Don't blame Sony for this, they're victims. Blame NK.
I think I've realized why I don't think the "victim blaming" thing applies here: Sony is a corporation not a person. It should not be due the respect or rights of a person. Saying a corporation done fucked up and that contributed to this mess is not blaming a victim.
I don't see what else to call them. They did fuck up, agreed. They were also threatened as a whole as a company with acts of terrorism by a hostile government. They're not neutral observers in this international incident. But to blame the whole thing on them? Ridiculous.
well "victim blaming" is a very loaded phrase with much stronger implications than that so I don't think it is a good idea to use it here or any of the usual pre-canned augments about victim blaming.
I disagree. They did fuck up with their security, but they're not responsible for this mess. They had their staff and their families personally threatened with violence and had their social security numbers breached and the execs were given warnings about releasing more incriminating information from the hack. What are they if they're not victims? They're not the bad guys here, that's NK.
0
Options
simonwolfi can feel a differencetoday, a differenceRegistered Userregular
ask some of you guys who are comparing Sony getting hacked to someone getting raped
to stop doing that?
Please?
I'd really rather not become a total fucking asshole towards you but like, it's not a subject I'm going to be a rational actor about and everyone here knows that and knows why so
can we just
use a different analogy
your argument can be your argument, I'm not asking you to stop your argument or change your beliefs or whatever
but can you please stop using the phrase "victim blaming" and directly evoking terminology that compares a billion-dollar corporation getting fucked over on a million-dollar movie deal to me getting violently raped for several hours
Don't blame Sony for this, they're victims. Blame NK.
I think I've realized why I don't think the "victim blaming" thing applies here: Sony is a corporation not a person. It should not be due the respect or rights of a person. Saying a corporation done fucked up and that contributed to this mess is not blaming a victim.
A corporation can be a victim just like a person. If it isn't ok to say that a girl fucked up by leaving her drink unattended at a party because it is the rapist's responsibility not to rape then it isn't ok to say that Sony shouldn't have left its data unprotected. It is the hacker's responsibility not to hack.
totally disagree here. Corporations are absolutely not due any of the respect or assumptions of good-faith which our fellow human beings are. And respect and fellow humanity are the foundations of the argument about not victim-blaming people.
As I understand it, the whole idea of victim-blaming is that it is wrong to focus on what the victim did or did not do because it is never the fault of the victim for other people being horrible. This seems just as applicable to Sony as it does to a person.
+1
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Don't blame Sony for this, they're victims. Blame NK.
they aren't victims
they are cowards
Sure they are. They got hacked, threatened and extorted by terrorists. What would you do in their position? Keep in mind NK isn't as weak as people think they are. They have a history of abducting and killing people in other nations.
Stood my goddamn ground and stood behind the protection of my nation-state against an act of war
Do you think Anita Sarkeesian was a coward for not going to Arizona for her speech? Do you put the blame solely on her for not following through? I don't. I blame the piece of trash that threatened her and the university with violence.
So what if they're cowards? What's a risk isn't only their bottom line, it's peoples lives. They're reacting to the terrorists.
nope
invalid comparison. once again you are equating a corporation to a person.
also, analogies are the last refuge of people with no good arguments
It's like when you run out of ammo in Wolfenstein and have to kill roboHitler with a knife.
+1
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
Don't blame Sony for this, they're victims. Blame NK.
they aren't victims
they are cowards
Sure they are. They got hacked, threatened and extorted by terrorists. What would you do in their position? Keep in mind NK isn't as weak as people think they are. They have a history of abducting and killing people in other nations.
Stood my goddamn ground and stood behind the protection of my nation-state against an act of war
Do you think Anita Sarkeesian was a coward for not going to Arizona for her speech? Do you put the blame solely on her for not following through? I don't. I blame the piece of trash that threatened her and the university with violence.
So what if they're cowards? What's a risk isn't only their bottom line, it's peoples lives. They're reacting to the terrorists.
nope
invalid comparison. once again you are equating a corporation to a person.
also, analogies are the last refuge of people with no good arguments
It's like when you run out of ammo in Wolfenstein and have to kill roboHitler with a knife.
I don't know, I don't think I would kill robot Hitler any other way.
if sony were a private unlimited with no corporate veil, would that change the ethics of hacking its computers
then it would be more a matter of semantics
if you refereed to the entity as "Sony" no. If you refereed to the single person who in that case is synonymous with "Sony" then yes.
sole proprietorship?
idk
heck, toss out the economic activity - consider whether a homeowner should be obliged to put fences around their house in order to demarcate private property
Don't blame Sony for this, they're victims. Blame NK.
they aren't victims
they are cowards
Sure they are. They got hacked, threatened and extorted by terrorists. What would you do in their position? Keep in mind NK isn't as weak as people think they are. They have a history of abducting and killing people in other nations.
