上位 200 件のコメント表示する 500

[–]AFellowOfLimitedJest 193ポイント194ポイント  (12子コメント)

Clearly, no one has shown John just how strongly Bing is tied with pornography. Seriously - for those who didn't know, click videos, turn off SafeSearch, and marvel at how easily your searches deliver.

[–]skralogy 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Dear god you have changed my masturbation rituals forever!

[–]TruckChuck 169ポイント170ポイント  (14子コメント)

Aaaand so ends Reddit's love affair with John Oliver.

[–]new_c 25ポイント26ポイント  (6子コメント)

Anything that goes against the implicit interests of the typical redditor will always be denied, swept under the rug or approached with unrestrained hostility.

That's why there's so few top-level comments (besides, I assume, yours) that show real recognition and understanding of the issues raised in the video.

[–]IeIgHtNiNe 16ポイント17ポイント  (2子コメント)

And there will always be commentors like you coming along to make everyone feel bad about having and expressing their opinion.

What if -- gasp -- we just don't agree with JO's interpretation of the problem, or don't very much enjoy his calls for more and more laws restricting communication?

Oh no, shame on us! We're just the mass, perverted, self-congratulatory, and denial-ridden hive mind, and you've correctly sussed out the real issues. Nah you're not part of "typical" reddit. You're special. You know what's up.

[–]LostLozenge 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

I agree with you, I think there's another important issue that /u/new_c dismisses here. Noticing a lot of people making criticisms along the lines of 'white males' being the only ones having an issue with some of what John Oliver said.

I'm a visible minority and I can see where some of these issues are coming from. John Oliver's argument, and many others, is as follows: Your perceptions on whether -blank- is or is not an issue can be reduced to your demographic. A lot of people make this argument and they don't seem to understand the irony in it.

When you're sitting there dictating which demographics have which opinions, you're effectively telling me what beliefs and opinions I can and cannot have. When you're saying things like 'congratulations on your white penis', 'guarantee you're white', etc, what you're saying is: There are positions and perceptions which only white people can have. You, as a visible minority, cannot have these opinions or viewpoints. You are just. You are infallible. And you are disallowed from holding this set of views which I have determined to be too morally reprehensible for your consumption.

It's infantilizing. It's patronizing. A condescending, self-righteous lack of self-awareness that affects all skin colours. Like these 'privileged white males' you're always on about, you're being divisive and necessarily prejudiced in assuming that 'only white people' will hold certain views. What of all the white people who do not hold those views? What of all the people of colour who do hold those views? It's not only an idiotic, categorically false statement on the face of it, it's also no different than the prejudice you purport to be against.

With that said I think you've hit the nail on the head there. People are quite allowed to criticize remarks on 'white evil' or 'white privlege' or 'white ignorance'. There is a terrible lack of self-awareness here, and white people are not the only ones who are allowed to see that.

[–]KingWhoBoreTheSword 264ポイント265ポイント  (94子コメント)

At 12:55 doesn't John contradict himself a bit when he says how we can all still laugh at Anthony Weiner sending pictures of his penis out?

[–]DomesticatedElephant 118ポイント119ポイント  (11子コメント)

There's a whole bunch of hypocrisy in general. Just a few months ago Deadspin (part of Gawker media) posted nude pictures WWE wrestler Seth Rollins even including messages of his ex mocking him and admitting to the leak.

The wrestler then had to make the following statement. "I would like to apologize to all the WWE fans and my family and friends for private photographs that were distributed without my consent."

And as if that's not screwed up enough, I literally can't find any story talking about this that doesn't link to deadspin, let alone one that criticizes deadspin for it.

[–]TheGreenKilometre 25ポイント26ポイント  (2子コメント)

of some WWE wrestler

And by some wrestler he means the pop-culture legend Hulk Hogan himself.

[–]DomesticatedElephant 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nope, this time it was a different one named Seth Rollins. Again, I don't wanna link to the article since it contains the nude photo's, and all other articles link to them as well.

[–]restatic 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's like Paul McCartney once said in an interview about him doing drugs, that it was the reporter's responsibility to keep the story private, and that he was just answering questions he'd been asked honestly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4CRTTr4UcE

[–]HorseCode 122ポイント123ポイント  (35子コメント)

Everyone here is nitpicking his metaphor but this is the part that irked me. So I guess since it's in the public interest it's ok to share all of the photos from the Fappening online? I don't think that would've garnered the same reaction.

[–]Dabee625 69ポイント70ポイント  (10子コメント)

The "Fappening" photos were stolen from celebrities' phones, Anthony Weiner publicly posted his photo on Twitter. I'm not saying it's right to spread either, but there is a difference.

[–]SouthBankSucked 11ポイント12ポイント  (1子コメント)

On May 27, 2011, Weiner sent a link to a sexually suggestive photograph of himself via his public Twitter account to an adult woman who was following him on Twitter. After several days of denying he had posted the image, Weiner held a press conference at which he admitted he had "exchanged messages and photos of an explicit nature with about six women over the last three years". He apologized for his earlier denials. After an explicit photo was leaked through the Twitter account of a listener of the The Opie & Anthony Show, Weiner announced on June 16, 2011, that he would resign from Congress, and he formally resigned on June 21.

Anthony Weiner Sexting Scandal wiki.

I don't really know anything about the case, but does this mean he accidentally sent out a picture of his weiner, and then more pictures were leaked?

[–]Tovora 24ポイント25ポイント  (6子コメント)

The "Fappening" photos were stolen from celebrities' phones

I thought they were stolen from Apple's Cloud?

[–]Dabee625 17ポイント18ポイント  (0子コメント)

They used an iPhone and were automatically uploaded to their iCloud account so I suppose you're right.

[–]chakazulu1 32ポイント33ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think with Anthony it was publicly posted and he's a civil servant working on taxpayer dollars so he's open to a higher degree of scrutiny with public behavior.

That being said, I don't think making fun of anyone's genitals is appropriate and most of the news media is composed of giggling teenagers in suits.

[–]turkeypedal 34ポイント35ポイント  (20子コメント)

And what public interest do you propose for sharing the Fappening photos? The public interest with Weiner was that he was an aspiring politician soliciting sex online.

Furthermore, you do realize that the Fappening were all stolen photos, right? It was and still is illegal to share them, even without any revenge porn laws.

[–]respectwalk 30ポイント31ポイント  (7子コメント)

Also, Anthony Weiner's pictures were made public by his own doing.

[–]sealfoss 19ポイント20ポイント  (3子コメント)

He posted them on a website himself?

EDIT: lol. I guess he did.

[–]voddo01 14ポイント15ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah man, in the first scandal he posted a link to the picture on his Twitter, before quickly taking it down and saying he was "hacked."

[–]interfail 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

That is literally exactly what he did. He tweeted his own junk to woman who was following him, presumably by accident.

[–]goodpricefriedrice 32ポイント33ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well wiener posted them himself. As did Alison Pill. No threats or anything happened to them.

Revenge porn is a whole different issue.

[–]Ozqo 66ポイント67ポイント  (34子コメント)

Not at all because at 2:35 he explains that if the victim is white and male then it's not harassment.

It's the same pattern of thought gawker uses. If it's a man it's hilarious, if it's a woman you're a terrible person.

[–]cookiemikester 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

no the joke is white males don't think harassment online is a problem.

and that if you're white male your internet experience is probably different.

he never says that "it's not harassment." And by claiming so is a pretty hyperbole statement.

[–]cerulean_skylark 54ポイント55ポイント  (16子コメント)

That isn't what he said at all... did you actually listen to what he said? He said those who don't think this is a problem probably fall into a category of people who do not experience the level of harassment as others. He absolutely did not in any way say it's ok to harass men.

Try not turning this into the fox news spin zone.

[–]Ozqo 51ポイント52ポイント  (14子コメント)

He launched into an attack on white men for no reason whatsoever. If he looked at actual data, he would realize that men are harassed as much as women. I'm sick of this bullshit that people feel fine attacking white males unprovoked.

