/baw/ General Discussion Archived Board plus4chan home [baw] [co/cog/jam/mtv] [coc/draw/diy] [pco/coq/cod] [a/mspa/op/pkmn] [Burichan/Futaba/Greygren]
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
Email
Subject   (reply to 387111)
Message
File
Password  (for post and file deletion)

Currently 0 unique user posts.

News
  • 08/21/12 - Poll ended; /cod/ split off as a new board from /pco/.

File 138670301018.jpg - (147.35KB , 800x450 , 4chan an.jpg )
387111 No. 387111
Old one autosaging.

ACA continues being successful.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2520979/Obamacare-mandates-set-shutter-THOUSANDS-volunteer-departments.html
>The Affordable Care Act forces companies with more than 50 workers to buy them all health insurance or pay hefty fines
>The IRS says volunteer firefighters are 'employees,' even though the Department of Labor says they're 'volunteers'
>Out of more than 1 million fire departments in the U.S., 87 per cent are staffed entirely or mostly by life-saving volunteers
>'A public safety disaster'

Kill all men.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/archie-boss-calls-male-employees-penis-article-1.1534462
>Archie Comics CEO Nancy Silberkleit is accused by her male employees of gender discrimination such as referring to them as 'penis' instead of by name
>But Silberkleit contends that the case should be tossed out because white males are not 'a protected class'.
Expand all images
>> No. 387116
>>387111
>But Silberkleit contends that the case should be tossed out because white males are not 'a protected class'.
Strictly speaking, the article only says that's what her lawyer's argument is. The first sentence states that she said her employees being white men invalidates their accusations, but the rest only mentions her claiming that she didn't do any of it and has no idea why people think she did. No idea what to believe, personally. Good thing I'm already not buying comics anyway...?
>> No. 387117
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101243971

Article contains a link to a copy of the Archie complaint.
>> No. 387118
>>387116
This is several staff members (including a woman) with the complaints dating back decades and alleging things like stalking their families.
>Not even a temporary restraining order stopped the behavior. Employees brought in armed guards for protection. A co-trustee brought in to run interference failed to work out.
Chances are low that it's bullshit.

The penis thing might be just what the media locked onto for a different (if valid) reason.
>that's what her lawyer's argument is
I'm sure her lawyers didn't say it without her consent. And it's true, white males aren't a protected class under discrimination workplace laws, which is part of the meat of this story. It makes no sense for white guys to have zero protections in society, and for people to be able to fire or bully an entire class of people just because of their sexual orientation or skin color.
>> No. 387142
>white males aren't a protected class under discrimination workplace laws

Wait, so if a white guy works for a black employer, and the guy fires him SPECIFICALLY because he is white, making no bones about it, that's totally legal and legit? Seriously??

This whole time I've been going around saying "It's impossible to be racist unless you're white," with a dash of sarcasm and tongue firmly in cheek; and now you're telling me it's legally TRUE. I think I need to go lie down. There's something seriously wrong with the world when my hyperbolic, parodic, cynical assertions prove to be fact.
>> No. 387143
>>387142
>This whole time I've been going around saying "It's impossible to be racist unless you're white

Stop saying this bullshit, even as a joke.
>> No. 387151
>gender discrimination
>being called 'penis'
...
Huh.
>> No. 387152
>>387151
?
>> No. 387154
>>387152
Well, I've just never considered that specific somewhat obscene nickname "discrimination".
>> No. 387157
>>387142

It's possible to be bigoted against anyone of any racial or ethnic background if you're not white. That should go without saying.

But racism is built on the structure of one racial group (e.g. Caucasian people) having enormous power and privilege over practically all other racial groups (e.g. non-Caucasian people).

A bigot hates people who don't belong to the bigot's race/ethnic group. A racist uses "the system" (e.g. the government, the economy, the education system) to enhance and entrench their racial bigotry within "the system" itself.

That's the way I see it, anyway. Feel free to tell me I'm a naïve little fuckwad, though.

>>387118

>white males aren't a protected class under discrimination workplace laws

Yeah no you're gonna have to actually present some proof to back that claim up.
>> No. 387159
>>387154

Hostile work environment. Persistent, low-level harassment can

Also, "race" is a protected class, as is "sex" (which, as per Price Waterhouse, includes "gender expression/stereotyping", and, per Macy v. Holder, includes gender identity). You can discriminate against men, and white folks, and straight folks. Civil Rights Act and FEHA protections are neutral.
>> No. 387160
>>387159
>Persistent, low-level harassment
Personally, I hope they at least attempted to try and work it out face to face before they actually took legal action.
>> No. 387161
>>387157
Are you American? The US educational system tends to focus on the country and ignore the rest of the world. You're not naive, just misinformed by a system that doesn't bother updating the knowledge base or improving stale 20th century terminology.

