How did a private discussion become public knowledge then?
You're assuming that a conversation in a public place direct at another individual is private? You're crazy.
And assuming it wasn't actually illegal, then, I see no problem even if it was a one off. Dude probably frequented the IRC channel, shit happens, it may have been part of a larger discussion and taken out of context. I don't know, but I am certainly as fuck not going to jump to conclusions over sensationalist titles and partial data (if we can even call it that).
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Stiffing a prostitute is not, legally, rape. Nor is it even a tort, because illegal contracts are not enforceable in court.
So basically the reason he's not in jail is because the way society handles prostitution is fucked up enough that there aren't laws against what he does.
Yes, exactly. I just wanted to hammer this point home:
Yup. I'm mostly at arms with this. Why didn't the prostitute just report him?
In most places in the US (San Francisco and Las Vegas being the only counterexamples that I know of, and even those two are debatable), if you're a prostitute and you report a crime to the police, you will get arrested for prostitutionAND the icing on the shit cake is that the person who violated you will probably never be found or brought to justice.
This is a very well-known problem among sex workers and the healthcare professionals/social workers/activists who work with them, and it is one of the biggest arguments in favor of decriminalization.
If you are raped/beaten/stiffed/etc you have no recourse the vast majority of the time. This is also why demonization of pimps or brothels or escort sites statics up the discourse; sometimes having a pimp or affiliating with an escort network is a way for a prostitute to obtain a modicum of protection.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Basically he pretends he wants to hire them as a regular be their sugar daddy and pay them $3000 a month to be his all they have to do is take $100 now and let him slap them around while they are secretly taped then never calls them again. Or like one time he put an ad on Craigslist and pretended to be setting up an escort service so he could 'audition' a girl.
He's scum p much.
So he's tricking people who are ok with being exploited for money into being exploited for money.
Oh okay it's cool to beat women who agree to be beaten for money if you can pay them for it gotcha
You left out something pretty important here so I added it. And ok is hardly the word I would use, more like "pretty fucked up all around."
The power dynamic in this transaction is so unbalanced it could be uses as a fulcrum to tilt the earth.
It's like a Romney fundraiser patron getting his keys from the parking valet (minimum wage and no job protection of course) after the post talk orgy. He waves a $100 bill and insists if the valet passes the keys over while on his knees, he gets the shiny bill. Is this an equal transaction?
Also, Reddit is definitely not my cup of tea but this has a hint of "Wont somebody think of the children??"
Um, what? Since when does the incentive of money magically remove someone's free will. I've quit jobs because I didn't agree to do what they asked of me. It's perfectly possible to turn down money if you don't want to do something.
It'd be more like (even though not really like) if you worked for free for a month under the assumption that you'd get a month's salary, and then at the last day they said they'll never pay you unless you clean their giant blender's blades with no safety equipment and while it was still moving.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
It'd be more like (even though not really like) if you worked for free for a month under the assumption that you'd get a month's salary, and then at the last day they said they'll never pay you unless you clean their giant blender's blades with no safety equipment and while it was still moving.
No, it'd be more like me working for We Are Obviously Total Skeezballs and Are Not To be Trusted Inc, then being super surprised when they try to shaft me out of payment unless I do some crazy shit. At which point I would still have the option of not doing crazy shit. I mean, we are talking about people who went on craigslist with the express intent of finding ways to sell their bodies, not captive sex slaves in Indo-China or something.
I generally agree with what you're saying there but after an act was complete it tacked on an additional parameter that the person didn't know ahead of time. It's like reneging on any contract in the business world with a word of mouth thing and no witnesses.
Problem is it's not a legal business it seems.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Um, what? Since when does the incentive of money magically remove someone's free will. I've quit jobs because I didn't agree to do what they asked of me. It's perfectly possible to turn down money if you don't want to do something.
Backed up with the threat of violence/firing/more dangerous conditions/other varying punishments that the weak, poor and underpriveleged exist under every single day?
