Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Anonymous, Apr 5, 2011.
PARTY LIKE A ROCKSTAR
The groovy thing about the internets is that if you go to a site and don't like how it's run or whatever, you're completely free to go create your own hipster site and run it how you see fit.
What we're (and this concept of we is a tad laughable, still today) saying is that this entire issue is about consistency. What we mean by this is that if you're going to be such a hardass about the legality of posting bullshit forbidden in your TOS in this site... you should analyze why you would support the breaking of laws in other arenas. If you're so concerned about legality, what of the wikileaks shitstorm? If you stand as a group, then let me bring in your buddy:
Just because several governmental agencies tell us we shouldn't expose their horseplay (you know, with laws and shit), if we deem it morally or ethically good to do so - we do. Ooops, I'm sorry - yous do.
Well, what rights do any of us have then? As community members we come in here, and basically are told we cannot challenge leadership. Suppose the issue were taken to a poll vote to see if users wanted to amend the TOS to include allowing pornographic content. Suppose it even if we would lose by a landslide against yous. Suppose it because it would mean that your leadership actually cared a fuck about preserving the very soul of activism: the people's power to speak. What I'm saying is that you mods are so aggressively pursuing someone's shit-talking just because you think it threatens the status quo around here, and it's laughable. And of course this is a shitty subject, it means that people get to say all kinds of stupid shit. But, while Sue seems to imply that injurous speech hardly ever gets protected, you need only to look at WBC or the likes.
In the thread I'm reading, one of the moderators committed a blatant copyright infringement, but moved swiftly to remedy the alleged offense.
Notably, they neither bawwwed nor beat their chest over the suppression of their right to free speech.
I'm inclined to support the copycriminal in this case, as it was probably an innocent mistake, and Google was arguably more culpable,
but I might also suggest that we all could nibble on a bit of humble pie. Its important to "keep it legal", but that's a standard we can't always fully comply with.
Posting what N.A.T.E. (or his other sock) did broke site rules and possibly State or Federal Laws,
but "best effort" on the mods' part helped bring the post back into compliance with all the above.
Posting what [mod] did might have broken site rules and/or State or Federal Laws, and/or UK Laws,
(or it could have been copyright "Fair Use" and not actually illegal, and the scary warning was itself in error)
but "best effort" on the mods' part helped ensure the the post was in compliance with all the above- whether it ever was noncompliant or not.
Drama's the problem.
Let's call it for what it is fuck off and go back to cybering
A misguided faith that some things need no explanation such as human decency, you're an obvious demonstration of us being wrong there --congratulations.
Arguing that it is against the fabric of the universe that it is "unlikely for there to be anyone in the world to agree with I.N.A.N.E" is one thing, lecturing someone on their rights on the other hand is highly amusing considering the context of this discussion and your ungrounded position.
here's an existensial of mine...
what if somebody was told that they should come to me, and i did not have anything to offer them?
i guess i'll leave that unanswered, because i do not know.
sorry. typo - existensial Question of mine..
not sure if SFW hmmm
By we I meant the sane people in this thread, and again, you're having a completely different argument from the rest of us.
I think your explication of freedom of expression is heart-trembling. You've made me cry and now I can't stop.
I guess you were wrong. It's my position that all things need explanation. And that it's incredibly pretentious of you to suggest that it is only the impossibility of enumerating how many breaches of human dignity can be suggested as illegalities that stops us from making them such. I disagree. I feel that one of the reasons that the issue is so open-ended is to leave wiggle room to an issue as essentially liberal as freedom of speech and expression. Essentially, you seem very cut-throat about going to great lengths to PROTECT what is RIGHTFULLY everyone's. Yet, you leave no wiggle room. And without the room to breathe, how can one even suggest that there is even freedom?
me too. i give up.
Again, supposing this concept of an "us" holds water. Rather typical though, to always engage with an "us against them" mentality. Or funnier still, an "us against the world" mentality. Or better yet, an "us against the powers that be" mentality.
We didn't have a codified TOS before, as we didn't really need one.
Unwritten TOS was- "don't post NSFW upstairs"
This worked pretty well when we had a downstairs to dump our 'Monsters of the id'.
Works less well without one, when NSFW no longer has a safe haven anywhere.
The rules haven't really changed;
they didn't need enforcement because most people who ignored the "don't post NSFW upstairs" also violated "don't be an asshat"
and most heavy-handed rule enforcement on the old site was over that particular issue.
