Scott Adam's Controversial Deleted Post on Men's Rights • Hacker News Board

Re: Scott Adam's Controversial Deleted Post on Men's Rights

#21

Post by user9756 » Sun, Mar 27, 2011, 2:14 AM UTC

cosgroveb wrote: post #15

user9756 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say this could fall under fair use... :)

It could be certainly. Fair use is determined on a case by case basis and one of the factors is the amount of the work used in respect to the whole work. He quoted the entire work...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_under_United_...

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems the use could constitute educational, in a journalistic sense. Also as the work was deleted it would be hard to argue any lost economical value.

Re: Scott Adam's Controversial Deleted Post on Men's Rights

#22

Post by tzs » Sun, Mar 27, 2011, 3:01 AM UTC

noonespecial wrote: post #11

Its interesting. This wasn't a slip of a phrase or "outburst" like error. This was a sustained train of thought gone seriously awry. I wonder how long it took Scott to say to himself "wait.. no.." and wander back to his computer to delete this. It just goes to show that everyone makes mistakes, even when it is ostensibly their profession. Adams always rode the line between astute observation of reality's offensivenes…

What do you think is awry about the content of his essay? The only problem I see with it is that it is written at too adult a reading level, making it likely to be misunderstood by the average reader.

Re: Scott Adam's Controversial Deleted Post on Men's Rights

#23

Post by daimyoyo » Sun, Mar 27, 2011, 3:04 AM UTC

One aspect of the continuing war on men that hasn't been covered yet is the rampant, cancerous amounts of misandry that has infected the entertainment industry as a whole, but especially the ad industry. All you need to see proof of this is to watch the ads that aired during the Superbowl. With the exception of beer commercials, most ads that weren't gender neutral featured an idiot guy being educated by a smart woman. This trend has carried over to the shows the networks use to make their profits. Every sitcom today has the retard husband and the wise wife. Even ones like "king of queens" that were created for male stars. Why? I understand that most household products are purchased by women so the ads need to appeal to them but why is Kevin James acting like a buffoon on HIS SHOW?

Re: Scott Adam's Controversial Deleted Post on Men's Rights

#24

Post by planckscnst » Sun, Mar 27, 2011, 3:08 AM UTC

I'd like to see the author's specific complaints about the post rather than the simple statement that it's a "load of shit".

Re: Scott Adam's Controversial Deleted Post on Men's Rights

#25

Post by eqdw » Sun, Mar 27, 2011, 3:47 AM UTC

Scott Adams' comments are consistent with my life experience.

That is all

Re: Scott Adam's Controversial Deleted Post on Men's Rights

#26

Post by eqdw » Sun, Mar 27, 2011, 3:48 AM UTC

planckscnst wrote: post #24

I'd like to see the author's specific complaints about the post rather than the simple statement that it's a "load of shit".

I agree. It's easy enough to criticize when you don't actually have to come up with one

Re: Scott Adam's Controversial Deleted Post on Men's Rights

#27

Post by eqdw » Sun, Mar 27, 2011, 3:49 AM UTC

impendia wrote: post #3

Scott Adams chose to delete his post. For the blogger to repost it, IMHO, shows a lack of respect.

Once it's on the internet, it's there forever. Someone of Adams' level of technical expertise should know that.

Re: Scott Adam's Controversial Deleted Post on Men's Rights

#28

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Mar 27, 2011, 3:58 AM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Scott Adam's Controversial Deleted Post on Men's Rights

#29

Post by noonespecial » Sun, Mar 27, 2011, 4:24 AM UTC

tzs wrote: post #22

noonespecial wrote: post #11

Its interesting. This wasn't a slip of a phrase or "outburst" like error. This was a sustained train of thought gone seriously awry. I wonder how long it took Scott to say to himself "wait.. no.." and wander back to his computer to delete this. It just goes to show that everyone makes mistakes, even when it is ostensibly their profession. Adams always rode the line between astute observation of reality's offensivenes…

What do you think is awry about the content of his essay? The only problem I see with it is that it is written at too adult a reading level, making it likely to be misunderstood by the average reader.

That's it exactly. Its more than just a slipped phrase that may get misinterpreted. Its a PR trainwreck, a veritable goldmine of things to misquote, take out of context, and just plain spin the wheels of PC busybodies everywhere.

Admas is a professional at managing exactly this type of situation. A flurry of overexcited, hysterical comments and some extra publicity are usually considered the win scenario for a blogger like him. I think he let this one get way out of hand without (I guess immediately) considering the effect it would have on his extended audience. Upon reflection he realized he'd overdone it. He's not Zed Shaw, after all.

Re: Scott Adam's Controversial Deleted Post on Men's Rights

#30

Post by waqf » Sun, Mar 27, 2011, 4:25 AM UTC

Mz wrote: post #19

TheAmazingIdiot wrote: post #14

Adams has a few good points about this. I'm not saying that it's completely right, but some ideas are. 1. In Family Court, the man is seen as the bad one. Unless the woman is a baby-eater or something disgusting, she will get custody, with the man getting every other weekend or some such. He will also be charged to pay up to half his income for the "child",. And there is usually little or no checks to make sure it go…

There is no way for a man to give up parental rights and also not pay child support. My understanding is a man can, in fact, give up parental rights and not pay child support. I know a man who did so (though I don't know all the details). As I understand it, he had a brief fling with a woman who was separated from her husband. The marriage was falling apart in part due to the fact that it had not resulted in a child.…

TheAmazingIdiot meant that there is no way for a man to unilaterally give up parental rights and also not pay child support. Assume, for instance, that there's no husband in the picture, and that the woman wishes to keep the child and would be happy to receive child support payments.

Then the man has no option other than to pay child support. A woman cannot be forced into this situation, because she can abandon the child without penalty.