No,I dont agree that this was 'free will'. There is a shocking imbalance in power betwen wealth and povery and that's even before we take into account the already mentioned attitude towards prostitutes that exits in law enforcement.
People don't get to do whatever the hell they like because $$$ changes hands, as this fine fellow clearly did.
Um, what? Since when does the incentive of money magically remove someone's free will. I've quit jobs because I didn't agree to do what they asked of me. It's perfectly possible to turn down money if you don't want to do something.
Backed up with the threat of violence/firing/more dangerous conditions/other varying punishments that the weak, poor and underpriveleged exist under every single day?
No,I dont agree that this was 'free will'. There is a shocking imbalance in power betwen wealth and povery and that's even before we take into account the already mentioned attitude towards prostitutes that exits in law enforcement.
People don't get to do whatever the hell they like because $$$ changes hands, as this fine fellow clearly did.
If it was their choice to take the money and do what he wanted, or give up the money and leave, who's choice was it? Again, these people had options, one of which was to use the internet to find more legitamate ways to make money.
If it was their choice to take the money and do what he wanted, or give up the money and leave, who's choice was it? Again, these people had options, one of which was to use the internet to find more legitamate ways to make money.
ITT: sex workers aren't really people and don't deserve to be treated fairly
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Um, what? Since when does the incentive of money magically remove someone's free will. I've quit jobs because I didn't agree to do what they asked of me. It's perfectly possible to turn down money if you don't want to do something.
Backed up with the threat of violence/firing/more dangerous conditions/other varying punishments that the weak, poor and underpriveleged exist under every single day?
No,I dont agree that this was 'free will'. There is a shocking imbalance in power betwen wealth and povery and that's even before we take into account the already mentioned attitude towards prostitutes that exits in law enforcement.
People don't get to do whatever the hell they like because $$$ changes hands, as this fine fellow clearly did.
If it was their choice to take the money and do what he wanted, or give up the money and leave, who's choice was it? Again, these people had options, one of which was to use the internet to find more legitamate ways to make money.
Ok....
I'll get right on telling the sweat-shop and sex workers of the world that they have 'options'. They'll be overjoyed.
One thing I still haven't gleaned from this thread. Is there actual child porn on Reddit that lasts beyond the link stage before being nuked?
The real deal and not 'Moral Majority fainting fit' ladies with bare bits or the usual borderline mysoginistic crud that collects in the lower reaches of many message boards.
One thing I still haven't gleaned from this thread. Is there actual child porn on Reddit that lasts beyond the link stage before being nuked?
The real deal and not 'Moral Majority fainting fit' ladies with bare bits or the usual borderline mysoginistic crud that collects in the lower reaches of many message boards.
Have law enforcement become involved?
I'm curious about this too.
I kind of don't have many shits to give about "barely legal" type porn.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
As far as I know, no there is not. Private subs may be different? I would assume that anyone seriously involved with that stuff would be way more cautious than using one of the most popular link aggregators in the world.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Y'know I do have the same question I just didn't want to do the research necessary to find out because that would mean hunting for child porn. And honestly that isn't a hobby for me.
One thing I still haven't gleaned from this thread. Is there actual child porn on Reddit that lasts beyond the link stage before being nuked?
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: It's tough to say. Reddit isn't as simple as a forum like the one we're on right now. There are tens of thousands of subreddits out there. Some are big and have hundreds of thousands of readers, some are tiny and have one or two readers, many are dead and have no readers at all. Reddit as a whole relies on self policing. If I go to /r/porn and post child porn, people will report me. The moderators of the subreddit will see the report, and they'll delete my link and ban me, possibly also kicking it up and reporting me to the reddit administration or real life authorities. But if me and a small handful of other guys make a subreddit devoted to child porn, as long as no one else sees it, the reddit administration has no idea it's going on and therefore it can't be stopped. I'm only saying it could happen, I have no idea if it actually does or not. But if it does, it's not a failure of the administration or the site's policies, it's just because reddit by its nature is impossible to police very well.