[–]iKilledDaPig 39ポイント40ポイント  (5子コメント)

I love John Oliver, but at the beginning he implied that white men do not get harassed on the Internet. That's preposterous. If there's one thing you need to know about the Internet, it's that absolutely no one is exempt from abuse.

[–]GhostPirateCyborg 16ポイント17ポイント  (11子コメント)

Not at all because at 2:35 he explains that if the victim is white and male then it's not harassment.

He said if you don't think that there is an online harassment problem then you probably are a white male.

[–]Ozqo 21ポイント22ポイント  (10子コメント)

By stating that white males don't know what harassment is, he implies that white males don't receive harassment.

[–]iSunMonkey 19ポイント20ポイント  (5子コメント)

Was that Colin Hanks at the end???

[–]cttouch 139ポイント140ポイント  (43子コメント)

I'm going to go ahead and still recommend not sending naked photos to anyone if you fear them ending up online.

[–]apple_kicks 31ポイント32ポイント  (8子コメント)

true, but falling in love can make people trust and do things they might not normally do, just to get some love in return.

[–]gronmin 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

Ya regardless of what was said in the video the best way to avoid naked photos of your self ending up online is to not take them, let them be taken or share them (don't let it leave your computer/phone). They can still end up there, but that is still probably the best way to avoid it happening.

[–]jingerninja 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Everyone who adopts this sentiment (don't take them if you don't want them online) is forever banned from ever asking their girlfriend to send them nudes.

[–]Kazthulu 422ポイント423ポイント  (151子コメント)

I could do without featuring Anita or Wu but whatever. In the end a legitimate message about a legitimate problem got out there, and anything that helps to cut down on revenge porn is a good thing.

I will say that I think there's a difference between some jackass sending you threats that are probably illegitimate over a public forum through a burner account, and someone taking a picture in front of your house with a knife. Then again I've never had to deal with either so what do I know :P

I think the segment was a net positive. Not his best work, but fuck it, I'll keep watching. John Oliver is entertaining and most of his stuff is on point.

[–]GaboKopiBrown 342ポイント343ポイント  (52子コメント)

I think it's actually a good thing.

No matter what I think of them personally, it's not okay to throw out rape or murder threats.'

Unfortunately, that might be a minority opinion on more than a few large subs.

[–]LUDSK 158ポイント159ポイント  (29子コメント)

I certainly agree with you. While it's ok to disagree with someone's politics, rape and murder threats are NEVER ok, in any circumstance.

Just came from the YouTube comments... so many people were trying to justify the abuse hurled at them with "well, yeah, but they're on the internet and people are annoyed by them so it's justified!". Holy fuck. It's people like that that really lend credence to the notion that the internet is desensitizing us.

[–]MaggotMinded 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

While it's ok to disagree with someone's politics, rape and murder threats are NEVER ok, in any circumstance.

The problem is that while the vast majority of people agree with this sentiment, many refuse to believe that there is sufficient cause for implementing laws against such behavior. Usually their reasoning is that most online harassment isn't to be taken seriously, but that's exactly why we should introduce some basic protections. As it stands, a credible online threat is hard to identify because it gets lost in a sea of non-credible ones, and is likely to be ignored.

[–]LUDSK 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

That is a very fair point. It's difficult to approach this topic seriously when everyone sees it as a joke. Maybe we just need to start from the ground up, and instead of teaching our kids not to harass people online because it's illegal, we teach them not to do it because it's immoral. Just because something is pervasive in our society doesn't mean it's right and we should be complacent in it.

[–]jingerninja 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

everyone sees it as a joke.

This is the part that has always bothered me. I've never understood what part of repeatedly messaging someone to the effect of "I'm going to find where you live and I've going to fuck you up the ass, dry, while you're asleep." was funny. There is 0 entertainment value there. It's just flat out crude and aggressive.

I'm with you, we need to start lessons on why that shit is terrible and immoral when kids are young. It's frustrating that it needs to be said but it looks like the internet needs to be re-taught the whole "If you don't have anything nice to say..." thing.

[–]MaggotMinded 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I totally agree. You can't legislate good behavior; that comes down to how a person is raised. To put it another way, laws should derive from social morality, and not the other way around. That being said, we can't rely only on education and good parenting to keep society running smoothly; we still need laws.

[–]fractalGateway 22ポイント23ポイント  (21子コメント)

I agree but what do you think about xbox culture, and the like. Some kid talking about raping you, "swatting", homophobia, threats of violence.

It's weird because it's just been this thing that none of us took seriously. You don't really know if it's an 8 year old kid with shitty parents, or a legitimate threat, so you just shrug it off and go about your day. Over time, it's not even vaguely shocking, it's just another weirdo on the internet.

Do you think guys just have a lower expectation of humanity?

[–]LUDSK 89ポイント90ポイント  (18子コメント)

I think the key here is context. Guys'll be called all sorts of names on CoD or whatever, and like you said, mostly just shrug it off. But it's not because we have a lower expectation of humanity; these comments are made in the heat of the moment, almost an extension of the game. Inappropriate? For sure. Do i wish those kids parents would knock some sense into them (not literally, of course)? Definitely. But the context in which, and extent to which it happens to girls is different.

Like Jon said, girls will be targeted for simply speaking their mind about something. An innocuous twitter post by a girl may draw the ire of hundreds of bitter, angry people; likewise, a similar post may be completely ignored if posted by a guy. The pervasive theme here is context for these actions. A lot of girls are being specifically targeted, and with the large number of exclusively female people being targeted it's hard to deny some correlation between gender and the harassment.

I know he brought up sarkeesian, and that's a very controversial person and yadda yadda yadda, but at the end of the day she doesn't deserve to have rape threats made against her just because she spoke her mind about something. Of course, NO ONE should be subject to that, and I'm not saying guys are only subject to it in video games and vulnerable nowhere else online. But you yourself admitted that it happens to men far more often in this type of enviroment, and you gotta admit, that's a far different context then on twitter or facebook. I'd probably laugh off someone saying they were gonna murder me in a game of team Fortress, but if they posted that to my wall, all of a sudden the anxiety has just ramped up.

[–]Babill 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah but the problem with that argument is that no one, literally no one disagrees with it, and so it's used to derail arguments whenever it comes to Anita and Wu. If you try to debate what they have to say, people will start saying that those who disagree with them have harassed them, and thus your points will be ignored and you'll be conflated with the harassers. This does not lead to an open and frank discussion, it just muddies the water. But it gets worse, these two have a lot of ties with journalists, and so can shape the narrative into whatever form they want, which they use to make out every person who disagree with them as a harasser. This is circular reasoning: why can't you disagree with them? Because people who disagree with them have harassed her. How did they harass them? By disagreeing with them.

[–]Jerzeem 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Which large sub do you think finds threats of rape or murder acceptable? Put your theory to the test. If you are thinking of one that starts with a K, go into it and try. See what kind of response you get.

Or, you could just visit and try to find any.

[–]PleaseDontStalkMe 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

But it's ok for white men to get rape or murder threats? I've been online gaming as long as I can remember and trust me, people have threatened to kill me in real life more times than I can remember. Why is it news all the sudden, because it's happening to women? I don't get it.

[–]freet0 12ポイント13ポイント  (2子コメント)

That's definitely true, but it shouldn't be seen as unique to them. And they shouldn't be using it to push their agendas. The way they spin it it's angry neckbeards threatening the lives of the few women brave enough to stand up against sexism in gaming.

In reality anyone even remotely well known gets these fake death threats. Totalbiscuit for example has gotten them for being on the other side of the gamergate argument. I expect actors and musicians and politicians get them. Poor justin bieber has to get a lot from his anti-fans. Hell I've gotten death threats for beating people in a videogame.

A distinction needs to be made between this shitty but unsurprising abuse of anonymity and legitimate concern for one's life.

