Is GAF too strict?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lionel Mandrake said:
Are we on beverages now?

I've recently discovered hard cider, and it is delicious.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I can't stand cider much harder than Magners. Strongbow is pish, Stella Cidre is OK but when it comes to cider I always choose Magners.

On the other hand, I do have a soft spot for indie beers, Brew Dog and Dark Star in particular. Also, as mandated by the fact that my birth certificate has the word "Ireland" on it, I like a spot of Guinness on occasion.
 
Devolution said:
But but...I gotta learn the British way dawg.
Click to expand...
Moan. Just moan. Things going badly? Moan about it. Things going well? Double up on your moans.

Bam, you just passed your citizenship test. Make sure to queue politely and have a miserable day.

SquiddyBiscuit said:
I'm totally hard dude, you can't touch this.
Click to expand...
Is this a sex thing? This sounds like a sex thing.

Kareha said:
Stella was cut from 5.2 to 4.8 as it saves the brewer, AB InBev, millions of pounds in duty.

http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/fmcg/dri...rs-abv-of-stella-bud-and-becks/225330.article
Click to expand...
Miserable bastards. I thought I remembered it being 5.2%. As I said earlier, there's a similar ABV ceiling on white cider.

I feel bad for derailing this fine thread, I'm off to bed.
 
I live in a place where there's no shortage of rednecks brewing their own homemade wine.

9 times out of 10 it's one of the worst things you've ever tasted, but I actually did recently taste some muscadine wine that was pretty tasty.

Delusibeta said:
To be honest, I can't stand cider much harder than Magners. Strongbow is pish, Stella Cidre is OK but when it comes to cider I always choose Magners.

On the other hand, I do have a soft spot for indie beers, Brew Dog and Dark Star in particular. Also, as mandated by the fact that my birth certificate has the word "Ireland" on it, I like a spot of Guinness on occasion.
Click to expand...

I've been drinking Woodchuck Cider. Granny Smith. I couldn't get enough of it when I first tasted it.
 
pigeon said:
It's on this page of the thread. I don't think I'm asking too much of you.
Click to expand...

LOL, I completely missed that. In any case, I think I already answered your "facts". Taking a random woman's picture isn't an invasion of privacy, it's perfectly legal (and it's some people's jobs).
 
Devolution said:
Here's the issue at it's most base that I can explain. Consent and acquiring it are important things in a decent society, especially for women since we are the physically weaker sex and have the added historical oppression of our autonomy meaning jack shit. By endorsing creepshots, you endorse the long standing attitude that women don't deserve a choice in being objectified. Now you can debate to the hills how you acquire consent and how you legislate the lack of consent, but to say that creepshots are okay or even endorse the taking of them, is plain ol' sexism.
Click to expand...

So what about creepshots of men then?
 
Moral Panic said:
This isn't a male-female issue, ixtaka clearly says he doesn't mind it happening to him (and someone posted a male creepshot in the thread too). I don't believe it is sexism since the choice of being objectified or not is removed from everyone, in the same way the right to choose if someone takes your picture has already been taken away from everyone. Your argument is like saying "I think they should ban condoms etc" is sexism because the impact would probably be more severe on women. It would be a completely different case if taking pictures without permission was illegal though, but it's not so I don't think his opinion is sexist.
Click to expand...
Saying it's ok if it happens to me doesn't make endorsing creepshots non-sexist
 
Moral Panic said:
This isn't a male-female issue, ixtaka clearly says he doesn't mind it happening to him (and someone posted a male creepshot in the thread too). I don't believe it is sexism since the choice of being objectified or not is removed from everyone, in the same way the right to choose if someone takes your picture has already been taken away from everyone. Your argument is like saying "I think they should ban condoms etc" is sexism because the impact would probably be more severe on women. It would be a completely different case if taking pictures without permission was illegal though, but it's not so I don't think his opinion is sexist.
Click to expand...

Yes, I also forgot to mention that it fell into typical victim blaming rhetoric in which the onus is placed on the women to somehow avoid these creeps by changing their attire. This is a typical tactic used to shift blame and focus away from the people displaying abhorrent anti-social behavior and onto shaming the victims. It never does anyone any good because in a nutshell: creeps are creeps. If they aren't creeping on the woman in the tight red dress they're creeping on the woman in the burka. There's really no two ways about it. It's not my responsibility to curb my wardrobe or behavior because it has nothing to do with the motives of the asshole who doesn't give two shits about respecting me in the first place.