Y'know I do have the same question I just didn't want to do the research necessary to find out because that would mean hunting for child porn. And honestly that isn't a hobby for me.
Indeed, the ick factor is up to 11. I started a search then couldn't work out what to enter without getting a flood of effluence and possibly a knock on the door in a few weeks time. I'll selfishly leave the research to others
One thing I still haven't gleaned from this thread. Is there actual child porn on Reddit that lasts beyond the link stage before being nuked?
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: It's tough to say. Reddit isn't as simple as a forum like the one we're on right now. There are tens of thousands of subreddits out there. Some are big and have hundreds of thousands of readers, some are tiny and have one or two readers, many are dead and have no readers at all. Reddit as a whole relies on self policing. If I go to /r/porn and post child porn, people will report me. The moderators of the subreddit will see the report, and they'll delete my link and ban me, possibly also kicking it up and reporting me to the reddit administration or real life authorities. But if me and a small handful of other guys make a subreddit devoted to child porn, as long as no one else sees it, the reddit administration has no idea it's going on and therefore it can't be stopped. I'm only saying it could happen, I have no idea if it actually does or not. But if it does, it's not a failure of the administration or the site's policies, it's just because reddit by its nature is impossible to police very well.
So this is basically the Helen Lovejoy crowd forgetting to take their blood pressure medication
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
One thing I still haven't gleaned from this thread. Is there actual child porn on Reddit that lasts beyond the link stage before being nuked?
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: It's tough to say. Reddit isn't as simple as a forum like the one we're on right now. There are tens of thousands of subreddits out there. Some are big and have hundreds of thousands of readers, some are tiny and have one or two readers, many are dead and have no readers at all. Reddit as a whole relies on self policing. If I go to /r/porn and post child porn, people will report me. The moderators of the subreddit will see the report, and they'll delete my link and ban me, possibly also kicking it up and reporting me to the reddit administration or real life authorities. But if me and a small handful of other guys make a subreddit devoted to child porn, as long as no one else sees it, the reddit administration has no idea it's going on and therefore it can't be stopped. I'm only saying it could happen, I have no idea if it actually does or not. But if it does, it's not a failure of the administration or the site's policies, it's just because reddit by its nature is impossible to police very well.
So this is basically the Helen Lovejoy crowd forgetting to take their blood pressure medication
Right. There's nothing wrong with what reddit's doing. They've even banned legal but ethically questionable things related to child pornography, like sexualized but fully clothed children. At worst, it's being used as an unwitting platform, but I really doubt it unless child pornographers are retarded.
Thanks Solomaxwell6, that's exactly what I wanted to know.
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
What I would like is a policy change to not approve new sub reddits until reviewed by mod. I would like that but something tells me it would quickly become unworkable.
One thing I still haven't gleaned from this thread. Is there actual child porn on Reddit that lasts beyond the link stage before being nuked?
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: It's tough to say. Reddit isn't as simple as a forum like the one we're on right now. There are tens of thousands of subreddits out there. Some are big and have hundreds of thousands of readers, some are tiny and have one or two readers, many are dead and have no readers at all. Reddit as a whole relies on self policing. If I go to /r/porn and post child porn, people will report me. The moderators of the subreddit will see the report, and they'll delete my link and ban me, possibly also kicking it up and reporting me to the reddit administration or real life authorities. But if me and a small handful of other guys make a subreddit devoted to child porn, as long as no one else sees it, the reddit administration has no idea it's going on and therefore it can't be stopped. I'm only saying it could happen, I have no idea if it actually does or not. But if it does, it's not a failure of the administration or the site's policies, it's just because reddit by its nature is impossible to police very well.
So this is basically the Helen Lovejoy crowd forgetting to take their blood pressure medication
And to put it in perspective, SRS is basically a movement by another forum to call out everything that can be slightly misconstrued as bigotry or misogyny. They're not even doing it for a reason other than for the lulz, to quote yet another internet forum.