Yeah, it was hotly debated back then too, if anyone remembers!
Enforcement is different now because mods have fewer nice tools for correction,
there's more confusion about what constitutes an asshat,
and many old-users feel pressed into greater asshattery out of frustration with issues in transition.
That's not new. Most of the stubborn pricks crying today are ones who cried before (and often)
or who were on the verge of tears before the dam buckled.
everyone posting ITT is in my thoughts tonight
I wish I had a cookie for all of you
Seriously? You went there? Because I used a pronoun?
No, idiot. Because you used a powerful concept in a non-powerful, typical way. And you thought you saved the world. Are we posting on the same thread?
You did not provide a definite answer to what protected free-speech constitutes, please answer the questions.
Are false testimony and lying under oath protected free speech?
Is verbally assaulting someone protected free speech?
Are hospital personnel infringing upon the right to free speech when evicting someone from the premises, because they were raving in the operation room?
Do you have the right to tell people that they can't come into your house and discuss your most intimate and embarrassing secrets -- or would you be repressing their expression?
What about slander and libel is that free speech too?
What leadership are you speaking of, am i wrongly deducing you gone ahead and did not read my response, or do you lack the ability a normally functioning human has comprehending others? I am again, sorry that you seemingly have such a sinister vision of WWP. I see you are trying to be clever insinuating that leadership not bound by majority polls undermine democracy, notwithstanding that there is no such thing commonly defined as leadership here, what you are arguing for is not democratic but plutocratic, in short mob mentality or the law of the one that is most vocal on an issue.
We do care about freedom of expression, you have been unhampered to express your derisive comments and ostensibly thick opinions on a matter that has been the center of discussion for centuries. I am sorry your feelings are hurt having to witness this violent pursuit and repression of someone posting pornographic content in a place that was not destined for it, maybe you and the frees-speech prophet should hang out and have some cupcakes together.
^again, Rufus can't seem to hold his own and dismisses an entire discussion because he feels that he is unrelatedly superior. When your fingers are in your ears this long, do the mites start to eat away at your nails?
Zak, a quick examination of my IP logs will show that I am posting from my only account, and that I don't click the anonymous checkbox to pretend I'm more than 1 person. If this wasn't the case, I'm pertty positive that I would have been banned for it already - do you really think they're not looking?
My derisive comments? I only called you bitch, and that was several hours ago. You insist on my lack of intellect when despite your wishes, it's obviously well in place and your ego seems hurt that others in this forum, or the world at large, could intelligently challenge your basic assumptions about human dignity and human rights. No matter how essentially benign and holy and right some things may seem to you, there's no need to act as if I'm the one who's been taking a stab at you personally when while you have some great points to make (OH SHIT, I HAVE THE ABILITY TO ADMIT IT WHEN MY OPPONENT IN ARGUMENT HAS SOMETHING BRILLIANT TO SAY), you seem to focus on the insistence that your own opponent has nothing of value to offer... and sadly, that he doesn't have the wit to do it. If you're dealing with retards, how about showing some compassion and dummying it down futher, or not saying anything at all intellectually heavy?
By the way, we're already eating the cupcakes and have more in the oven. I, despite the fact that all men cannot have been created equal (something I arrive at after realizing that I could never aspire to understand the depths of the things you've written to me today), invite you to the cheap, burn, boxed cake variety we set aside hours ago. Flies are starting to build up on them, but we hope you'll enjoy them anyway.
so we're about freedom of "speech" nao? Funny, i thought from the GIANT type on the home page that reads "Freedom of information" that freedom of information was what the ACTUAL fight is about...not about a mod controlling speech on a private forum. Straw argument imo.
Seriously, just shut up.
Without room not to see pornographic content when you don't want to, is there even freedom? You get on this high horse about freedoms but have no regard whatsoever for others freedoms and rights.
Okay, let's be real then. Who got hurt by the stupid porno?
If you're going to be idealistic, now be realistic, bitch?
no you're missing the point. Anonymous is saying that he breathes pornography.
Can you let Anonymous say what he is saying? Surely, en mass, your audience has the collective brain to read the lines, and to read in between them too.
Thanks for the unnecessary transliteration though.
gems like :
No one was physically hurt, that doesn't mean someone has an explicit desire to be exposed to teenage nudity.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!