To have the definition you stated work you need to use some kind of pared-down WWII definition of race.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human_classification%29#Biological_definitions_of_race
Note the difference between the 1929 definition and the modern 1997 definition. The old one is based on observing things like skin color or shape of the skull (phrenology ~defunct) while the new one is almost entirely based on genomics.

Let me explain what I mean using the United States as the region and Caucasians in USA being the "racists". For the definition you (probably) quoted to work you need to exclude the following groups from the "Caucasian" race:
1. People living in the Caucasus region.
2. Indians, Pakistanis, Central Asians.
3. North Africans and many Middle Eastern countries.
4. Southwest, South and East Europeans.
5. Latin Americans.
These people are Caucasians who don't have privileged status in USA.
This is what I mean by paring-down (reducing) an old definition of a race to make it fit into some definition of racism which just doesn't define anything very well. BTW there are other definitions of racism (Oxford) which basically state that if you believe there are any differences between races, even obvious ones like skin color, then you're racist.

Nowadays if people want to be taken seriously they talk about oppressive cultures and ethnicities, not oppressive races.


>Yeah no you're gonna have to actually present some proof to back that claim up.
I think its from this >>387117
>Her attorneys rebuff discrimination claims because "white males are not a member of a protected class"
>> No. 387162
>>387160
>The plaintiffs claim they hired an independent human resources professional who found that Silberkleit's conduct "cannot be tolerated—one employee relayed an instance where he heard Nancy say something like, 'All you penises think you can run me out.' "
>Not even a temporary restraining order stopped the behavior. Employees brought in armed guards for protection. A co-trustee brought in to run interference failed to work out.
>> No. 387170
>>387118
>>387142
>>387143
>>387159
ITT racists and sexists.

Only the side that holds the power can be the oppressor. Educate yourselves, shitlords.
>> No. 387171
>>387170
>Only the side that holds the power can be the oppressor.
...That's kind of the point they're trying to make. Yes, overall (macro?), Old White Men hold the power. But on the smaller (micro?) scale, Silberkleit holds 50% of the power at Archie (cause they do some co-CEO shit, unless that changed recently). And you can still be racist if you're in the minority, you just lack the power to actually act on it so no one gives a shit.

If a black woman owned a restaurant and refused to hire someone on the basis that they were a white man (in a public setting, so not just the guy's conspiracy theory), the man can and should sue for discrimination, just as the black woman can and should if the roles were reversed. That owner can spout whatever she likes about hating "crackers", but the moment it actually impacts someone else's life is when it becomes an issue.

Everyone can be racist and sue for racism, but white men will have a harder time proving it because the view of society is that white men tend to have the power, a kind of double-standard. Like the old meme that men can't be raped, even though that's completely false and it has happened; however, the known cases are far eclipsed by the reversal (or even man-on-man rape) so a lot of people turn a blind eye when it happens (if it's even reported; I wouldn't be surprised if men under-report their rape more than women do, though the overall number would still be far lower.)

In short, an injustice is an injustice, no matter who the perpetrator and the victim are.
>> No. 387172
>>387171
All I hear is racist/sexist whining. Sorry not sorry. Your time is over. Deal with it.
>> No. 387173
>>387171
this is an issue of terminology over practice.
racism in this context is more akin to patriarchal implicit sexist culture than to individual acts of aggression toward any direction.

it's oppression, which is something that goes beyond discrimination and prejudice. it's systemic.

but that said, i've seen racism used to describe what you're talking about in common speech all the time... but i won't go further since i hate /pol/ threads and this wastes all my precious braaaains
>> No. 387174
File 138687430490.jpg - (67.15KB , 500x375 , what1.jpg )
387174
>>387173
>racism is sexism
OK what?
>> No. 387176
>>387174
MORE. AKIN. TO.
AKIN.
NOT SAME.
Did you do okay on standardized tests, because that would require you understand how analogies work.

we're talking about cultural and institutional ideas that are so ingrained that the oppressors and the oppressed may not even be aware of how they perpetuate the very culture that puts people in positions of power and oppression.

it's similar for both in that sexism is founded on masculinity being of higher importance than femininity and that feminine things are either to be shunned or controlled.

racism has a similar expression. when someone from the oppressed side acts in an unsavory or outright negative way toward the oppressor, that doesn't inherently make it right, but it is more likely a reaction to oppression than itself an act of oppression. i'm not saying it's rational or justified. i'm saying that it's in defiance of the culture, misguided or not.