It's a circlejerk, through and through. Anyone who takes them seriously or tries to make it a movement for anything deserves to be ridiculed.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
What? It's not a channel discussion, it's a private conversation.
And no, if you're doing something borderline illegal that I want to put a stop to, I don't tell you about the changes we're making ahead of time. That's absurd.
Could you elaborate? Because that doesn't sound right.
Letting somebody know that what they're doing they need to stop before the policy change is a good thing.
I won't comment on the communication method used, since I don't have enough information.
I can't help but feel that some day I'm going to look over all my agrees here and wonder why I'm so in love with Feral.
I can't imagine ever agreeing with one of his posts, but I do enjoy how his avatar seems to have an insatiable hunger for his own agrees/awesomes.
OT: I never said that sex worker's are not people. Quite the opposite actually, my assertions have been that they are people with autonomy and not just slaves to monetary incentives.
Cliff on
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Basically he pretends he wants to hire them as a regular be their sugar daddy and pay them $3000 a month to be his all they have to do is take $100 now and let him slap them around while they are secretly taped then never calls them again. Or like one time he put an ad on Craigslist and pretended to be setting up an escort service so he could 'audition' a girl.
He's scum p much.
So he's tricking people who are ok with being exploited for money into being exploited for money.
Oh okay it's cool to beat women who agree to be beaten for money if you can pay them for it gotcha
You left out something pretty important here so I added it. And ok is hardly the word I would use, more like "pretty fucked up all around."
The power dynamic in this transaction is so unbalanced it could be uses as a fulcrum to tilt the earth.
It's like a Romney fundraiser patron getting his keys from the parking valet (minimum wage and no job protection of course) after the post talk orgy. He waves a $100 bill and insists if the valet passes the keys over while on his knees, he gets the shiny bill. Is this an equal transaction?
Also, Reddit is definitely not my cup of tea but this has a hint of "Wont somebody think of the children??"
Um, what? Since when does the incentive of money magically remove someone's free will. I've quit jobs because I didn't agree to do what they asked of me. It's perfectly possible to turn down money if you don't want to do something.
Have you read some of the posts in the Understanding how other people live thread?
Because I'm not so sure anymore that the bolded part is true. I mean, isn't that why selling your own organs are illegal?
What I would like is a policy change to not approve new sub reddits until reviewed by mod. I would like that but something tells me it would quickly become unworkable.
Remember, the staff of reddit is 20 people. They really don't have the time for that.
And if someone tried making a new CP subreddit, I doubt they'd call it /r/NakedKidsInHere. They'd pick something no random would ever look at, like /r/rfjioejevfdno or /r/Nebraska. And after the fact, they'd make it hidden and invite only so the only chance someone would see is if admins happen to check it out themselves (and, again, there isn't exactly a lot of admins to be checking random subreddits).
One thing I still haven't gleaned from this thread. Is there actual child porn on Reddit that lasts beyond the link stage before being nuked?
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: It's tough to say.
More or less correct, but I would change the short answer to 'Probably'. I have yet to see a similarly structured network that is free of such material. Usenet, 2chan, and all of their descendants have a similar policy when it comes to such content, but it is not exactly rare there. Call me cynical, but I find it hard to believe Reddit is an exception.
I can't help but feel that some day I'm going to look over all my agrees here and wonder why I'm so in love with Feral.
Feral is pretty much the best thing about D&D. I have yet to come out of a thread disagreeing with him/her/it .
Grey Paladin on
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible." - T.E. Lawrence
What? It's not a channel discussion, it's a private conversation.
And no, if you're doing something borderline illegal that I want to put a stop to, I don't tell you about the changes we're making ahead of time. That's absurd.
Could you elaborate? Because that doesn't sound right.
Letting somebody know that what they're doing they need to stop before the policy change is a good thing.
I won't comment on the communication method used, since I don't have enough information.