Sviatoslav said:
So what about creepshots of men then?
Click to expand...

Those aren't proper either but the issue is rarely "what about men" because they simply have to worry less about these things. But consent is something that should be given and respected by everyone.
 
Dudes. I'm not a rapper, but do we really need to continue the argument that got 50 people banned?

I'm not a rapper though.
 
If objectivity wasn't so slanted here, and that slanted objectivity wasn't so advocated and enforced, then I'd say no. So I guess I'll say 'sometimes, yes.'
 
Devolution said:
Yes, I also forgot to mention that it fell into typical victim blaming rhetoric in which the onus is placed on the women to somehow avoid these creeps by changing their attire. This is a typical tactic used to shift blame and focus away from the people displaying abhorrent anti-social behavior and onto shaming the victims. It never does anyone any good because in a nutshell: creeps are creeps. If they aren't creeping on the woman in the tight red dress they're creeping on the woman in the burka. There's really no two ways about it. It's not my responsibility to curb my wardrobe or behavior because it has nothing to do with the motives of the asshole who doesn't give two shits about respecting me in the first place.
Click to expand...

Ignoratio elenchi - your argument is valid but irrelevant since we are taking about ixtaka and ixtaka never said anything victim blaming.
 
Moral Panic said:
Ignoratio elenchi - your argument is valid but irrelevant since we are taking about ixtaka and ixtaka never said anything victim blaming.
Click to expand...

But he endorsed the idea of it. I don't think GAF wants to endorse the idea that doing stuff without consent granted is a respected opinion. Do you think it's a respectable opinion? Or that it does nothing but derail? It's quite insensitive.
 
Cyan said:
Dudes. I'm not a rapper, but do we really need to continue the argument that got 50 people banned?

I'm not a rapper though.
Click to expand...

ibqNQR9IEgRODQ.gif
 
Moral Panic said:
Isn't that the point I was making? There are opinions on GAF (that are not racist/sexist/homophobic etc) that get you banned, no matter where or how you put them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and the mod staff has said so explicitly like thirty times in this thread. There are opinions that are against our TOS and we will ban you for expressing them. This is one of those opinions.

As others have expressed in this thread, your position that this is not a "sexist" opinion is at odds with the position of the moderation staff.

Moral Panic said:
I don't believe it is sexism since the choice of being objectified or not is removed from everyone
Click to expand...

You should probably educate yourself a bit more on issues of systemic sexism if you want to have a long, productive career discussing this sort of thing on GAF.
 
I should clarify, if we're having a discussion of say groping of women out on the street and some dudes come in to just say "I wish women would touch my ass", it's a callous remark and insulting to some.
 
Moral Panic said:
LOL, I completely missed that. In any case, I think I already answered your "facts". Taking a random woman's picture isn't an invasion of privacy, it's perfectly legal (and it's some people's jobs).
Click to expand...

Bullshit. Countless women posted in that very thread saying that they felt it was an invasion of privacy.
 
Something being perfectly legal doesn't make it any less insulting or objectionable by the way. If some dude I'm looking at decides to put his two fingers up and dart his tongue at me, that's perfectly legal.
 
Devolution said:
But he endorsed the idea of it. I don't think GAF wants to endorse the idea that doing stuff without consent granted is a respected opinion. Do you think it's a respectable opinion? Or that it does nothing but derail? It's quite insensitive.
Click to expand...

Okay, but where do you draw the line. What if we go just one step back from creepshots to simply ogling at women. Does that require consent now, too? Should it be bannable?

Satyamdas said:
Right, but a person who says they don't think licking an imaginary vagina should be illegal is not necessarily endorsing that behavior either. Yet, on GAF, that is the conclusion that is immediately drawn and that person will likely be banned for having a "sexist" opinion. It's ludicrous.
Click to expand...

ding ding ding we have a winner.
 
Devolution said:
Something being perfectly legal doesn't make it any less insulting or objectionable by the way. If some dude I'm looking at decides to put his two fingers up and dart his tongue at me, that's perfectly legal.
Click to expand...
Right, but a person who says they don't think licking an imaginary vagina should be illegal is not necessarily endorsing that behavior either. Yet, on GAF, that is the conclusion that is immediately drawn and that person will likely be banned for having a "sexist" opinion. It's ludicrous.
 
guys we've been doing a really great job of not having to ban anybody for what they post in this thread

can we keep it that way please

please
 
Sviatoslav said:
Okay, but where do you draw the line. What if we go just one step back from creepshots to simply ogling at women. Does that require consent now, too?
Click to expand...