Stood my goddamn ground and stood behind the protection of my nation-state against an act of war
Do you think Anita Sarkeesian was a coward for not going to Arizona for her speech? Do you put the blame solely on her for not following through? I don't. I blame the piece of trash that threatened her and the university with violence.
So what if they're cowards? What's a risk isn't only their bottom line, it's peoples lives. They're reacting to the terrorists.
nope
invalid comparison. once again you are equating a corporation to a person.
What else do I call Sony then? It's a corporation which has thousands of people who each were threatened and extorted by terrorists. It's not like the employees and the higher ups ceased by people when they joined it.
also, analogies are the last refuge of people with no good arguments
I'm using an analogy since what happened was on a bigger scale yet the same result.
Don't blame Sony for this, they're victims. Blame NK.
I think I've realized why I don't think the "victim blaming" thing applies here: Sony is a corporation not a person. It should not be due the respect or rights of a person. Saying a corporation done fucked up and that contributed to this mess is not blaming a victim.
A corporation can be a victim just like a person. If it isn't ok to say that a girl fucked up by leaving her drink unattended at a party because it is the rapist's responsibility not to rape then it isn't ok to say that Sony shouldn't have left its data unprotected. It is the hacker's responsibility not to hack.
totally disagree here. Corporations are absolutely not due any of the respect or assumptions of good-faith which our fellow human beings are. And respect and fellow humanity are the foundations of the argument about not victim-blaming people.
As I understand it, the whole idea of victim-blaming is that it is wrong to focus on what the victim did or did not do because it is never the fault of the victim for other people being horrible. This seems just as applicable to Sony as it does to a person.
Rape culture doesn't apply to corporate security breaches
The context is so different that it's silly
Just abandon victim blaming as your objection and say hey guys I don't think this as much sonys fault as you do instead of making tortured analogies that are legit upsetting some people
I'm not telling you to do anything, I'm simply asking. I have no authority to tell you to do anything. I am asking you, though, as politely as I can manage on this subject.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Fine. I don't understand the difference to be honest, but fine.
In reality my care for the Sony thing is super minuscule.
My guess there was something more in the hack than has been released and Sony saw the cost benefit of pulling the film was better than not pulling it.
Just like the cost benefit of the theaters not showing it. Because that is how corps work. They way the cost benefit. Corps are much more rational actors than individuals. Corps are collective groups so you get more predictable behavior out of them.
Really all I care about is the US and possible Japan's response to this since Sony Pictures is US based and Sony is Japan based.
I mean it is NK. What can you do? Put tariffs on air? I mean at this point you can do much economically to them. And really not much at all without China who is probably now trying to figure out how they can pull the same shit off.
Don't blame Sony for this, they're victims. Blame NK.
they aren't victims
they are cowards
Sure they are. They got hacked, threatened and extorted by terrorists. What would you do in their position? Keep in mind NK isn't as weak as people think they are. They have a history of abducting and killing people in other nations.
Stood my goddamn ground and stood behind the protection of my nation-state against an act of war
Do you think Anita Sarkeesian was a coward for not going to Arizona for her speech? Do you put the blame solely on her for not following through? I don't. I blame the piece of trash that threatened her and the university with violence.
So what if they're cowards? What's a risk isn't only their bottom line, it's peoples lives. They're reacting to the terrorists.
nope
invalid comparison. once again you are equating a corporation to a person.
also, analogies are the last refuge of people with no good arguments
It's like when you run out of ammo in Wolfenstein and have to kill roboHitler with a knife.
I don't know, I don't think I would kill robot Hitler any other way.
In the same fashion, using analogies without any need to do so is a common thing.
The system works.
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
I honestly don't care that it isn't Sony's fault this is happening
My issue is with their actions and those of Paramount and AMC and Bow Tie Cinemas and all the others giving credulity to threats on movie theaters
fuck gendered marketing
+2
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
this is like that time i tried to use an analogy but then i woke up in a bathtub full of ice with both my metaphors removed
Fine. I don't understand the difference to be honest, but fine.
Thank you.
You can continue to make your argument, and you can continue to believe what you believe, I'm not objecting to you stating what you think or making your argument.
It was how you were doing it I found deeply upsetting for incredibly personal reasons, and thank you for not doing it that way and respecting that.
I'm not telling you to do anything, I'm simply asking. I have no authority to tell you to do anything. I am asking you, though, as politely as I can manage on this subject.
I posted before I saw yours, sorry. I'm open to suggestions. It was the most obvious example that I know people agree was bad. I didn't mean to upset you or anybody else. Its upsetting me too.
Don't blame Sony for this, they're victims. Blame NK.