now that we're done with that, you can go on and argue the ethics of isolated actions and then label them however you want.
>> No. 387177
>>387176
Oh well, that makes more sense. It doesn't apply very well to the article though.
>> No. 387180
Man, how thin skinned do you have to be to get seriously upset over being called a "penis?" It's the sort of insult a timid middle schooler would try because they're afraid they'll get in trouble for calling someone a dick.
>> No. 387182
>>387111

omfg the archie thing is the most bananas thing ive ever read

that said, no one should be sexually harassed or feel threatened at their job. this lawyer is going to get raked over the coals for even trying to pull that
sexual harassment is the worst. its dehumanizing and terrifying and shitty.
even me, a member of the Kill Men Hate Squad, thinks this is some bad shit
>> No. 387184
>>387180
If I understand correctly, it's not her calling someone a penis (which is a very weak insult, but depending on context/connotation could be very powerful, especially coming from the CEO of your company), but saying penis repeatedly. And using the actual anatomical name can make many uncomfortable when using slang wouldn't (thanks, sexually repressive America!)

I actually think being called a dick would be better than being called a penis in that situation.

And remember, this isn't some random guy passing you on the street calling you a "fag" or similar, where you give him a look and shrug it off; this is the person at the highest point in the power structure doing it. With the random passer-by, you can move away/leave if they continue harassment (until such time as they make it physical, anyway.) With the CEO of your company, if you leave you're likely fired (and could sue afterward anyway, but between the start of the suit and getting fired you have no income), so it's either "Get Fired" or "Listen to them say Penis/Call me a Penis".

If you still don't understand, try this out: Next time you go to work/class, walk around saying "vagina" over and over, see how many people (men and women both) will get offended. (Everyone will be annoyed, but that's not the same level.)
>> No. 387185
>>387180
gr8 post +1 upboat

any bystanders are encouraged to play "spot the hypocrisy" with that post
>> No. 387188
File 138689595615.gif - (3.65MB , 355x200 , bear formula.gif )
387188
>>387182
>even me, a member of the Kill Men Hate Squad, thinks this is some bad shit
surprised.jpg
>> No. 387191
>>387184
See, again though, I feel like I would be too amused at the inanity of someone just saying "vagina" to even see where the offense could come from. Like if you call someone a dick, or a cock, or a pussy, or a cunt, sure--those words have a little more power. But calling them by strict anatomical terms is just so silly. I don't understand how anyone can be said to be exercising power over a human being with such watered-down nonsense, much less abusing it.

It seems like the sort of thing you laugh at someone behind their back for saying, not something that causes a person psychological trauma. Like "Can you believe how much this lady uses the word 'penis?' Let's buy her a thesaurus for christmas."
>> No. 387193
>>387191
I would be highly amused, as well. And, depending on company, I might even join in at some point.

But we're from the 'chans. We hear about chicks with dicks putting bottles in their ass and see GIFs of limbs being sawed off and we roll our eyes and smirk. Many of us here have also been bullied, or are used to the bullying that goes with 4chan, and have grown thick skin for it. We're not "normal"; we're not even normal for abnormal.

And, again, this isn't a single instance of randomly saying penis. This is saying it constantly, in a mocking tone, in the midst of other verbal abuse or pejoratives. To us, the idea of calling someone a penis (or being called a penis) is quite silly; to someone else, it was something they came to dread being called at work. Being called a name like that, repeatedly, gives the name a new meaning, one of contempt and hatred and loathing, and it wears you down over time to the extent that one day being called "penis" is the same as your average black man being called a "goddamn slave" by some random white dude. In a predominantly-black club. That's not just a personal insult to the target, but a condemnation of every other black person within earshot.

If she'd gone around calling them an anus they would just have a defamation claim on their hand, but since she used "penis" they get to throw sexism in there, as well.

Saying "she called him 'penis'" is just what what grabs attention in an article or two-minute report on a news channel. The claim goes deeper than that.
>> No. 387195
I think the issue with the guys being called penises is because they're all actually a bunch of pussies.

At least thats what I'd call someone who'd do a fit for being called a penis.
>> No. 387196
>>387193

Exactly. It's the context, and the repetition. Low-level harassment can do it, especially in the case of it being a CEO.