I think you have the right to look at anyone in public. I don't think you should stare. There is no way to legislate this in any capacity and that's where explaining to people how to be social and decent in society comes in. This can be argued for creepshots as well now that I think about it, depends on your perspective.


Satyamdas said:
Right, but a person who says they don't think licking an imaginary vagina should be illegal is not necessarily endorsing that behavior either. Yet, on GAF, that is the conclusion that is immediately drawn and that person will likely be banned for having a "sexist" opinion. It's ludicrous.
Click to expand...

What have the mods said over and over in this thread about qualifying statements?
 
Sviatoslav said:
Well parts of her argument were "physically weaker sex" and "historical oppression of our autonomy" which don't work so well when applied to men.
Click to expand...
Sure, but if we're going to have equality, then the same stuff that women are asking for, should also apply to men. If women don't want creepshots, then it should be equally as bad socially to do that to men. However men as a whole really don't mind being objectified. It makes us feel good to know we're wanted.

That being said, as a man, I have no issues about people taking creepshots of me if that were to happen. If people think I'm hot, at least tell me, I want to bask in the feel good attentions.

I mean, taking a step back here, even if it was ugly girls I wasn't attracted to, if that was the only attention I ever got I still wouldn't be mad. It just means I have to step up my game and work harder on my appearance.

Gvaz said:
Sure, but if we're going to have equality, then the same stuff that women are asking for, should also apply to men. If women don't want creepshots, then it should be equally as bad socially to do that to men. However men as a whole really don't mind being objectified. It makes us feel good to know we're wanted.

That being said, as a man, I have no issues about people taking creepshots of me if that were to happen. If people think I'm hot, at least tell me, I want to bask in the feel good attentions.

I mean, taking a step back here, even if it was ugly girls I wasn't attracted to, if that was the only attention I ever got I still wouldn't be mad. It just means I have to step up my game and work harder on my appearance.
Click to expand...
Well yeah, it's an invasion of privacy. Though I mean, as long as you keep the pictures to yourself what difference does it make? Say you have a photogenic memory? One way or another you're still going to beat off (which is what the whole creepshots thing comes down to in the end)
 
pigeon said:
Bullshit. Countless women posted in that very thread saying that they felt it was an invasion of privacy.
Click to expand...

Many people may feel that way but it doesn't make it true. It makes you insensitive, but if that was bannable then half of GAF would probably be gone, haha.
 
Fiction said:
It kinda boggles my mind that anyone would think a taking a sexual picture of woman without her concent and spreading it around online is not wrong.
Click to expand...

While I would never be inclined to take sexual pictures of girls (or boys) and put them online (because it is pathetic and even sadly degrading in a way to the 'pervert in question'), and I agree with you that in our society, yes this is considered 'wrong' - I think the bigger issue here is that we live in such a society where sex so illicitly taboo that one's dearest and most secret commodity be made public is embarrassing or incriminating in some way. If this weren't the case, and it absolutely has no reason to be in a society not founded on Catholic guilt, then the only issue with taking pictures of girls in a sexual matter and sharing them on the internet would be that the 'perverts in question' would look laughably childish.
 
Gvaz said:
Sure, but if we're going to have equality, then the same stuff that women are asking for, should also apply to men. If women don't want creepshots, then it should be equally as bad socially to do that to men. However men as a whole really don't mind being objectified. It makes us feel good to know we're wanted.

That being said, as a man, I have no issues about people taking creepshots of me if that were to happen. If people think I'm hot, at least tell me, I want to bask in the feel good attentions.

I mean, taking a step back here, even if it was ugly girls I wasn't attracted to, if that was the only attention I ever got I still wouldn't be mad. It just means I have to step up my game and work harder on my appearance.


Well yeah, it's an invasion of privacy. Though I mean, as long as you keep the pictures to yourself what difference does it make? Say you have a photogenic memory? One way or another you're still going to beat off (which is what the whole creepshots thing comes down to in the end)
Click to expand...
Yeah, but if a woman feels uncomfortable about that, then why should you force her to tolerate that, just because it doesn't bother you?

The fact is that it's not often that men are objectified. Sadly, the same can't be said for women, and this kind of things only reinforce that.
 
Fiction said:
It kinda boggles my mind that anyone would think a taking a sexual picture of woman without her concent and spreading it around online is not wrong.
Click to expand...