I think I've realized why I don't think the "victim blaming" thing applies here: Sony is a corporation not a person. It should not be due the respect or rights of a person. Saying a corporation done fucked up and that contributed to this mess is not blaming a victim.
A corporation can be a victim just like a person. If it isn't ok to say that a girl fucked up by leaving her drink unattended at a party because it is the rapist's responsibility not to rape then it isn't ok to say that Sony shouldn't have left its data unprotected. It is the hacker's responsibility not to hack.
totally disagree here. Corporations are absolutely not due any of the respect or assumptions of good-faith which our fellow human beings are. And respect and fellow humanity are the foundations of the argument about not victim-blaming people.
As I understand it, the whole idea of victim-blaming is that it is wrong to focus on what the victim did or did not do because it is never the fault of the victim for other people being horrible. This seems just as applicable to Sony as it does to a person.
No, because a corporation, being something intentionally created, has (or should have) certain responsibilities.
Say, for example, you invested some money with a company. They use terrible--or no--security, some hackers get access to the bank accounts, and abscond with all the cash.
Would you not sue the company hoping to recover your losses?
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
If you want analogy thing of leaving your car unlocked.
Sony left their car unlocked.
Their cds got stolen and their phone.
There you go.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
What I am saying, and I really believe this, is that either injured parties are partially responsible for bad things that happen to them when they fail to take precautions, or injured parties are never at fault because we believe that blame is moral, and so it is only the person doing what they are prohibited from (in this case, hacking) that is to blame in anyway for the harm. I normally do not agree with these types of arguments, but a lot of people here seem to. And I can see the appeal in the argument.
I'm not telling you to do anything, I'm simply asking. I have no authority to tell you to do anything. I am asking you, though, as politely as I can manage on this subject.
I posted before I saw yours, sorry. I'm open to suggestions. It was the most obvious example that I know people agree was bad. I didn't mean to upset you or anybody else. Its upsetting me too.
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
The video game Hatred is a real thing, and also James Franco and Seth Rogan made a movie about fake espionage and terrorism that resulted in real espionage and terrorism.
Time to take a look back at the immensely accomplished Western culture that stretches from the glories of ancient Greece to the present day and say: we've had a good run; party's over.
What I am saying, and I really believe this, is that either injured parties are partially responsible for bad things that happen to them when they fail to take precautions, or injured parties are never at fault because we believe that blame is moral, and so it is only the person doing what they are prohibited from (in this case, hacking) that is to blame in anyway for the harm. I normally do not agree with these types of arguments, but a lot of people here seem to. And I can see the appeal in the argument.
Ok but then you make the totally unsubstantiated leap to making the term "parties" cover both human beings and corporations.
If you can prove that a corporation should be equated with a human then, and only then, would it be valid to move on to the subsequent argument you are making.
Fine. I don't understand the difference to be honest, but fine.
eh, it's not difficult. gender as a protected identity, etc etc. hence different philosophical/legal treatment. it might be more correct to limit 'victim blaming' as 'it is not appropriate to blame a member of a protected class for other people being horrible to that member due to their membership in that class'.
protected identities itself emerges from more fundamental concepts of equal access to public participation, etc etc., which trump normal private property rights
therefore it is more appropriate to compare/contrast IT breaches to other kinds of private property
What I am saying, and I really believe this, is that either injured parties are partially responsible for bad things that happen to them when they fail to take precautions, or injured parties are never at fault because we believe that blame is moral, and so it is only the person doing what they are prohibited from (in this case, hacking) that is to blame in anyway for the harm. I normally do not agree with these types of arguments, but a lot of people here seem to. And I can see the appeal in the argument.
Posts
Tied supposedly to the same group.
So no it isn't a completely separate thing.
They are interconnected bullshit.
And the government is kind of looking at them as one.
but sig, sardines are delicious
then it would be more a matter of semantics
if you refereed to the entity as "Sony" no. If you refereed to the single person who in that case is synonymous with "Sony" then yes.
I disagree. They did fuck up with their security, but they're not responsible for this mess. They had their staff and their families personally threatened with violence and had their social security numbers breached and the execs were given warnings about releasing more incriminating information from the hack. What are they if they're not victims? They're not the bad guys here, that's NK.
That actually fired really early and I diplo-annexed them in the early 1500s
My army and economy are strong, don't get me wrong, I just don't have the raw manpower to take France on and crush them wholly
Can I gently
ask some of you guys who are comparing Sony getting hacked to someone getting raped
to stop doing that?
Please?
