|
Post by xCompackx on Dec 30, 2015 19:30:34 GMT -5
Nobody in my workplace is consenting to being filmed though. That's a pretty big difference. That, I can agree, but the same point is there- with the GIF recuts, you're taking something that wasn't intended to titillate people and cutting and recutting until it becomes solely fetish fuel...which is closer to the problem of hacking photos against their will. How do you know it wasn't meant to titillate people? They're not having Charlotte wear "barely anything there" shorts because it increases her wrestling ability. Not saying the intent was to get people horny or whatever, but there's a pretty clear difference between skimpy wrestling outfits and pictures that weren't meant to be seen by anyone aside from one person.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Dec 30, 2015 19:38:05 GMT -5
That, I can agree, but the same point is there- with the GIF recuts, you're taking something that wasn't intended to titillate people and cutting and recutting until it becomes solely fetish fuel...which is closer to the problem of hacking photos against their will. How do you know it wasn't meant to titillate people? They're not having Charlotte wear "barely anything there" shorts because it increases her wrestling ability. Not saying the intent was to get people horny or whatever, but there's a pretty clear difference between skimpy wrestling outfits and pictures that weren't meant to be seen by anyone aside from one person. So, you're saying that if someone's dressed sexy on the street, it's okay for you to take pictures of them or videotape it, then? Even the clothing doesn't necessarily make it different.
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Dec 30, 2015 19:43:15 GMT -5
How do you know it wasn't meant to titillate people? They're not having Charlotte wear "barely anything there" shorts because it increases her wrestling ability. Not saying the intent was to get people horny or whatever, but there's a pretty clear difference between skimpy wrestling outfits and pictures that weren't meant to be seen by anyone aside from one person. So, you're saying that if someone's dressed sexy on the street, it's okay for you to take pictures of them or videotape it, then? Even the clothing doesn't necessarily make it different. Well no, but we're talking about women who's specific job is to appear on a televised TV show. Their entire career involves being filmed. I'm not defending making GIFs or anything (whatever floats your boat), but it's not like the screengrabs being used were obtained illegally.
|
|
chazraps
Wade Wilson
Better have my money when I come-a collect!
Posts: 27,989
|
Post by chazraps on Dec 30, 2015 22:08:22 GMT -5
Nobody in my workplace is consenting to being filmed though. That's a pretty big difference. That, I can agree, but the same point is there- with the GIF recuts, you're taking something that wasn't intended to titillate people and cutting and recutting until it becomes solely fetish fuel...which is closer to the problem of hacking photos against their will. I don't agree with that. At some point, absolutely everything in the world is titillating to someone. Everything we voluntarily put out there we're willingly consenting to be interpreted however the audience's subjective eyes perceive them. It's a "risk," or really a reality of any sort of performance sort shared-human-experience endeavor, we all take on. Consent is a pretty big dividing rod. I don't see a personal perversion of something willingly shared and something unwillingly shared being used out of one's control to be remotely comparable.
|
|
chazraps
Wade Wilson
Better have my money when I come-a collect!
Posts: 27,989
|
Post by chazraps on Dec 30, 2015 22:10:16 GMT -5
Do you really not see the difference between someone making a GIF of part of a consensual televised performance, and someone's private images being used against their will? I do but I don't see this massive difference between us seeing a picture we weren't meant to and a situation where Brie Bella's nipple fell out during a performance. Let's all stare. Neither was consented. And neither were things like AJ camel toe or whatever else. The massive difference is the performer knowing the risk and being in the midst of an actual performance. We can laugh at a basketball player's sports blooper in a big game. BUT, a hidden camera from a voyeur stranger filming a basketball player without their knowledge in the privacy of their own home hurting themselves is morally problematic on a number of levels. Consent is a huge divider here.
|
|
chazraps
Wade Wilson
Better have my money when I come-a collect!
Posts: 27,989
|
Post by chazraps on Dec 30, 2015 22:13:13 GMT -5
How do you know it wasn't meant to titillate people? They're not having Charlotte wear "barely anything there" shorts because it increases her wrestling ability. Not saying the intent was to get people horny or whatever, but there's a pretty clear difference between skimpy wrestling outfits and pictures that weren't meant to be seen by anyone aside from one person. So, you're saying that if someone's dressed sexy on the street, it's okay for you to take pictures of them or videotape it, then? Even the clothing doesn't necessarily make it different. Absolutely not, and those aren't comparable at all because someone walking on the street isn't in the midst of their performance. They're in the middle of living their lives. When you're a performer in a broadcasted endeavor, you're consenting to looking how you look in front of cameras for the viewers to do whatever with. Do you not see the huge difference between a performance and everyday lives?
|
|
trollrogue
Hank Scorpio
Nashville City of Music!!