"a workplace may give rise to liability when it “is permeated with ‘discriminatory [sex-based] intimidation, ridicule, and insult..." and the it weighs on severity vs. pervasiness; more severe (groping, assault) makes up for fewer incidents, more pervasive (in this case, using "penis" in lieu of the names of male employees) makes up for lesser severity. Lyle v. Warner Bros. TV Productions. The harassment need not involve physical touching or even expressions of sexual interest by the harasser; Nichols v. Azteca Resteraunt involved coworkers making fun of a gay server's effeminate mannerisms and calling him a she, and that, long-term, added up to harassment because of sex. And yes, you can have non-sexual, same-sex harassment (other women picking on new female hires, men demeaning not-masculine-enough male coworkers, etc.).

Also, you guys are missing the fact the lady (allegedly) stalked these men as well. That's seriously creepy (if true).
>> No. 387197
>>387191
Yeah when it's random insults it's usually in good fun, though that's not exactly the way I'd want my boss to act.

But when you keep calling someone a specific name over and over again, especially a sexual name or word, it becomes really creepy and starts to carry connotations or harassment, and can escalate into real harassment. It' be like a male boss calling all of their female employees "Vaginas"; creepy and uncomfortable and inappropriate and nobody bats an eyelash when the sexual harassment lawsuit gets filed.

This isn't going to go well for her, methinks.
>> No. 387204
>people getting hung up on a word
>nitpicking
She was stalking these people, I'm sure "penis" is not the only word she used, the articles seem to censor the more extreme expletives. Even so, getting called that constantly, way past the line it stops being humorous, after you tell them to stop... is harassment. And it being aimed at the men in the workplace makes it sexual harassment.

>>387195
OK, put your balls where your mouth is and do an experiment:
1. Call all your women acquaintances vagina or uterus.
2. Not by their name, or "hey you", but literally vagina or uterus.
3. Keep doing it constantly for years.
You can start with family members but should eventually find a female friend or two, there are guides on the internet for this:
http://www.wikihow.com/Become-Friends-with-a-Girl

Make another post a year or two from now and tell us how the experiment went, internet tough guy.
>> No. 387213
>>387195
quality comment upboat +1
>> No. 387233
>>387204
>getting called that constantly, way past the line it stops being humorous, after you tell them to stop... is harassment

That's really the thing though. Before we even get to the stalker behavior, this is already problematic.
>> No. 387234
oops meant to post this here earlier today.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/australia-incest-case-filthy-and-severely-deformed-children-found-in-remote-farming-community-afte
r-generations-of-inbreeding-8998115.html
>> No. 387240
Sure is that time of year around here.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/active-shooter-situation-arapahoe-high-school-denver-police-article-1.1547140
(One shooter, no fatalities, 2 injured, shooter killed himself.)
>> No. 387253
If a woman complained that her male boss only called her "boobs", nobody would argue that it isn't harrasment or descrimination.
>> No. 387257
http://m.fastcoexist.com/3023128/futurist-forum/this-sleek-spiderman-spacesuit-could-take-astronauts-to-mars#1

Lady Engie makes a neat new suit for mars.
>> No. 387258
>>387234
Every few generations of incest you need an influx of new genes, it's how isolated communities like the Old Believer communities, Amish and Middle East villages have managed it for centuries. I think these people in Australia really were cut off somehow and just didn't know how to get someone new to join their community until it was too late.
It may appear barbaric or horrifying, but in reality it's the most important thing a group of lifeforms can do.

>>387257
Holy shit, Anime was right!
>> No. 387259
File 13870422669.jpg - (114.41KB , 750x500 , 3023128-slide-s-mars-02.jpg )
387259
>>387258
Well since part of the whole thing with space is keeping pressure in then skin suits pretty much are a given with new materials.
>> No. 387260
>>387259
But the kind of pressure you want is air pressure, not cloth pressure.
>> No. 387262
>>387260
right she's making it to maintain the minimum amount of needed atmospheric pressure for a surface jaunt on alien worlds and doesn't rely on something gas pressured that won't kill us with a puncture who's inherent bulk just adds to the danger.
>> No. 387264
File 138704553518.jpg - (54.21KB , 322x288 , sawney.jpg )
387264
>>387258
Actually this spun out of a Sawney Beane like desire to move into a cave and fuck your sister and all of her subsequent child, this is thankfully without the robbery cannibalism though.
>> No. 387265
>Sawney Beane
OK I didn't know what that was, thanks for scaring the shit out of me.
>> No. 387267
>>387264
>>387265
Although it's little more than anti-Scots propaganda perpetrated by the English, I've been to the infamous cave near Ballantrae (it's just down the coast from me) and it far out creepy (and surprisingly tiny).
>> No. 387268
>>387267
I bet it was just a place they hid if someone was looking for them, and not a legit living place.
>> No. 387271
>>387267
Could be, be like the same vein as A Modest Proposal.
>> No. 387273
>>387271
It appeared in 18th century leaflets around the same time roughly as the Jacobite uprising to smear the Scottish character (rah, look how beasty and bad these terrible savages are), as was the fashion of the English press at the time. Perpetrated as fact, sadly not satire.
>> No. 387274
File 138706545161.jpg - (202.48KB , 636x1428 , tooth glasses.jpg )
387274
>>387273
But... Scots ARE beastly. Look at this ferocious specimen, it's practically dripping with savagery. Delicious, delicious savagery.
>> No. 387276
>>387274
I like the accents of that people( phrasing ?). One of the things I find endearing about Brave as a movie is their usage of actual accents.
>> No. 387277
File 138706831927.png - (194.06KB , 526x371 , raperorum tumiltinty bed.png )
387277
>>387274
>17 year old me
no

