be sexual assault, but in many it wouldn't be. I think you're just assuming it's sexual assau…
> Is it sexual assault if I do that to my girlfriend of 5 years? Do you need to read a how-to book in order to seduce your girlfriend of 5 years?
Lots of girlfriends of 5 years would say the answer to that question is "yes, absolutely".
Re: We were wrong
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. The more dangerous precedent is that they are willing to cave to a vocal group who may or may not be right. Without defending the material, because I frankly can't, I am troubled to see Kickstarter imposing its own value judgements on projects, and even worse than that, now subject themselves to the value judgements of whichever populace can prove to be the most vocal.
Private company. They are free to cave in to demands from a vocal minority if they so choose. They are free to ban anything remotely non-religious or atheistic, if they so choose. If you feel so strongl about it, start your own company that will publish and market products in line with your values, get together with like-minded people to start an advocacy group and most importantly, vote with your dollars and encoura…
Nobody is denying Kickstarters rights and I would be the first to defend them if anybody ended up suing them over this, but actions have consequences, even for companies. If they don't cave in to the next offensive project (t-shirt with "I have a gun because I have a small dick") then they will stop being percieved as neutral and will hurt their business with some groups. As a company, they are trying to make as much money as they can, so they should consider the consequences of turning away people, even if they unquestionately have the right to do so.
Re: We were wrong
#296Earlier 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.
This "defense" misses the point. The gist of the controversial advice is "Don't wait for signs before you make your move. Let her be the one who rejects your advances. If she says no, stop immediately and tell her you don't want to do anything that would make her uncomfortable. Try again at a later time if appropriate or cease entirely if she is absolutely not interested." This is not a defense. This advice leads to…
>And for what? To avoid the embarrassment of saying, "So do you wanna fuck?" How old are you?
I'm not the person you wrote this to, but I can answer that I am 41 years old, have been married for 11 years and have three children (including a daughter).
When I think of the little scene you've played out there occurring, I see the biggest nerd in the world getting his first chance at making out with a girl when he awkwardly stops and says, "Do you consent to fornication at this time?"
Frankly, your advice makes you sound unbelievably young and inexperienced with women. I have yet to meet a woman that wants you ask permission for every stage of a sexual relationship. In fact, every woman I've talked to about the subject has told me that it's specifically unwanted.
Re: We were wrong
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
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, c…
I think for your disaster scenario to be taken seriously there would need to be major cultural works--peers of Harry Potter, Huck Finn, and NIN--that were products of the Kickstarter process. Using examples that predate crowdfunding to discuss the negative repercussions of not having crowdfunding is a little ridiculous. The avenues that produced HP, HF and NIN still exist.
The point was clearly hypothetical. I wasn't looking for a statement with 'impact', so much as a way to illustrate that there are works of art that can also be considered controversial.
There are clearly books, movies and songs being funded by Kickstarter. I want the media I consume to challenge my beliefs, and to challenge my ways of thinking.
And again, I don't dispute that this was perfectly within KickStarter's right to act the way they did, and while yeah, I don't like it, who am I? Nobody. That doesn't mean that it doesn't bother me, and that doesn't mean that it isn't somewhat ominous, at least in my opinion.
Re: We were wrong
#298It's really quite remarkable how much good will a simple apology can generate. I wish more individuals and organizations recognized this.
Re: We were wrong
#299Dear 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.
Oh, my reading comprehension is perfectly okay (even for an old guy). The issue that I have is that when the author claimed to have been taken out of context ("devoid of context" was the term he used), he himself removed the context surrounding his posts.
Re: We were wrong
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
By the same reasoning, if some women do NOT want "dominance from men" then all "dominance" is sexual assault?