Posts: 5,609
|
Post by trollrogue on Dec 30, 2015 22:23:51 GMT -5
So, you're saying that if someone's dressed sexy on the street, it's okay for you to take pictures of them or videotape it, then? Even the clothing doesn't necessarily make it different. Absolutely not, and those aren't comparable at all because someone walking on the street isn't in the midst of their performance. They're in the middle of living their lives. When you're a performer in a broadcasted endeavor, you're consenting to looking how you look in front of cameras for the viewers to do whatever with. Do you not see the huge difference between a performance and everyday lives? IJS a lot of people did not take this stance about Hulk Hogan's sex tape racism...
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Dec 30, 2015 22:25:53 GMT -5
So, you're saying that if someone's dressed sexy on the street, it's okay for you to take pictures of them or videotape it, then? Even the clothing doesn't necessarily make it different. Absolutely not, and those aren't comparable at all because someone walking on the street isn't in the midst of their performance. They're in the middle of living their lives. When you're a performer in a broadcasted endeavor, you're consenting to looking how you look in front of cameras for the viewers to do whatever with. Do you not see the huge difference between a performance and everyday lives? If it comes down to that, I guess I just don't, then. To me, if you make a GIF of them, even if they're performing, then you haven't openly consented to having people cut it and chop it down to do what they want to. It may not be just as bad as leaking nude photos without their consent, but it's pretty close.
|
|
chazraps
Wade Wilson
Better have my money when I come-a collect!
Posts: 27,989
|
Post by chazraps on Dec 30, 2015 22:43:32 GMT -5
Absolutely not, and those aren't comparable at all because someone walking on the street isn't in the midst of their performance. They're in the middle of living their lives. When you're a performer in a broadcasted endeavor, you're consenting to looking how you look in front of cameras for the viewers to do whatever with. Do you not see the huge difference between a performance and everyday lives? IJS a lot of people did not take this stance about Hulk Hogan's sex tape racism... Nobody took the side of Bubba or Gawker in that scenario. Hogan's racism was an accessory to what is pretty universally considered an invasion of privacy. Plus, I find it distasteful to equate a woman's body that she was born with and a person's unabashed blatant racism.
|
|
chazraps
Wade Wilson
Better have my money when I come-a collect!
Posts: 27,989
|
Post by chazraps on Dec 30, 2015 22:45:38 GMT -5
Absolutely not, and those aren't comparable at all because someone walking on the street isn't in the midst of their performance. They're in the middle of living their lives. When you're a performer in a broadcasted endeavor, you're consenting to looking how you look in front of cameras for the viewers to do whatever with. Do you not see the huge difference between a performance and everyday lives? If it comes down to that, I guess I just don't, then. To me, if you make a GIF of them, even if they're performing, then you haven't openly consented to having people cut it and chop it down to do what they want to. It may not be just as bad as leaking nude photos without their consent, but it's pretty close. But then you're entering the slippery slope of both art as a transformative work as well as its existence in a medium where you can't control an audience's response. Outside the legal/copywrite elements to it, there's a significant gap between people making something with what's willinging out there and doing the same with what isn't willingly out there. And that goes for all art dating back to the beginning of time.
|
|
|
Post by Alice Syndrome on Dec 31, 2015 0:37:27 GMT -5
Absolutely not, and those aren't comparable at all because someone walking on the street isn't in the midst of their performance. They're in the middle of living their lives. When you're a performer in a broadcasted endeavor, you're consenting to looking how you look in front of cameras for the viewers to do whatever with. Do you not see the huge difference between a performance and everyday lives? IJS a lot of people did not take this stance about Hulk Hogan's sex tape racism... THe racism was literally the only part of that Hogan comes off bad. The rest is "So, while I'm busy having my marriage fall apart around me, and my son is going to jail, my best friend films me sleeping with his wife and sells the tape, then the same website that will later bitch about Jennifer Lawrence's nudes being leaked refuses to take mine down despite legal action, and posts up some dumb headed rant I made to wreck my career"
|
|
Crappler El 0 M
Dalek
Never Forgets an Octagon
I'm a good R-Truth.