[–]RIPphonebattery 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Except facebook is hardly anonymous, id be surprised if you couldn't find my home if you were my friend on facebook.

[–]jingerninja 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hell I've gotten death threats for beating people in a videogame.

We need to answer the fundamental question of why this should be ok though. Why is that an acceptable response from someone you managed to knife in COD? Why is an angry death-threat...whether it's real or completely fucking impotent...the kind of thing you just go "meh, whatever it's the internet" in the face of?

"Whatever, it happens all the time...and they probably don't mean it" is not even remotely a solution to this issue.

[–]The_Adventurist 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Which large subs are you referring to? I've never ever seen rape or murder threats condoned anywhere on reddit, ever.

[–]MindsetRoulette 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't think many people think the Internet benefits from these trolls and assholes, but they're ability to do it anonymously is an unavoidable side effect. Don't provide the ammunition that can be used against you, so either don't share it or don't care if they share it. Maybe we should all post a sex tape or naked pictures to say "there, now we've all seen each other naked. It can no longer be a weapon against us"

[–]kaveman6143 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Isnt there a legitimate series of proof that Anita and Wu send themselves these threats to legitimize their victimhood?

[–]charonboat 65ポイント66ポイント  (61子コメント)

Agreed, I really hope people don't totally throw the rest of his message out the window just because they disagree with those two ladies.

[–]SomewhatSpecial 159ポイント160ポイント  (59子コメント)

I imagine the issue most people have with this video isn't about a difference of opinion with Wu and Sarkeesian. It's about the fact that they aren't legitimate examples of harassment victims - rather, they thrive on the attention this victim status gives them and have even been caught manufacturing fake threats against themselves. Including them in the video does nothing but muddle the issue and detract from the message, not to mention legitimising these people and motivating them to continue their dishonest actions.

What's especially sad is that the video's very real and important message will now get buried under this shitstorm and this will no doubt be used as another example of people being horrible on the Internet.

I wish Oliver had done a little more research and used better examples.

[–]agentndo 63ポイント64ポイント  (3子コメント)

Agreed, Wu has done a lot of shady things and then deleted her original messages, including harassing her own game while still logged in as her username and then deleting it (not before people noticed, lol). Here's a different example with a quick reddit search for anyone interested:

http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2jjtv7/brianna_wus_jigsaw_threat_macro_exposed_image_is/

She also comes off as pretty mentally unstable and volatile whenever interviewed, I dislike Anita's views but at least she commits to acting professional even if she has absolutely no interest in gaming (and has said so herself). Wu has manufactured fake harassment towards herself in an almost child-like way that reminds me of some of the people with borderline personalities that I work with each day. And yes, I understand she also receives real death threats, and like free speech, we must protect the rights of even those that we 100% disagree with. Doxxing men and women, threats of rape or explicit violence against either men or women should definitely be worth police attention.

[–]canadamoose18 14ポイント15ポイント  (13子コメント)

Let's be real though, how much of his audience is even remotely familiar with Gamergate? The message will not be lost on them and I imagine they are the majority.

[–]Teraka 26ポイント27ポイント  (10子コメント)

I know about gamergate, but chose to ignore it because I learned about it relatively late and it was already so polarizing that it was impossible to distinguish truth from fabrication from both sides.

[–]SomewhatSpecial 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

They don't have to be. The majority of people will probably see it on YouTube. One glance at the video's comments is all it takes.

[–]janschy/s 24ポイント25ポイント  (4子コメント)

But Wu and Sarkeesian, to anyone outside of Reddit comments, are just known as victims of online harassment. You accuse them of thriving on attention yet the most attention they receive, by far, is the negative attention, discussion, and harassment that is posted on reddit.

[–]Babill 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

No. It's not true. Anita has gone on the Colbert Report. Positive attention. Wu has consulted for John Oliver. Positive attention. Anita had her story made into an episode of SVU. Positive attention. They are all over the media and treated as God's given gifts.

[–]SlowRollingBoil 18ポイント19ポイント  (2子コメント)

They're known as victims of harassment because the media keeps talking about them in that way. There are plenty of male victims of harassment from anti-GamerGate people but they don't get any mainstream press. The media pushes the narrative to the breaking point which was that ridiculous SVU episode.

Also, that negative attention is far from it. Them being a victim has worked out amazingly well for their Patreon account donations and game development sales. The negative attention, as you say, is regularly followed up with links to Wu's game.

[–]Calorie_Mate 26ポイント27ポイント  (19子コメント)

It's about the fact that they aren't legitimate examples of harassment victims

How so? I don't know about Wu, but Sarkeesian is legitimately being harassed online. It doesn't matter what she says, does, if you like her, or how she deals with said harassment. There's no illegitimate harassment. Harassment is simply harassment, and she's a victim of it. Even if she did manufature fake threats, that still leaves more than enough real threats, that literally classify as harassment.

And I wouldn't say they "thrive on the attention" just because they go public with said threats. If anything that's a positive thing, because it illustrates the problem, and people actually care about it. I doubt that John Oliver would make a vid about it, if it weren't for public figures like Sarkeesian. And yet, all of us know that harassment is a serious issue on the internet, but we're not the ones doing anything about it, or bringing it to public attention.

Focus in the issue of harassment, not on the people interviewed.

[–]Sacrix 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Wu and Sarkeeshian are professional victims. They're not actual gamers, for starters. They just pretend to be, pretend to be harassed (or do it to themselves) and make a big deal. Their connection to groups such as feminist frequency make them money. There are some rich men (lel) funding these groups to stir shit up for whatever reason, and the professional victims are more than happy to help if it earns them money.

[–]Okichah 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

The issue that gets missed a lot about these stories is that people are basically making a living off their twitter accounts. Which is a weird concept but whatever. In that light when Twitter fails to put in any reasonable way to curb harassment on their platform (Twitter sucks) these people blame amorphous groups rather then the technology theyre using.

[–]ruinercollector 17ポイント18ポイント  (7子コメント)

Mentioning Anita and Wu are very important for a lot of people here because they are so controversial. A lot of people on reddit seem to think that because these people are "enemies of the community", it's totally okay to make threats at them or to dismiss any threat that they receive as "fake" or "not a real threat."

[–]smokindrow 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

have an upvote i agree also, but I really do wish he got better sources than Anita.........Anita's whole history doesn't seem like she is trying help progress women in gaming at all but instead create a huge divide. Especially her kickstarter..

[–]BtothejizA 299ポイント300ポイント  (116子コメント)

Including Wu and Anita instantly made this more divisive than it needed to be.

Cut those two out and put in 30 seconds on swatting and everyone would have agreed on everything.

[–]snorkleboy 25ポイント26ポイント  (2子コメント)

I hope people can simultaneously disagree with her views and agree she shouldn't be threatened or doxxed.

[–]Ozqo 245ポイント246ポイント  (56子コメント)

Apart from the whole thing about white men not being victims of harassment, yeah.

[–]Pajaronoespajero 112ポイント113ポイント  (14子コメント)

Every time I hear that I can't help but think I must be a gigantic asshole because people threaten and insult me online all the time.

[–]Philbo_Baggins 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeah, every time I hit frontpage or make a top comment I get some sort of hate mail. I am just like whatever. Come find me pussy. But I have a penis and am white...

[–]weltallic 69ポイント70ポイント  (39子コメント)

Including Wu

Wu admitted to helping write this segment.

"NEXT WEEK: Women are getting raped by the MILLIONS in college. We speak to Mattress Girl to hear the only side."

[–]ruinercollector 55ポイント56ポイント  (4子コメント)

Wu admitted to helping write this segment.

No. No she didn't. She admitted to talking to the staff that was writing the segment.

Way to make shit up and exaggerate/bend the truth to your narrative and do exactly what you're accusing other people of though.

[–]oldscotch 11ポイント12ポイント  (5子コメント)

He didn't say anything at all about agreeing or disagreeing with their positions on equality/feminism/mensrights/videogames/whathaveyou, all he said is that they shouldn't be getting threats.

