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

Lulu: An App No One Should Accept

compylr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 356 posts

Re: Lulu: An App No One Should Accept

#331

Post by [deleted] »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #275
erikpukinskis wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until we, as a society, can stop blaming women for their rapes (she was so sloshed, what did she think would happen when she got into bed with him?) women are going to be EXTREMELY conservative about these kinds of things. When it's your fault if he rapes you, you put "creepy" on a hair trigger.

You're being disingenuous. There are thousands of rape convictions a year regardless of whatever cherry-picked anti-women sentiment you think exists. Some of which are purely on hearsay and men go to prison with little to no physical evidence. Brian Banks is a good example. Also, this app is to rate men. Its not an anti-rape app. Stop playing the rape card to defend every lousy idea.

[deleted]

Re: Lulu: An App No One Should Accept

#332

Post by erikpukinskis »

lmickh wrote: post #266
erikpukinskis wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until we, as a society, can stop blaming women for their rapes (she was so sloshed, what did she think would happen when she got into bed with him?) women are going to be EXTREMELY conservative about these kinds of things. When it's your fault if he rapes you, you put "creepy" on a hair trigger.

Maybe you didn't mean to use that example, but I think your point is kind of defeated if you say when women are simply being conservative or cautious and append that to a very non-cautious act. Getting sloshed is not the cautious way to go about something whether you are male or female. Your chance of being a victim of a crime (not just sexual crimes) goes up when you get drunk. Before anyone jumps the gun, I'm not s…

Yeah, but women want to have fun. So the solution is get drunk, but be careful about who you hang out with. Thus the hair-trigger creepiness detectors.

Re: Lulu: An App No One Should Accept

#333

Post by darxius »

ohkine wrote: post #328
darxius wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that other double standards exist in other parts of the internet isn't what I was debating. I won't argue with you that there is an inherit double standard among both sexes, but seeing as this thread is about the website in question -- that's the one I was addressing. Also, in no way should double standards and sexism lead to more double standards and sexism.

If you had simply decried the site's 'sexism' i would not have taken issue with your post. What you'd said was that it was an 'insane double standard'. The definition of a double-standard is 'the application of different sets of principles for similar situations, or two different people in the same situation'. Your use of the term 'insane double standard' (not to mention the other comments here using similar language…

I guess I've misused the term then, I apologize. Instead, I should have said that the website is sexist, immature and a waste of bytes.

Thanks for correcting me.

Re: Lulu: An App No One Should Accept

#334

Post by duncan_bayne »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #153
chime wrote: post #25

Wow, it's like everything that I used to fear about the dating world put into one shiny app. Had this been out years ago when I was single, it would've definitely given me a lot of anxiety. Having been happily married for 5 years, all I can say to single folks is that if someone actively rates people on apps/sites like this, they are most likely not the kind of people you want to be with in the long run. As for the s…

Not to mention, female privilege lets them call men "creepers" or "perverts" without question. I've pressed female friends about this and they just answer with "I didnt like the look he gave me" or "we just didnt click." So instead of understanding that most people are not compatible, we're now building a db to slander them based on purely emotional reasoning? If women are using this then it says a lot about the woma…

> purely emotional reasoning?

That's a contradiction in terms.

Re: Lulu: An App No One Should Accept

#336

Post by obviouslygreen »

Steuard wrote: post #166
obviouslygreen wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... but there's no hypocrisy in those same people being less upset about it than about similar treatment of women . You clearly believe this, but that's what it is, your belief. I disagree; women may have " much farther to go," but that doesn't mean this is somehow intrinsically less important to people who really do support equality. There is nothing wrong with establishing your own priorities. Calling this a lower…

I may be misunderstanding you here, so I'd appreciate a bit of clarification. The way I'm reading your argument, it sounds to me like your claim is something like, "Context doesn't matter: similar forms of harm necessarily carry similar moral weight." Thus, this app is intrinsically just as serious of an issue as a similar app rating women would be. But that reasoning doesn't make any sense to me. I don't see how you…

The problem I have with your reasoning is that we are not talking about an act that would have dramatically worse results were it directed toward women. In fact, because there is a much more vehement reaction to anything oppressive to women, a similar "shove" would actually result in more pro-feminine reaction than this one will pro-masculine, so in my opinion, you're ignoring the realities of activism, which will turn that shove on its head.

Like I said... I don't find your view "wrong" in any absolute sense. I find it mildly objectionable that it's arbitrary (which is fine) while hiding behind claimed rationality (not as fine).