Has somebody actually tried arguing that it isn't wrong? I don't doubt that some people that got banned last time for posting reaction gifs (like the nicholson yes yes gif) were approving of the content of the photos and not the fact that they were obtained without consent. Say I bought something that turned out to be stolen. I can still appreciate the fine craftsmanship of the product regardless of the improper manner in which it was attained.
 
RionaaM said:
Yeah, but if a woman feels uncomfortable about that, then why should you force her to tolerate that, just because it doesn't bother you?

The fact is that it's not often that men are objectified. Sadly, the same can't be said for women, and this kind of things only reinforce that.
Click to expand...
Erm, I'm not saying they have to tolerate it at all though?

I am saying conversely I know men want to be objectified, regardless of anything else though.
 
Satyamdas said:
Right, but a person who says they don't think licking an imaginary vagina should be illegal is not necessarily endorsing that behavior either. Yet, on GAF, that is the conclusion that is immediately drawn and that person will likely be banned for having a "sexist" opinion. It's ludicrous.
Click to expand...

I'll let you in on a little secret. Most people get banned not because of their opinions in and of itself but because those opinions are laced with stupid comments.
 
Fiction said:
It kinda boggles my mind that anyone would think a taking a sexual picture of woman without her concent and spreading it around online is not wrong.
Click to expand...

People just really don't think things through sometimes. They don't think of the broader implications of the behavior, and then make snap judgements on ways to fix (which generally ends up as victim blaming because that's the easiest escape).

I think discussions like these here are valuable, because of the above (as in we should be explaining this stuff to people who just don't get). However, when you add in a bunch of posters that make joke posts, call out posters specifically, and the like, it gets nasty and chaotic really fast.

I wish we could have posts like Devolution's explanation above as the first post in those threads. A nice, easy to understand summary. Generally though, it's too late and the jokers are already posting gifs and snide remarks on an already touchy issue.
 
Am I the only one offended by that pizza thread? Some nasty shit in there.
 
I hope I wasn't the one to cross the line, I was trying to be careful. This has been a very fun discussion because many people have been patient with me and have allowed me to respond to their arguments.

ixtaka is banned, and his opinion that creepshots are OK is not allowed on GAF. I don't think ixtaka's opinion is correct, but I don't believe it was sexist, and I don't think anyone has properly shown it to be. I do think it's harder on women, but society has decided that in a public place someone has no expectation of privacy and so pictures without consent are legal. Therefore there is no invasion of privacy. Someone who decides to use that privilege that society has given him in a legal manner, is IMO, being extremely inconsiderate to other people's feeling may they be male or female. But they're not (automatically) sexist, and it's not a sexist opinion. It's an opinion about privacy. Ban it and all those who are for it, but you can't call it sexist.

I'm done with this now, won't be commentating on this point anymore. Thank you for allowing me this for so long, I hope you've enjoyed this debate as much as I have.
 
Moral Panic said:
ixtaka is banned, and his opinion that creepshots are OK is not allowed on GAF. I don't think ixtaka's opinion is correct, but I don't believe it was sexist, and I don't think anyone has properly shown it to be. I do think it's harder on women, but society has decided that in a public place someone has no expectation of privacy and so pictures without consent are legal. Therefore there is no invasion of privacy. Someone who decides to use that privilege that society has given him in a legal manner, is IMO, being extremely inconsiderate to other people's feeling may they be male or female. But they're not (automatically) sexist, and it's not a sexist opinion. It's an opinion about privacy. Ban it and all those who are for it, but you can't call it sexist.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you seem to be drawing a connection between legality and sexism. Sexism is legal. And, I mean, as much as I'd like for it to not be legal, I bet that's not a practical solution. So the question of whether it's legal or not to take creepshots has literally zero bearing on whether it's sexist or whether advocating taking even more obtrusive creepshots is advocating sexist behavior, which is, apparently, bannable.
 
I think GAF is one of those unique places where sexism is actually just not allowed and doesn't go unchallenged and it's still popular. That's what keeps it appealing to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Is there such a thing as too much chest press?
12
476
Melon Husk replied
US GAF, you too can now send money to help pay off the US National Debt now!
2
54
1K
DownLikeBCPowder replied
  • Poll
American GAF- what is your favorite muffin?
37
888
NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt replied
Who is your GAF best friend?
2 3 4
155
3K
Paasei replied
Who is your nemesis on GAF?
2 3
128
3K
FeralEcho replied
Top Bottom