If people are disagreeing with that, then maybe they should be seriously reevaluating their perspectives.

[–]Moonswish 47ポイント48ポイント  (9子コメント)

When reddit banned revenge porn, was the top comment of the announcements thread "Why isnt SRS banned?"?

[–]DriveWire 25ポイント26ポイント  (3子コメント)

I know I keep saying this, but we really should destroy Carthage.

[–]DeusExMockinYa 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Cato, isn't it time for you to be getting to the senate?

[–]Namika 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's my favorite reference that I wish more people knew about. Whenever I end a long speech about something and no one seems to be paying attention, the good 'ol "...and Carthage must be destroyed" is the perfect line that can be added to the end of anything.

[–]Mentitor 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

ITT: the furious masturbation of tiny flaccid white penises

[–]-TheCabbageMerchant- 35ポイント36ポイント  (2子コメント)

Never knew John Oliver had some dank memes in store for us.

[–]turkeypedal 16ポイント17ポイント  (0子コメント)

If "dank" means really, really old and only used ironically, sure.

[–]yayapfool 145ポイント146ポイント  (35子コメント)

Hm, this is the first time i haven't felt totally on board with his rationale.

Reddit likes to see only black and white and up vote one sentiment to the stratosphere and downvote 'the' other to bedrock, but hear me out; i saw a lot of both good and bad in this video.

The thing that stands out the most is how blatantly stupid it is to equate (A)"If you don't want naked photos of your body to exist online, don't take them!" to (B)"If you don't want to get burgled, don't live in a house!" etc.

This metaphorical comparison would make sense IF:

  • A was "If you don't want naked photos of your body to exist online, don't ever be naked!" (Scenarios A and B now imply: If X does not exist in reality, X cannot be abused)

OR

  • B was "If you don't want to get burgled, don't give anyone else a key!" (Scenarios A and B now imply: Access to X is granted exclusively, doing so gives recipient power to abuse)

I know full and well nude pictures of myself could affect my life negatively in the wrong hands- which is why they will never end up in the wrong hands. If we need to make laws to safeguard peoples' bad sense of judgement, don't pretend that's not exactly what we're doing.

It would appear i agree with the legal aspects and effective ends and morals outlined in the video, i just think the rationalization for some were downright silly.

[–]carlordau 11ポイント12ポイント  (4子コメント)

It could be possible that many of us are much more knowledgeable about this area. If we all had the same level of knowledge in some of the other areas of his videos, then maybe we could poke more holes at his rationale.

For example (getting your webcam hacked aside), don't take nude photos of yourself is a legitimate prevention to having nude photos of yourself be posted online. Using the strawman John Oliver uses of if you don't want to get burgled, don't have a house is dumb. You have no choice if you get your house burgled, but you can minimise the likelihood.

[–]gman2015 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

It could be possible that many of us are much more knowledgeable about this area. If we all had the same level of knowledge in some of the other areas of his videos, then maybe we could poke more holes at his rationale.

Absolutely. I've seen quite a few videos from John Oliver where he talks about a subject that I have expertise on and I would facepalm several times throughout it.

However, I can say the same applies to the vast majority of news sources... Which is very sad...

[–]Okichah 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-gell-mann-amnesia-effect-is-as-follows-you

“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”

[–]MrWienerDawg 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes! I can't believe the amount of garbage people will swallow as fact just because it's written down or posted online. I remember reading some article about hydrogen cars/economy while I was in school studying renewable energy. The article had so many errors and downplayed the risks or just didn't mention them. It really opened up my eyes to the fact that blindly trusting some reporter is a very foolish thing to do.

Do your own research, kids.

[–]RM_Dune 12ポイント13ポイント  (11子コメント)

Exactly this.

Revenge porn is a problem that needs to be taken care of, and laws must be put in place to prosecute people who leak nude photo's of others without their consent.

But immediately dismissing the notion of "if you want to be certain your nudes don't get posted on the internet, don't take photo's of yourself and share them" as victim blaming is stupid.

Nobody's saying your nudes being on the internet is your own fault, and that you are to blame for it. But you can make sure it doesn't happen by not taking any pictures. That's just a fact.

[–]vaporeon46 10ポイント11ポイント  (3子コメント)

This just sounds the same as the abstinence-only argument of safe sex. Sure it's the only 100% sure fire way to avoid STDs & pregnancy, but people want to have sex, don't tell them not to. People want to take nudes, don't tell them not to. It's totally victim-blaming.

[–]IeIgHtNiNe 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Wow, I think that might be a worse analogy than the one John gave in the show.

  1. To you, being pregnant is equivalent to being a victim? Wtf?

  2. Since when is getting pregnant not the responsibility of the mother and father?

  3. In that same vein, if you catch an STD, was it 100% the other person's fault or was it partly yours for not wearing protection/having sex with the person in the first place?

  4. Let's just say your analogy held water for a second: Fine! let's combat revenge porn the same way we combat STDs/unwanted pregnancy: EDUCATION.

We don't ban unwanted pregnancies. We don't ban STDs. We teach people how to avoid them. WE TEACH PEOPLE HOW TO AVOID THEM

It's not victim-blaming, it's sound, solid advice. The fact that nobody nowadays seems to want to take responsibility for the consequences of flippant actions, but rather make laws banning the undesirable outcomes and silencing anyone who disagrees, is a bigger problem in this country than all your little SJW causes combined.

[–]Vik1ng 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

For me it simple comes down to risk and reward. Maybe I just don't get this sending naked pictures thing, but for me it does very little compared to having sex. In addition using a condom is pretty safe and at least when it come to pregnancy you still have the option of adoption or abortion, on the other hand pictures can easily end up in the wrong hands and once online there is very little you can do to get rid of them.

[–]max1mus91 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The problem is that sometimes people do not fully understand technology or are very young. Education on the subject or just speaking about examples of things that HAVE happened to people is the main point to take away. Educating people on the possible consequences foreseen or not is the best way to go.

[–]Melicalol 90ポイント91ポイント  (13子コメント)

Honestly, I don't really care much about this episode and how much little research they even put to make it. What surprised me the most was the Bing part. Mate, the whole purpose of Bing is for vindictive perverts.

[–]FapTillYouDie 42ポイント43ポイント  (11子コメント)

John Oliver really isn't that great. Many of his other pieces also lack complete research or strawman the opposing side's arguments. John Oliver is extremely biased, the fact that people are unable to see his biases is a bit scary. He also hasn't bothered to show that online harassment is very universal. Try being White or a male on tumblr or Jezebel and you will very soon find yourself the subject of an unprecedented amount of harassment in the name of "feminism and equality." Black Twitter can also be horrendous and extremely racist. Heck even celebrities like Spike Lee have tweeted George Zimmerman's address and used Black Twitter to amplify his message in an attempt to get Zimmerman killed. Very few left leaning sources condemned this kind of behavior, and in the comments section of these news sources people were cheering on Spike Lee. Darren Wilson also was being unfairly targeted and harassed for being White and a male despite being justified in defending himself against Mike Brown. John Oliver has jumped the shark on this video.

[–]frrunkis 78ポイント79ポイント  (11子コメント)

Don't want to get robbed, don't buy a house is a bad comparison.

Just saiyan.

[–]Kissmyasthma100 30ポイント31ポイント  (2子コメント)

This was a ridiculous comparison and yet, you're being downvoted. Probably has to do with your white penis.

[–]frrunkis 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeah well, I wasn't expecting to get upvoted for posting something simple and logical.

[–]h4n4_LOL 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

the right or better comparion would be "dont wanna get bobbed? dont give a stranger the Keys to your house". Translation "dont want porn of you on the internet? dont give people (or let them take) porn of you" ... wtf are some people thinking -.- Yes you get your webcam hacked? thats the same as getting a window smashed. Its illegal in almost all countries.

[–]Khers 337ポイント338ポイント  (130子コメント)

Kind of takes away the seriousness of online harrassment when you feature 2 known liars that make a profit from it at the beginning of the segment.