It's letting someone know so they can avoid ramifications. Nothing about the exchange looks like a warning, the way warnings work on a forum like this. If it were the form of an infraction, against a very shady individual, then fine. That looked like a friend telling a shady friend what was about to go down. To me, Erik sounds apologetic to Violenta and he doesn't respond at all to the fact that Violenta says he has another JB subreddit active. He's informing him that all the other fucked up subs Violenta runs are a-ok. That's why I don't think he's making an honest effort at dealing with this stuff.
The limited staff is a convenient excuse and in many respects is valid, but in some areas I think the admins are well aware of what's represented and are just ignoring it until someone pokes/threatens them.
What I would like is a policy change to not approve new sub reddits until reviewed by mod. I would like that but something tells me it would quickly become unworkable.
"This is a sub-Reddit dedicated to Captain Picard!"
Approve or no?
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
If it was their choice to take the money and do what he wanted, or give up the money and leave, who's choice was it? Again, these people had options, one of which was to use the internet to find more legitamate ways to make money.
ITT: sex workers aren't really people and don't deserve to be treated fairly
It is important to realise that the question here isn't "were they treated fairly" but rather "were they raped"?
While I don't agree with the bootstraps interpretation of the lives of prostitutes with which Cliff concluded the context doesn't quite lend itself to that sort of characterisation.
If it was their choice to take the money and do what he wanted, or give up the money and leave, who's choice was it? Again, these people had options, one of which was to use the internet to find more legitamate ways to make money.
ITT: sex workers aren't really people and don't deserve to be treated fairly
It is important to realise that the question here isn't "were they treated fairly" but rather "were they raped"?
While I don't agree with the bootstraps interpretation of the lives of prostitutes with which Cliff concluded the context doesn't quite lend itself to that sort of characterisation.
Why is that The Important Question?
I mean it seems like a kinda pointless and semantic question in the larger issue of whether whats happening is exploitation or not.
Why keep circling back to "yes but was it rape rape"? Especially considering that doesn't seem to be what was being argued in the chain you quoted at all.
I mean it seems like a kinda pointless and semantic question in the larger issue of whether whats happening is exploitation or not.
Why keep circling back to "yes but was it rape rape"? Especially considering that doesn't seem to be what was being argued in the chain you quoted at all.
Exactly. I didn't call what happened 'rape' and I'm not particularly interested in that question. I'm more interested in the quote tree that started with this:
Basically he pretends he wants to hire them as a regular be their sugar daddy and pay them $3000 a month to be his all they have to do is take $100 now and let him slap them around while they are secretly taped then never calls them again. Or like one time he put an ad on Craigslist and pretended to be setting up an escort service so he could 'audition' a girl.
He's scum p much.
Kagera didn't call it "rape" either, nor did he say that the prostitutes are being physically coerced.
However, hiring somebody under false pretenses, manipulating them, setting up false auditions, taping a sex act without the consent of the other party - these are all morally objectionable acts, regardless of whether they're 'coercive' and/or 'rape.'
Again, these people had options, one of which was to use the internet to find more legitamate ways to make money.
..indicates that he doesn't really see a big problem with lying to prostitutes because they're prostitutes, and if they didn't want to be treated like shit they shouldn't be prostitutes.
Fuck that. Just because our laws fail to adequately protect prostitutes doesn't mean it's right to take advantage of that shitty situation.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
+2
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
If it was their choice to take the money and do what he wanted, or give up the money and leave, who's choice was it? Again, these people had options, one of which was to use the internet to find more legitamate ways to make money.
ITT: sex workers aren't really people and don't deserve to be treated fairly
It is important to realise that the question here isn't "were they treated fairly" but rather "were they raped"?
While I don't agree with the bootstraps interpretation of the lives of prostitutes with which Cliff concluded the context doesn't quite lend itself to that sort of characterisation.
Why is that The Important Question?
I mean it seems like a kinda pointless and semantic question in the larger issue of whether whats happening is exploitation or not.