Posts: 58,479
|
Post by Crappler El 0 M on Dec 31, 2015 1:21:15 GMT -5
IJS a lot of people did not take this stance about Hulk Hogan's sex tape racism... THe racism was literally the only part of that Hogan comes off bad. The rest is "So, while I'm busy having my marriage fall apart around me, and my son is going to jail, my best friend films me sleeping with his wife and sells the tape, then the same website that will later bitch about Jennifer Lawrence's nudes being leaked refuses to take mine down despite legal action, and posts up some dumb headed rant I made to wreck my career" The Nick Hogan accident hadn't happened yet when he said that stuff. I enjoyed this quote from Meltzer:
|
|
Sam Punk
Hank Scorpio
Own Nothing, Be Happy
Posts: 6,309
|
Post by Sam Punk on Dec 31, 2015 16:09:10 GMT -5
Absolutely not, and those aren't comparable at all because someone walking on the street isn't in the midst of their performance. They're in the middle of living their lives. When you're a performer in a broadcasted endeavor, you're consenting to looking how you look in front of cameras for the viewers to do whatever with. Do you not see the huge difference between a performance and everyday lives? IJS a lot of people did not take this stance about Hulk Hogan's sex tape racism... Or the racist rant from that Clippers coach.
|
|
|
Post by benstudd on Dec 31, 2015 21:03:35 GMT -5
What's the difference? One is asking for it, the other is looking for it. So you're saying "Man, I'd love to see ___ naked." and "I want nudes of ___ to be leaked" are the same thing? 'Cause... they're kinda not. You're gonna see the naked pictures anyway.
|
|
|
Post by benstudd on Dec 31, 2015 21:05:44 GMT -5
So you're saying "Man, I'd love to see ___ naked." and "I want nudes of ___ to be leaked" are the same thing? 'Cause... they're kinda not. There is a huge difference between "I wish Trish Stratus had done Playboy back in the day" and "I wish someone leaked naked pictures of Trish Stratus on the internet without her consent". That's the difference between fanservice and revenge porn: consent. Quite frankly, it's sad and a little disconcerting to have to explain the difference to grown folks. If you don't want people to see you nude then STOP TAKING PICTURES OF YOURSELF NUDE.
|
|
|
Post by Jedi-El of Tomorrow on Dec 31, 2015 21:09:44 GMT -5
Who's Dana Brooke? That guy who runs UFC? Remember when someone said that she got the name "Dana Brooke" to mock Dana White and CM Punk, even though she was signed and given that name while Punk was still in WWE? Fun times. Dana Brooke took photos, CM Punk has been asked to sign photos fans take of him. This a multi-page thread about Dana Brooke, CM Punk has had multi-page threads about him. Clearly this is just another rib on Punk by the WWE. IJS a lot of people did not take this stance about Hulk Hogan's sex tape racism... Or the racist rant from that Clippers coach. Sterling (who was owner not coach) was a noted disgusting person before that tape came out. That just brought everything to the forefront, and Silver did something that Stern wanted to do but couldn't, he got Sterling out of the NBA. There's also a bit of a difference between a racist rant and leaked photos.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2015 21:11:14 GMT -5
We start the year with Seth Rollins' dick. We end the year with Dana Brookes ass.
So we really went from beginning to end eh? Front to back? Side to side.....
|
|
|
Post by Savage Gambino on Dec 31, 2015 22:43:08 GMT -5
There is a huge difference between "I wish Trish Stratus had done Playboy back in the day" and "I wish someone leaked naked pictures of Trish Stratus on the internet without her consent". That's the difference between fanservice and revenge porn: consent. Quite frankly, it's sad and a little disconcerting to have to explain the difference to grown folks. If you don't want people to see you nude then STOP TAKING PICTURES OF YOURSELF NUDE. By that logic, if you don't want people to carjack you STOP DRIVING! SMH Also, as for the Sterling thing, while both are violations of privacy, personal conversations aren't really valued the same way personal pictures are. Hence why TMZ can leak any and every phone call they want to, no matter how distasteful, but they can't just snatch up people's nudes off of the Cloud and publish them. Same reason why no one went after 50 Cent after he leaked his phone call with Young Buck.
|
|
|
Post by Savage Gambino on Dec 31, 2015 22:49:41 GMT -5
We start the year with Seth Rollins' dick. We end the year with Dana Brookes ass. So we really went from beginning to end eh? Front to back? Side to side..... Well, technically we started the year with Zahra's ass, since that leaked first. So, if you're drinking this New Years, you literally "got the drink in you, goin' back to back".
|
|
|
Post by Jacy Jayne Atomic Dog AMV on Jan 1, 2016 0:06:23 GMT -5
There is a huge difference between "I wish Trish Stratus had done Playboy back in the day" and "I wish someone leaked naked pictures of Trish Stratus on the internet without her consent". That's the difference between fanservice and revenge porn: consent. Quite frankly, it's sad and a little disconcerting to have to explain the difference to grown folks. If you don't want people to see you nude then STOP TAKING PICTURES OF YOURSELF NUDE. I didn't want people to punch me in the face, so I decapitated myself.
|
|