[–]UrDraco 83ポイント84ポイント  (74子コメント)

Did those two people lie about getting death threats?

[–]MarshManOriginal 20ポイント21ポイント  (1子コメント)

Except those two people did receive those kinds of threats, and clearly do not deserve that.

[–]Weatherboy 65ポイント66ポイント  (12子コメント)

[–]CJ_Jones 11ポイント12ポイント  (1子コメント)

If you can stomach it, go to the youtube comments.

I couldn't and now I'm sat in my chair rocking back and forth...

[–]GlenCoco701 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

i dont know how i survived youtube before i found this extension

[–]Bannakaffalatta1 14ポイント15ポイント  (4子コメント)

Plus it's also in /r/videos. This comments section is about to be a shit show.

[–]MattLieb 102ポイント103ポイント  (10子コメント)

I'm not sure I agree with this segment. Don't get me wrong, I love John Oliver. But not as much as I hate women. John should go back to tackling issues that don't challenge my bias.

[–]Sonris 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

Good

Online harassment is a problem, and persistent vicious cases like revenge porn should be a crime punished by the government

Death threats and rape threats and all that shit is never okay or a reasonable thing to do, and people should be punished the same way you are punished for telling someone face to face that you are going to rape and murder them

Doxing is never okay in these situations either

suffice to say laws on cybercrimes are woefully underequiped and the US public and its lawmakers needs to take the time and energy to catch the laws up with the new technology

The bad

The people in this are controversial to say the least, that said even a broken clock is right twice a day. I agree with a lot of people I dont usually like on some subjects. Bill oreilly will even say something on point on occasion and I have little to no doubt that ANita has resecieved death/rape threats which is absolutely abhorrent.

That said online harassment is not a woman only problem and having a white penis does not save you from it. Just look at the suicide rates, men commit suicide far more often then women, part of that is from bullying which comes online now. How do you think it makes some white guy who is getting bullied and harassed on a day to day basis online feel if you say you get a free pass from this problem for being a white male? That line right there took the focus off the horrors of online harassment and shifted it to a feminist vs men argument. Hell one of the first cases of revenge porn I recall hearing about was a woman posting pictures of her ex husband online. Just leave it as a societal or human problem. There was no need to drop a "white privilege" bomb on a subject that pretty much effects everyone on the internet to some degree.

[–]PM_ME_YOURBROKENHART 162ポイント163ポイント  (39子コメント)

Saarkesian? Really?

John I'm disappoint.

[–]TeeFoles 125ポイント126ポイント  (30子コメント)

may not agree with her on some stuff however she %100 doesn't deserve death threats or to feel unsafe in public

[–]BubiBalboa 129ポイント130ポイント  (5子コメント)

Absolutely true, but she doesn't deserve attention either. At least in my opinion.

[–]UrbanZenMonk 10ポイント11ポイント  (3子コメント)

No one does. Could have put anyone there receiving death threats including males.

[–]TreePlusTree 18ポイント19ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well tell her to stop sending them to herself :)

[–]johnwaaahliver 104ポイント105ポイント  (40子コメント)

This doesn't seem particularly well thought-out.

  1. If someone wants to harass someone on twitter by making a new account and saying they're going to rape them, this is impossible to stop. Sorry John, They're using 7 proxies. This is the way the internet has been and this is how it is going to always be. Don't like it? I guess we can ban the internet. But we cannot have our cake and eat it too.

  2. The reason that all those lawyers didn't take the cases of the revenge-porn victims isn't because they lack sympathy. The reasons they provide are not because they're insensitive assholes. Their responses are based strictly in law. There is absolutely zero chance that this bill he is parading passes, because the fact that revenge porn is legal is fundemental to US IP laws. Now we're going to special case pornography? Good luck with that, I cannot imagine it passes ever. Don't like it? I guess we can ban the internet. But we cannot have our cake and eat it too.

Personally? I don't see why telling these women, "sucks that you trusted this guy" to be anything other than reasonable. Stop recording your sexual experiences if you don't want them to get out. I see it as incredibly patronizing to women to enscribe into law the idea that women cannot be held responsible for being a part in recording their sexual experiences. Don't think with your cunt.

[–]gronmin 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Could you explain why this is fundamental to US IP law? I'm not from the US so I don't know exactly how it works but that doesn't make sense to me. And I believe there are already a lot of media or laws where pornography is singled out or given special rules.

[–]IAmYourself 36ポイント37ポイント  (17子コメント)

He straight up mentioned the fact this can happen with hacked webcams. A partner can take a picture without permission.

And as for the rape/murder threats, I think you may want to reword your statement. It kinda comes across as "Get over it". Which is a pretty fucked up thing to say.

[–]TylerPaul 17ポイント18ポイント  (7子コメント)

But it's not exclusive to hacked webcams so it's a meaningless argument.

[–]blacksheepcannibal 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

But how many resources do you allocate to every "I'm going to kill you" threat on the internet? Where is the line drawn here? Do we need a full federal investigation every time some 12 year old is squalling on Call of Duty about raping your mother? For that matter, does the 12-year old get the same charges and punishment as the guy posting pictures of himself at the front of somebody's house while holding a knife?

It's a damned, damned slippery slope and there are only so many police resources to go around, y'know?

[–]arcanition 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeaaaah, the piece opened up with Anita and I was just like "Oh god, no. Please no." But overall the piece was good.

[–]vikinick 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

One of the things he didn't really talk about is the number of streamers that get swatted as well. I would think that would be an important factor to take into consideration as well.

[–]gibbonfrost 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

if he didnt post anita and wu this video wouldnt be getting downvoted so much.

[–]Ozqo 78ポイント79ポイント  (45子コメント)

It's sad to see that he thinks that white men don't get harassed. He's so horribly confused.

Oliver's logic isn't always solid. He likes to YELL AND GET REALLY PASSIONATE AND DROWN OUT ANY CRITICAL THOUGHT OF HIS POINTS WITH THE EMPHASIS HE GIVES! I'm surprised he doesn't froth at the mouth when he speaks.

[–]Michauxonfire 42ポイント43ポイント  (20子コメント)

It's sad to see that he thinks that white men don't get harassed.

seems weird when he starts the segment by showing comments insulting him. Which can be considered...harrassment?

[–]Jtaneli 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

It is very weird.. There is just no way that a person as famous as John Oliver doesn't receive hate or death threats online, it's just not possible.

His mailbox must be filled with hate and threats, yet here he is pretending that the worse of it is "you have spiders for fingers" and claiming that his white penis gives him protection.

I haven't seen his messages, but I would bet my life that he receives the same exact hate as the women he is using as examples here (maybe not Sarkeesian and Wu, since they became hate magnets because of their ignorance).

[–]Awsumo 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Those insults don't count because he has a floppy white man penis.

[–]Kissmyasthma100 33ポイント34ポイント  (15子コメント)

It's funny you say that because I always enjoyed his segments until I stump upon one I have some knowledge and it was somewhat discomforting to hear his jokes and nonsense comparisons. The subject must be brought to light but not in the way that he did.

[–]MrPejorative 14ポイント15ポイント  (0子コメント)

I used to feel the same way watching the Daily Show, but after a while they started touching on things I had personal knowledge of and they were so off the mark it made me wonder if I should have been so ready to believe them when they were attacking people on the opposite side of me politically.

I have no problem with jokes that misrepresent issues on principle. Even if they're punching down, it's only a matter of perspective, and I can handle that. Funny is funny, but there's a certain point where you know it's only "extra funny" because it sticks it to X,Y or Z, and then it starts to become pandering.

[–]hynieku 29ポイント30ポイント  (9子コメント)

It's funny you say that because I always enjoyed his segments until I stump upon one I have some knowledge and it was somewhat discomforting to hear his jokes and nonsense comparisons

Understand that for all his segments this is somewhat true. I've been mentioning this for months and always get downvoted. He has a very high liberal bias (which matches reddit's) and he always makes sure to make his point by minimizing the opponents point with jokes and making it seem like his is the obviously correct one. It's sad to see that all his videos get upvoted to the top and people agree with him 100% all the time.