Re: Lulu: An App No One Should Accept

#337

Post by obviouslygreen »

Steuard wrote: post #213
obviouslygreen wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Men as a sex have had advantageous circumstances and treatment for a long time, yes. That has absolutely nothing to do with men who are alive today . Perhaps you're a male who's OK with being the subject of discriminatory treatment over centuries of gain you didn't get to live through. I'm not, and I don't think anyone should be. Unless two wrongs make a right, discriminating against people who have not been a party…

" Men as a sex have had advantageous circumstances and treatment for a long time, yes. That has absolutely nothing to do with men who are alive today. " Let's talk about the gender ratio today in Congress, or among Fortune 500 CEOs. Let's talk about the recent study showing that given identical (fake) resumes for a lab manager position, scientists on average offer lower salary and less mentoring to female candidates.…

But if we know that there is a vast invisible finger of society tipping the scales against women in a given context, it does not strike me as necessarily immoral to put explicit structures in place designed to tip things a little bit back the other way.

Seriously? A "vast invisible finger?" No, I'm sorry, that's ridiculous. I'm all for social equality. Equality of opportunity. The way to implement equality is not through further inequality in another direction. That means opportunity starting all the way at the bottom, with basic education, moving up towards higher education, government, and business.

That does NOT mean "hey, we're going to fix this RIGHT NOW, and if women/blacks/pygmys/minority x are underrepresented in any way, we're going to 'tip the scales' in your favor until someone arbitrarily decides thing are 'equal' enough!"

It is unfair to blame men for this situation. It's also unfair to everyone to try and solve the problem of discrimination with more discrimination.

Re: Lulu: An App No One Should Accept

#338

Post by olivier1664 »

jeffreybaird wrote: post #8
jgrahamc wrote: post #4

I can't help feeling that the people who use such an app to date and rate deserve each other.

The issue is men don't use the app. I downloaded it on my SO's phone and was able to find most of the college age guys I know on it. None of them knew they were on there.

Men generally do not need this kind of application to judge if they desire or not a particular woman.

Re: Lulu: An App No One Should Accept

#339

Post by _euac »

overgryphon wrote: post #262
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention, female privilege lets them call men "creepers" or "perverts" without question. I've pressed female friends about this and they just answer with "I didnt like the look he gave me" or "we just didnt click." So instead of understanding that most people are not compatible, we're now building a db to slander them based on purely emotional reasoning? If women are using this then it says a lot about the woma…

"Creepy" means "he made me feel threatened and unsafe". It's valuable information for women to share within their social group so that they can avoid uncomfortable situations. Though it is not at all appropriate to share such information on a public online forum.

The problem with such terms as "creepy" is that they could apply to anyone, depending on circumstances.

- Did the hot date you were kind of into try to touch your boob without asking you? Creepy! (acceptable)

- Did the ugly guy two tables over compliment you on your looks when you were both trying to get a drink at the bar? Creepy! (not so acceptable.)

- Did the guy you were dating for a few months ask you for a 5' in-person conversation after you decided to break up out of the blue over SMS? Creepy! (that one happened to me and I felt personally threatened by this woman's implicit threat of slander)

It's also interesting how prevalent the notion of "creepyness" is in the US. Whereas in other cultures the same guy would be considered annoying, inconvenient, misguided or justifiedly threatening, here a blanket term is applied and everyone accepts it. The same principle applies to a lot of emotional stuff, where Americans apply very coarse "pattern matching" to behaviors that other cultures are way more nuanced about.

Re: Lulu: An App No One Should Accept

#340

Post by crux_ »

papsosouid wrote: post #325
crux_ wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you have no response to something doesn't make it trolling. The men's rights movement as it is should not exist. Not because male inequality is covered by feminist ideals, though it is, but because the "men's rights" movement is largely nothing more than a pretext for men to openly and self-righteously flaunt their anti-woman beliefs.

>Just because you have no response to something doesn't make it trolling. Certainly not. Posting deliberately inflammatory nonsense is however. Especially when posting it as a complete non-sequitur reply to an entirely unrelated post. Doubly so when you then proceed to act like a response is warranted, and double down on the random nonsense.

The post I replied to was, in part, a (poorly worded) justification of the need for "men's rights advocates," and that is the part I chose to reply to.

If you're angered by my disagreement, it's not because I'm being inflammatory. I have not engaged in the name-calling you have, nor have I tried to undermine your posts by pretending to be unable to understand them. I have simply stated my honest opinion.

Perhaps you really do have trouble understanding what I'm communicating; if so, my condolences.

But it's more likely that you're simply unprepared for direct challenges, so you avoid the topics at hand and try to score points via misdirection.

Post reply on HN