I'd really rather not become a total fucking asshole towards you but like, it's not a subject I'm going to be a rational actor about and everyone here knows that and knows why so
can we just
use a different analogy
your argument can be your argument, I'm not asking you to stop your argument or change your beliefs or whatever
but can you please stop using the phrase "victim blaming" and directly evoking terminology that compares a billion-dollar corporation getting fucked over on a million-dollar movie deal to me getting violently raped for several hours
thanks, yo
I'd appreciate that
Oh my fucking God dying squirtle
As I understand it, the whole idea of victim-blaming is that it is wrong to focus on what the victim did or did not do because it is never the fault of the victim for other people being horrible. This seems just as applicable to Sony as it does to a person.
It's like when you run out of ammo in Wolfenstein and have to kill roboHitler with a knife.
this is why you should feed him people instead
it deals with the problem both of his addiction to people food and the people feeding him
I don't know, I don't think I would kill robot Hitler any other way.
sole proprietorship?
idk
heck, toss out the economic activity - consider whether a homeowner should be obliged to put fences around their house in order to demarcate private property
What else do I call Sony then? It's a corporation which has thousands of people who each were threatened and extorted by terrorists. It's not like the employees and the higher ups ceased by people when they joined it.
I'm using an analogy since what happened was on a bigger scale yet the same result.
Rape culture doesn't apply to corporate security breaches
The context is so different that it's silly
Just abandon victim blaming as your objection and say hey guys I don't think this as much sonys fault as you do instead of making tortured analogies that are legit upsetting some people
Please Stop.
I'm not kidding, dude.
I'm not telling you to do anything, I'm simply asking. I have no authority to tell you to do anything. I am asking you, though, as politely as I can manage on this subject.
My guess there was something more in the hack than has been released and Sony saw the cost benefit of pulling the film was better than not pulling it.
Just like the cost benefit of the theaters not showing it. Because that is how corps work. They way the cost benefit. Corps are much more rational actors than individuals. Corps are collective groups so you get more predictable behavior out of them.
Really all I care about is the US and possible Japan's response to this since Sony Pictures is US based and Sony is Japan based.
I mean it is NK. What can you do? Put tariffs on air? I mean at this point you can do much economically to them. And really not much at all without China who is probably now trying to figure out how they can pull the same shit off.
Not to be crass.
But it's more like sexual blackmail
actually no that's needlessly crass. there's no need to bring anything sexual into this.
it's just blackmail
blackmail is the term you want.
In the same fashion, using analogies without any need to do so is a common thing.
The system works.
My issue is with their actions and those of Paramount and AMC and Bow Tie Cinemas and all the others giving credulity to threats on movie theaters
it turns out the analogy... was using me
Thank you.
You can continue to make your argument, and you can continue to believe what you believe, I'm not objecting to you stating what you think or making your argument.
It was how you were doing it I found deeply upsetting for incredibly personal reasons, and thank you for not doing it that way and respecting that.
Please carry on.
Analogy that whore!
I posted before I saw yours, sorry. I'm open to suggestions. It was the most obvious example that I know people agree was bad. I didn't mean to upset you or anybody else. Its upsetting me too.
No, because a corporation, being something intentionally created, has (or should have) certain responsibilities.
Say, for example, you invested some money with a company. They use terrible--or no--security, some hackers get access to the bank accounts, and abscond with all the cash.
Would you not sue the company hoping to recover your losses?
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
just make your argument without dragging in analogies that are invalid in any case
Any business can
If they want to spend millions producing and promoting a movie, and then choose not to release it
Even if they were to provide no explanation
What right do I have to be upset?
Sony doesn't represent me. Their response to a threat is not mine / the response of the government that DOES represent me.
Dorks want to throw their money away?
k
Sony left their car unlocked.
Their cds got stolen and their phone.
There you go.
Alright cool.
Cat now begging at end of couch
Time to take a look back at the immensely accomplished Western culture that stretches from the glories of ancient Greece to the present day and say: we've had a good run; party's over.
a
When it's an international flare gun that signals to other countries that bullying tactics and cyber terrorism are the way to get what they want
it's a big fucking problem.
Ok but then you make the totally unsubstantiated leap to making the term "parties" cover both human beings and corporations.
If you can prove that a corporation should be equated with a human then, and only then, would it be valid to move on to the subsequent argument you are making.
eh, it's not difficult. gender as a protected identity, etc etc. hence different philosophical/legal treatment. it might be more correct to limit 'victim blaming' as 'it is not appropriate to blame a member of a protected class for other people being horrible to that member due to their membership in that class'.
protected identities itself emerges from more fundamental concepts of equal access to public participation, etc etc., which trump normal private property rights
therefore it is more appropriate to compare/contrast IT breaches to other kinds of private property
Except that wasn't all it was. Employees got threatening messages to quit the company and they are their families will get hurt.
edit: You're right that the hack itself was what you're describing, so it fits there.
did you ever respond to my comment found here?
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/31451924/#Comment_31451924
It's appropriate in this case to call out a fuck up a fuck up.