[–]mkhpsyco 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

I can say right now that the fact that he included Anita and Wu, that I fully expected a big polarization in the comments here, and there is.

Anywhere from people saying that the "don't take pictures of yourself naked then" quotes are logical and correct, to people saying that those quotes are DEFINITELY victim blaming.

Yes, taking pictures of yourself is what opens the door for having the possibility of having that image posted. But it doesn't make sense to say that someone shouldn't do something that they want to do, for fear of having some idiot post it online. What John Oliver is calling for here is more awareness, let's get the rest of the states to ban it, let's get the federal government involved, let's get laws in place so that people don't have to COPYRIGHT their fucking bodies in order to get restitution.

The situation here isn't that he was blaming the internet for the problem, but merely that he is pointing out that due to the internet's ability to be used as a weapon, we should be having some very serious conversations about some of the shit that it enables. We already have a ton of laws in place keeping people from passing certain things around on the internet, why not this too.

As well, the whole Anita and Wu bit, my two cents on this are that if someone can get arrested for making a school shooting threat on the internet, why can't someone be arrested for making a death threat as well?

I love the internet, and I've been a long time user of forums, youtube, and reddit alike. But I'm not going to deny that there is a toxic mindset coming from a lot of what people say here and there. I avoid subreddits that don't share my opinions, and I avoid youtube comments almost entirely. But when it comes to public or private threats to someone's life, that should be considered serious, no matter what.

[–][deleted] 251ポイント252ポイント  (152子コメント)

According to John Oliver only women are under threat from internet harassment.

This whole segment was an /r/TwoXChromosomes wet dream.

The whole part of the video at 11:20 which effectively makes fun of the preventative "Don't take nudes" as somehow a stupid idea, Was just a really ill thought out statement.

"If you don't want to get burgled then don't own a house"

Except having shelter over your head is a basic need of human existence. Taking pictures of your twat and sending them to your boyfriend is not a basic need of existence. The comparison was just really idiotic.

I like John Oliver but this sounds like he's reading a script written by a feminist intern on staff.

[–]YellowFellow95 24ポイント25ポイント  (2子コメント)

I love John Oliver, but he does do this kind of comparison a lot. I usually just take those statements as part of the comedy rather than part of the argument.

[–]FL00P 277ポイント278ポイント  (19子コメント)

I like John Oliver but this sounds like he's reading a script written by a feminist intern on staff.

Hit the nail on the head. (https://twitter.com/Spacekatgal/status/612825187021647872) Learning this felt like a punch to the gut. When this happened to Colbert on his last episode it felt the same, and I really hoped it wouldn't happen to Last Week.

[–]TweetsInCommentsBot 62ポイント63ポイント  (1子コメント)

@Spacekatgal

2015-06-22 03:31 UTC

I wasn't able to talk about it, but I spent a long time talking to John Oliver's research team, about Gamergate. Glad to see the show air.


This message was created by a bot

[Contact creator][Source code]

[–]TinkiW 70ポイント71ポイント  (1子コメント)

This needs way more upvote. It basically explains the first half of this video.

[–]Thessalonike 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Or, you know, it was perhaps part of them actually fully investigating the topic? The thing they're being accused of not doing?

[–]FCDRandy 107ポイント108ポイント  (80子コメント)

Taking pictures of your twat and sending them to your boyfriend is not a basic need of existence.

Does someone not have the right to do so, and should they not have legal recourse if their privacy is violated?

[–][deleted] 63ポイント64ポイント  (66子コメント)

They absolutely have the right to do so. That's a freedom of expression guaranteed by the constitution.

That being said, just as free speech has social consequences for when unpopular opinions are raised, free expression in the form of taking nudes can backfire and be used against you.

The chances of you becoming a victim of revenge porn are slashed substantially if you don't take nudes of yourself. If you take nudes of yourself then fine, just be ready to deal with the realistic possibility that you placed your trust in a bad person.

[–]muddledmoose 35ポイント36ポイント  (15子コメント)

It shouldn't be about how smart/stupid the girls on revenge porn were.

It should be about whether it's a crime or not. No?

If your house got robbed, wouldn't you want the police to give a shit?

[–]OuchLOLcom 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

If I got robbed after leaving my front door open time I left the house because I liked it to be well aired out when I got home then I would be a victim, but I would also expect everyone to call me a dumbass and not be offended if people suggested that I lock my door in the future

[–]luca123 21ポイント22ポイント  (5子コメント)

If my house got robbed, yes absolutely. However i don't think that's a very good comparison. I personally think a better analogy would be if i willingly handed over my possessions to a person and then decided i wanted them back later on, should i be able to get them back legally. And that, i think, is more debatable.

[–]muddledmoose 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeah, exactly. Sorry for the shitty analogy, but what I meant to do was reframe the issue into a discussion about those legal ramifications. The debate should be centered around whether we need laws for his or not, not around whether the victim was being stupid or not.

[–]luca123 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

No worries I understood what you were getting at. I think Oliver should've focused more on the legality of the issue instead of people's responses and thoughts on it.

[–]TheCodexx 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's just hard to take down anything from the internet. And you can never prove that there aren't more copies out there. Removing something is a luxury for people who can afford a team of lawyers to send DMCA requests everywhere, and even then...

The other major issue is that the main method of takedowns is copyright law. But the owner of the copyright is the person taking the photo. Which means that in some cases, your ex might actual own legitimate copyright on a nude photo of you, and they can spread that wherever they want.

Now, I'm not saying this to advocate for a major clampdown or alteration to that or anything. Copyright being owned by the subject would be a huge mess, and it doesn't solve the takedown problem. And ultimately you come across the bigger issue of solving these problems without basically having full control and cooperation of the internet. We're at the point where reported photos can be automatically removed and filtered on some sites, which is a little scary, but how much further does the control have to go?

Chasing revenge porn down is a bit like preventing terrorists from hijacking a plane: you spend more time confiscating nail clippers than you do bombs, and even when you do catch someone, it was probably three of eighty sent through to test if the screening process works. In short, you're looking at a massively invasive system that might cut back on the amount of revenge porn on the internet by a small percentage.

If my house was robbed, I'd want the police to care. But if someone came by, took something that was legally theirs, and then made a bunch of copies of it, it's hard to justify the police going after every duplicate when the only crime, apparently, was Breaking & Entering. The laws aren't screwed up because we want them this way; they'res screwed up because the situation falls into a gap between copyright law, photography rules, the way the internet works and is enforced, etc. And there's no easy way to extend any of those into that gap without screwing one or all of them up. It's easy to agree that having nudes of yourself out there sucks. It's hard to find a solution that actually works. And the number of people who want to go full-Drug War over revenge porn must be oblivious, because I swear they're the same people who were just ranting about the DEA and the TSA five years ago.

[–]Vladimir_Poonani 27ポイント28ポイント  (7子コメント)

No one is disagreeing with that, but just because you have the legal right to do something doesn't mean it's always the smart, safe thing to do.

I'm legally allowed to leave my wallet full of money on the front seat of my car. Not a smart thing to do. I'm legally allowed to walk to 7-11 alone at 2 in the morning. Not a smart thing to do.

[–]muddledmoose 27ポイント28ポイント  (4子コメント)

What if your wallet was stolen from the front seat of your car?

What if you were mugged while taking that walk?

You'd want the police to at least be on your side, correct?

[–]katha757 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yes, but that's not the argument /u/Vladimir_Poonani is making. The safest way to not have nudes released to everyone is to not take them at all.

Even if there is civil/criminal laws in place that can prosecute someone for leaking them, I still don't want any nudes taken of me because the damage is irreversible.

[–]muddledmoose 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yes, but JO is talking about the fact that there is an absense of laws governing unethical actions on the internet. A person with the power to ruin someone's life with revenge porn should be subject to legal recourse.