Why keep circling back to "yes but was it rape rape"? Especially considering that doesn't seem to be what was being argued in the chain you quoted at all.
Because that was the disagreement which brought about this tangent. Not to say it's the only important question to consider just that this was the question against which Cliff was railing.
Posts
You're assuming that a conversation in a public place direct at another individual is private? You're crazy.
And assuming it wasn't actually illegal, then, I see no problem even if it was a one off. Dude probably frequented the IRC channel, shit happens, it may have been part of a larger discussion and taken out of context. I don't know, but I am certainly as fuck not going to jump to conclusions over sensationalist titles and partial data (if we can even call it that).
Yes, exactly. I just wanted to hammer this point home:
In most places in the US (San Francisco and Las Vegas being the only counterexamples that I know of, and even those two are debatable), if you're a prostitute and you report a crime to the police, you will get arrested for prostitution AND the icing on the shit cake is that the person who violated you will probably never be found or brought to justice.
This is a very well-known problem among sex workers and the healthcare professionals/social workers/activists who work with them, and it is one of the biggest arguments in favor of decriminalization.
If you are raped/beaten/stiffed/etc you have no recourse the vast majority of the time. This is also why demonization of pimps or brothels or escort sites statics up the discourse; sometimes having a pimp or affiliating with an escort network is a way for a prostitute to obtain a modicum of protection.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Um, what? Since when does the incentive of money magically remove someone's free will. I've quit jobs because I didn't agree to do what they asked of me. It's perfectly possible to turn down money if you don't want to do something.
No, it'd be more like me working for We Are Obviously Total Skeezballs and Are Not To be Trusted Inc, then being super surprised when they try to shaft me out of payment unless I do some crazy shit. At which point I would still have the option of not doing crazy shit. I mean, we are talking about people who went on craigslist with the express intent of finding ways to sell their bodies, not captive sex slaves in Indo-China or something.
Problem is it's not a legal business it seems.
Backed up with the threat of violence/firing/more dangerous conditions/other varying punishments that the weak, poor and underpriveleged exist under every single day?
No,I dont agree that this was 'free will'. There is a shocking imbalance in power betwen wealth and povery and that's even before we take into account the already mentioned attitude towards prostitutes that exits in law enforcement.
People don't get to do whatever the hell they like because $$$ changes hands, as this fine fellow clearly did.
If it was their choice to take the money and do what he wanted, or give up the money and leave, who's choice was it? Again, these people had options, one of which was to use the internet to find more legitamate ways to make money.
ITT: sex workers aren't really people and don't deserve to be treated fairly
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Ok....
I'll get right on telling the sweat-shop and sex workers of the world that they have 'options'. They'll be overjoyed.
The decision was public. That was a private discussion that (presumably) happened shortly before, but it's not like any of this was a big secret.
The real deal and not 'Moral Majority fainting fit' ladies with bare bits or the usual borderline mysoginistic crud that collects in the lower reaches of many message boards.
Have law enforcement become involved?
I'm curious about this too.
I kind of don't have many shits to give about "barely legal" type porn.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: It's tough to say. Reddit isn't as simple as a forum like the one we're on right now. There are tens of thousands of subreddits out there. Some are big and have hundreds of thousands of readers, some are tiny and have one or two readers, many are dead and have no readers at all. Reddit as a whole relies on self policing. If I go to /r/porn and post child porn, people will report me. The moderators of the subreddit will see the report, and they'll delete my link and ban me, possibly also kicking it up and reporting me to the reddit administration or real life authorities. But if me and a small handful of other guys make a subreddit devoted to child porn, as long as no one else sees it, the reddit administration has no idea it's going on and therefore it can't be stopped. I'm only saying it could happen, I have no idea if it actually does or not. But if it does, it's not a failure of the administration or the site's policies, it's just because reddit by its nature is impossible to police very well.