Respectfully, I think both AmishDragonSlayer and Vladimir_Poonani are being ridiculous in bringing up the fact that revenge porn could be easily be prevented by not taking the nude photos. The point here isn't to debate whether the victims were being stupid. It's to debate whether the internet should be held to the same standards as the non-virtual world.

I know it's odd to think of the internet as reality. Part of me still thinks that the internet should be a lawless place (mainly because an overwhelming number of people barely understands what 4chan is). But that's ridiculous. If the purpose of a people's law is to prevent and punish unethical behavior, and if humans are starting to treat existence on the internet increasingly seriously, then of course governments and legislators should be expected to create laws to tame this wild west.

[–]katha757 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Again, no one is arguing there shouldn't be laws protecting a member of society from having their privacy breached. However, I continue to urge that the best way to not have your pictures leaked is to not take pictures at all.

Let me put this a different way; People want to have casual sex. Having casual sex can cause pregnancy if you're not careful. Just because you got pregnant doesn't mean you should have to have the kid, so laws were put in place that legalizes abortion. Technically this solves the problem, however sex ed will always teach that abstinence is the only 100% surefire way to prevent pregnancy.

It might be a weak analogy but I feel like it fits the premise of the argument.

[–]Phaelanx 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sure, but the smart thing to do here is take some precautions.

[–]LUDSK 56ポイント57ポイント  (11子コメント)

I'm sorry, and honestly I don't mean to sound rude, but just flip the genders around here for a second.

Let's pretend you are a female (a raging feminist at that) and you're watching a video about harassment online. You click on it, expecting an informative, entertaining video... but it's only about men, and the harassment they face.

Naturally (because you're currently playing the part of the straw-man feminist you seem to be so fond of), this 'triggers' you, and you go all over tumblr, blogging away about the patriarchy, and women never being represented in media. Several people try to point out the topic has been covered from a female point of view, but you don't care; all media must contain your viewpoint, at all times.

This sounds like someone who would be made fun of, told to go back to tumblr where they could act like a 'special little snowflake' all they want.

This is, essentially, your position on "but it effects men too!" in reverse. People hate it when feminists try to make it all about women, all the time, especially when other options for being informed on the issue exist (it is OK to produce a video focusing on one aspect of an issue! I'm not trying to justify any sort of behavior on either side here). I suppose it just struck a nerve that people are saying "well, what about the MEN?". I can guarantee no-one has forgotten about us.

A lack of the men's side of representation in one video does not mean Jon is saying this does not happen to men. Jon simply chose to focus on the women's side of things here, as he has every right to do. It doesn't invalidate your claim that men get harassed as well (which is a very true claim, and perhaps one that needs to be investigated more), but rather means he chose to focus in on a more precise aspect of it.

If it's 'feminist' to oppose women getting sent threatening messages online, then I suppose I'd count myself among those ranks, even though I'm not a girl.

[–]Tuskinton 15ポイント16ポイント  (5子コメント)

Personally, I don't mind that he didn't bring up any examples of males who suffer from harassment. What I do mind is him saying that straight white males are universally exempt from online harassment. If someone said black women, or black men, or asian men, or white women were universally exempt from harassment, I'd think that was a stupid thing to say as well.

[–]devform 13ポイント14ポイント  (1子コメント)

When it comes to online harassment do you think women are more or less targeted than men?

I think what's happened here is Oliver made an exaggerated comment for effect and people are losing their minds because there was a Sarkeesian sighting.

[–]Kregg17 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Except he never said straight white males are universally exempt from online harassment.

[–]ParkGeunhye 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

Really? You know he's a comedian and exaggerates things for comedic effect, right? Obviously if you have a white penis, you can be harassed too. John Oliver knows that.

But think on it. Do you have a white penis? I do. Sure, people on youtube or CSGO or whatever internet medium still call me "faggot" and tell me they'll rape my family when I voice my own opinions they don't agree with. But nobody targets me for being white or having a dick. But what if it were my sister playing CS instead? Or my girlfriend who speaks English with a notable accent. You think they'll go easy on them? You think they'll be left alone if they so much as open their mouths when the mic is on? How about my Hispanic friend?

TL;DR; Having a white penis doesn't prevent you from getting harassed on the internet but it's a pretty large shield.

[–]Banalanon 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Harassment targets what the victim is likely to find most offensive. For men it's their heterosexuality, for the young it's their age, for minorities it's their race and for women it's their gender. If tomorrow all white men were suddenly offended about their race being made fun of, the harassment would no doubt change to that.

Just yesterday I was insulted at least 20 times (mostly supposing that I am a lover of having dicks in my arse) and threats made on my life for cheating. That's just the internet.

[–]PleaseDontStalkMe 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

No. He went out of his way to say people with a "white penis" can't understand this. It's complete BS.

[–]The_Adventurist 18ポイント19ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sometimes he gets it really wrong, like his segment about the wage gap where he took clips of people explaining how it's a myth and doesn't really exist in the United States with like for like work and then made similar sarcastic strawman arguments over them, not addressing the things they actually said.

Like someone was explaining that the perceived wage gap only exists because women tend to choose different professions than men and John Oliver's response was something like, "oh, so you're saying it's their fault?"

[–]Lpup 16ポイント17ポイント  (0子コメント)

This was really poorly thought out. He didn't go into anything in the bill other than saying it is something. What is that "something" Is it like the Tennesse bill that makes saying anything that hurts someones feelings illegal and a jailable offense? Is it a Revenge porn bill that further complicates our copyright system? Why is looking at pictures of Anthony Weiners dick okay and the fappening not?

He clearly didn't research his examples (One of which the FBI said was sending threats to herself and wasting their time and resources) and one minute says "Police should do something when this happens" then at the end says that we shouldn't tie up police resources with every mean threat.

Also what do you plan on doing in international cases. Harassers in the case of Anita Sarkesean were in Brazil. Briana Wu was caught sending threats to her self and was caught lying about leaving her house.

This was poorly done. I don't know if he is railing against harassment or revenge porn. To use the victim blaming argument doesn't gel well with the internet because certain things ARE preventable on the internet and people should take proper saftey precautions rather than expect everyone to look out for them no matter what info they post online.

[–]uw_NB 21ポイント22ポイント  (1子コメント)

definitely one of his weaker piece out there. The reality of the matter is a lot more complex and layered than what he was trying to pictured. In fact, not only he failed to described the full problem, he also failed to provision a solution to such. Its actually next to impossible to construct laws related to the internet information sharing without having it to be abused for copyright claims trolls and violate freedom of speech.

[–]The_Hectic_Glow 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm guessing that most of his pieces are pretty weak if you're knowledgeable about the subject. It's one of the unfortunate realities of trying to become an expert in something over the course of a week and then moving on to the next topic. There's little room for nuance.

[–]DaElfonzo 25ポイント26ポイント  (10子コメント)

Welp, I await a tamed discussion about the delicate subject that is online harassment.

[–]GrammatonYHWH 21ポイント22ポイント  (8子コメント)

The thing is - the whole herpty derpty should we or should we not police the Internet discussion is 100% irrelevant.

Here's an old may-may the youngins might not be familiar with.

The fact of the matter is we CAN'T police the Internet for harassment. That's why it's such a popular medium for it.

Not unless we ban encryption and proxies. And if we do that, we lose every single institution of privacy. It's a Catch 22. We either surrender all notion of privacy or we let online harassment continue unimpeded.

If we pass laws, we'll catch the dumb criminals who use their facebook account to carry out death threats and such online and who probably weren't really serious about acting out on any of these threats, but the smart psychopaths who are capable of doing these things will keep running about.

[–]-Tom- 24ポイント25ポイント  (3子コメント)

Here is the whole beauty of the internet and 4Chans whole “There are no girls on the internet” thing. If there is a discussion happening here I dont know if you are a female, black, [insert whatever social modifier here] when we engage in a discussion. All that matters is the merit of your discussion, what facts you present, any logical fallacies you commit, any just plain stupid things you say.