Indeed, the ick factor is up to 11. I started a search then couldn't work out what to enter without getting a flood of effluence and possibly a knock on the door in a few weeks time. I'll selfishly leave the research to others
:P
So this is basically the Helen Lovejoy crowd forgetting to take their blood pressure medication
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Right. There's nothing wrong with what reddit's doing. They've even banned legal but ethically questionable things related to child pornography, like sexualized but fully clothed children. At worst, it's being used as an unwitting platform, but I really doubt it unless child pornographers are retarded.
And to put it in perspective, SRS is basically a movement by another forum to call out everything that can be slightly misconstrued as bigotry or misogyny. They're not even doing it for a reason other than for the lulz, to quote yet another internet forum.
It's a circlejerk, through and through. Anyone who takes them seriously or tries to make it a movement for anything deserves to be ridiculed.
Could you elaborate? Because that doesn't sound right.
Letting somebody know that what they're doing they need to stop before the policy change is a good thing.
I won't comment on the communication method used, since I don't have enough information.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
I can't imagine ever agreeing with one of his posts, but I do enjoy how his avatar seems to have an insatiable hunger for his own agrees/awesomes.
OT: I never said that sex worker's are not people. Quite the opposite actually, my assertions have been that they are people with autonomy and not just slaves to monetary incentives.
Have you read some of the posts in the Understanding how other people live thread?
Because I'm not so sure anymore that the bolded part is true. I mean, isn't that why selling your own organs are illegal?
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Remember, the staff of reddit is 20 people. They really don't have the time for that.
And if someone tried making a new CP subreddit, I doubt they'd call it /r/NakedKidsInHere. They'd pick something no random would ever look at, like /r/rfjioejevfdno or /r/Nebraska. And after the fact, they'd make it hidden and invite only so the only chance someone would see is if admins happen to check it out themselves (and, again, there isn't exactly a lot of admins to be checking random subreddits).
Feral is pretty much the best thing about D&D. I have yet to come out of a thread disagreeing with him/her/it .
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It's letting someone know so they can avoid ramifications. Nothing about the exchange looks like a warning, the way warnings work on a forum like this. If it were the form of an infraction, against a very shady individual, then fine. That looked like a friend telling a shady friend what was about to go down. To me, Erik sounds apologetic to Violenta and he doesn't respond at all to the fact that Violenta says he has another JB subreddit active. He's informing him that all the other fucked up subs Violenta runs are a-ok. That's why I don't think he's making an honest effort at dealing with this stuff.
The limited staff is a convenient excuse and in many respects is valid, but in some areas I think the admins are well aware of what's represented and are just ignoring it until someone pokes/threatens them.
"This is a sub-Reddit dedicated to Captain Picard!"
Approve or no?
It is important to realise that the question here isn't "were they treated fairly" but rather "were they raped"?
While I don't agree with the bootstraps interpretation of the lives of prostitutes with which Cliff concluded the context doesn't quite lend itself to that sort of characterisation.
Why is that The Important Question?
I mean it seems like a kinda pointless and semantic question in the larger issue of whether whats happening is exploitation or not.
Why keep circling back to "yes but was it rape rape"? Especially considering that doesn't seem to be what was being argued in the chain you quoted at all.
Exactly. I didn't call what happened 'rape' and I'm not particularly interested in that question. I'm more interested in the quote tree that started with this:
Kagera didn't call it "rape" either, nor did he say that the prostitutes are being physically coerced.
However, hiring somebody under false pretenses, manipulating them, setting up false auditions, taping a sex act without the consent of the other party - these are all morally objectionable acts, regardless of whether they're 'coercive' and/or 'rape.'
But comments like Cliff's, here:
..indicates that he doesn't really see a big problem with lying to prostitutes because they're prostitutes, and if they didn't want to be treated like shit they shouldn't be prostitutes.
Fuck that. Just because our laws fail to adequately protect prostitutes doesn't mean it's right to take advantage of that shitty situation.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Because that was the disagreement which brought about this tangent. Not to say it's the only important question to consider just that this was the question against which Cliff was railing.
Well before things became unfortunate...