In real life people make consessions for you based on the aforementioned social modifiers, on the internet you get none of that. The ONLY time anyone on the internet wants to know or give a fuck about your social modifier is if its immediately pertinent to the discussion at hand such as “As a man what do you think about women who __________” for things like Reddits /r/askmen and /r/askwomen.

However if someone asks “Hey, what do you guys think of the new Starburst flavor?” and you start a response with “As a woman....” or “As a black person....” or mention it in your reply in any way, we, the internet, do not give a FUCK. Its completely irrelevant and only being mentioned in order to try and gain your opinion favor in the conversation. That is largely why people (even girls I know) will get mean and say shit to peolple on the internet who bring up these modifiers when its completely irrelevant. Its an attention cry and an attempt to have your opinions validated or be more valid than others simply because you have a social modifier beyond “white male”

Tits or GTFO.

[–]Goatsonice 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think an Online Ethics class ought to be thought to children in school. A nice modern tech based ethics class would solve a whole slew of problems including understanding the internet, respecting it and knowing your limits as a human being.

Yes I agree people should be able to send nudes and use the internet free of horrible people but wishing that won't make them go away and at the end of the day wouldn't you rather bite the bullet of preventative education and action ("victim blaming") vs. reactionary action once your nude is on xhamster?

The likelihood of your nude photo appearing on a porn site goes up exponentially if you send a nude(vs. not and having your webcam hacked), sorry it sucks that that can happen but you are assuming risk unfortunately. A whole lot of people are getting screwed by being ignorant of the internet's power, not only young teens who are new to the internet but middle aged folks who didn't grow up with it.

[–]Mexagon 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

Pandering the harassment-hungry crowd. Does this really suprise anyone? John won't bite the hand that feeds him.

[–]deaglefrenzy 15ポイント16ポイント  (2子コメント)

I always link this everytime cyber bulliying is mentioned

https://twitter.com/fucktyler/status/285670822264307712

[–]TweetsInCommentsBot 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

@fucktyler

2012-12-31 08:56 UTC

Hahahahahahahaha How The Fuck Is Cyber Bullying Real Hahahaha Nigga Just Walk Away From The Screen Like Nigga Close Your Eyes Haha


This message was created by a bot

[Contact creator][Source code]

[–]SlowRollingBoil 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

This thread is going to get nuked.

[–]calm_rational_debate 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

John Oliver, John Stewart, Stephen Colbert. These men and these clips all have the same format.

10% - Broad jokes about topic to open you up.

10-30% - Shock clips to get you enraged about topic.

30-60% Statistics or similar stories to give your anger credibility.

60-90% - Cherry picked idiot ass hole republicans to make those who disagree look bad.

90-100% - Vague and hinted at solutions.

[–]calm_rational_debate 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Let me run though that again.

10% - Broad jokes. Only has to be marginally topical, but absolutely must be funny. Humour exposes you, that's why comedians will save the strongest jokes for last. Louis CK didn't open at the beacon theatre with "Of course but maybe", he saved that for last because people need to feel exposed in order to laugh at something that close to the line of unacceptability. Sure, the first joke of a set might be a big punch, but the first 40 minutes are usually safe observational humour. What is the deal with airplane food?

10-30% - Shock clips. Very important. He needs you angry, or sad, or emotional in some way. Because emotion is the building blocks of all philosophy or political beliefs. The more material you build with, the more rooted you will be in your belief, the more valiantly you will support it.

30-60% - Statistics or similar stories. Statistics are extremely important, but very dangerous. Because statistics about society, (crime rates, wealth distribute) do not exist in a vacuum. A statistic like "Policy X went into effect and number Y dropped" is basically useless. How fast was Y dropping before Policy X? Perhaps Y dropped at a relatively faster rate before policy X which may mean the actual effect is opposite what the statistic suggests. Perhaps a million other factors were involved in the drop rate of Y. Perhaps the statistic is indeed correct and policy X directly resulted in a faster drop rate of Y, but perhaps policy X has had other undesirable effects we aren't looking at. Not to mention, statistics are varied. Find me the percentage of false rape accusations. Are you using the Gregory and Lees number of 41% or the Hursch and Selkin number of 2%? How many civilians were killed in the Iraq war? Are you using the leaked US military documents (iraq war logs) of 66K civilians or the PLOS medicine survey of 500K? Hell even the casualties of the American civil war are vehemently debated, and that is long since a (common) controversial topic. And the statistics that are brought up in this section are never examined. Instead of looking closely at one set of data, you observe the surface of 10 similar sets, which of course all point in the same direction. There are 100's of data sets on the issue, but you look at the 10 that most support the claim. Data should not support theory, theory should be supported by data.

60-90% - Cherry picked idiots. And this is the true problem. In a way, it's worse than a regular straw man argument. Because not only are you propping up an argument easily dismissed as incorrect, you are creating a new stereotype that anyone who disagrees with you not only believes the obviously wrong argument but has similar motivation and ethical backing. See John Oliver's Australian gun control clip. His opposition not only underestimates the previous massacres body count (factually wrong) but argues that massacres aren't a huge national problem because they only effect a very small percentage of the population. "Whoopty doo". John Oliver capitalizes on it and repeats "Whoopty doo?". It is likely the man was intentionally picked by John Oliver's writers for being cold and unfamiliar with the subject, and not only was the interview edited to exaggerate any inaccuracies in his information, but John intentionally paints his opposition as uncaring to the sufferings of others. Now, if someone disagrees with you about gun regulations, in your mind, he is as uncaring towards the subject of mass shootings as that other guy. He doesn't care about the deaths of others. Which may not be the case.

90-100% - The very worst bit. The solution is obvious. You have been led to it, directly to it. But you won't be told, because you need to come up with it for yourself. It needs to be your idea. Neither you nor I like to be told what to do or what to believe, but all talking heads have an agenda to push, but they can't just say it. John Oliver can't tell you what to believe about gun control or abortion or gay rights or global warming or incarceration because then not believing it is an act of rebellion and we want to be rebels. So he leads you to it.

He (10%) opens you up, (30%) gets you emotionally off balance, (60%) gives you 10 shallow reasons to believe him factual, (90%) give you 10 idiots idiots to fully portray any opposition as both inaccurate and immoral, and finally (100%) sits you down to a professionally cooked opinion. He doesn't force feed it to you, and he doesn't tell you to eat it.

And this needs to stop. This isn't debate, this isn't taste testing wines and picking your favorite. This is a car dealer showing you a broken down mini van, and then letting you test drive a sports car. This is an apple commercial showing a fat nerdy Windows user and a sleek sexy Mac man. This is blatant trickery.

Many of these issues are quite serious. Lets talk about gun control. Lets talk about racial tension. Lets talk about why women make less than men. I think we should re-examine marriage laws and minimum drug sentencing. But I won't do it like this.

This isn't John Oliver's format. Nor it is Stephen Colberts'. Nor Nancy Grace's. Nor Andrew Klavan's. This is American political junk food. All the fun of political debate, none of the sustenance. This is rhetoric, and it needs to stop.

[–]Mystic-monkey 18ポイント19ポイント  (7子コメント)

I love how it's just white males that are the villains of this piece. Yes if you had no troubles on the Internet it must be because you have a white penis. Now I'm against death threats and revenge porn, but don't act like this shot never happened to white males. I had one woman threaten me to cut off my balls and kill my mother for not aborting me. Now my problem is that this shit is only taken seriously when wemon are involved but men in many cases are not. Because they are white and have a penis, if we can acknowledge that it happens to everybody not just women, then we can move forward into fixing this problem.

[–]SenorRaoul 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm going to stick an egg into your vaginal canal and punch it

that is so hilarious that even she had to laugh.

[–]yinzertrash 18ポイント19ポイント  (0子コメント)

John Oliver dropped the ball on this one.