>>387276
watch some parliamo glasgow, see how much you like it then.
>> No. 387280
File 138706949064.jpg - (19.74KB , 270x270 , 13211__cain_l.jpg )
387280
>>387267
>>387273
Yes let us make that clear, If there is anything I hate it's when people judge an entire race on a half story.

Yo fuck Australians though right? Buncha inbred fucks.
>> No. 387281
>>387280
I assume half the country is mutated by inbreeding and radiation like in Mad Max.
>> No. 387282
File 138707204743.jpg - (107.60KB , 640x427 , DSC_0555.jpg )
387282
Maria de Jesus-Lucungo Although she's originally from Angola and doesn't have fair hair herself, Maria has made it her life goal to campaign for the protection of the UK's blonde population. She believes that England's flaxen-haired brothers and sisters are under threat of extinction and that, if they disappear, "the world will not be so attractive in beauty any more".

From a scientific point of view, there is yet to be any conclusive evidence that blonde hair is either more attractive to other human beings or on the way out. But Maria doesn't care too much for what scientists have to say. Her unconditional love for "pure" blondes transcends reason, walks a narrow tightrope between Mother Teresa and Hitler and can't be halted by any evidence presented to her.

What about gingers? I consider ginger to be the darkest blonde there is.


http://www.vice.com/read/meet-the-angolan-woman-campaigning-to-save-blonde-people

I wondered when blonde people would enter into "endangered phenotype" category.
>> No. 387283
File 138707322296.png - (77.57KB , 1306x354 , 1387072357204.png )
387283
>> No. 387295
>>387240
That's not a school shooting, it's a public suicide.
>> No. 387296
>>387295
No, he did shoot at some people, one girl was in critical condition. Even if he was the only death, it's still a school shooting because it was shooting done at a school.
>> No. 387297
>>387277
oh look its one of those native language stations I was hearing aboot.
>> No. 387298
>Stockholm city council plans to introduce "gender aware snow removal". By removing the snow from bussstops, daycare centers, and bikebaths. Before roads and industry get their snow removed. Because men are over represented in the driving pool so cleaning roads is a manifestation of the patriarchy.
http://www.svd.se/nyheter/stockholm/snorojningen-gynnar-man_8807762.svd
>> No. 387325
File 138721778038.jpg - (43.82KB , 500x363 , 1386974189790.jpg )
387325
>>387298
>remove snow from bikepaths first
>biking in the winter
>> No. 387326
>>387325
I love biking in winter. That said, that shit is still retarded. Snow on bikepaths isn't quite as likely to actually kill people.
>> No. 387327
>>387326
This really sounds like some bad idea that could result in deaths or at least bad injuries.

>Cleared out the areas for women and children
>Buses still cannot access those areas due to their service roads being blocked.
>Hypothermia and Frostbite to follow.

Really the goal of society should/is equality not trying to balance crap with placating preferential treatment that is actually kinda insulting to all.
>> No. 387330
File 13872251152.jpg - (37.80KB , 320x473 , Aristotle.jpg )
387330
>>387327
True dat.
>The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.

Also can't believe they think removing snow will fix income inequality without addressing the fact that pregnant women have to put their careers on pause for 9 months. I guess it's easier to shovel snow in specific places than to invent artificial wombs and free women from the task forever.
>> No. 387331
File 138722601261.jpg - (50.62KB , 600x399 , Red-Hot-Chili-Peppers-concert.jpg )
387331
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/16/nsa-phone-surveillance-likely-unconstitutional-judge
http://www.ibtimes.com/nsa-phone-spying-program-ruled-unconstitutional-federal-judge-1510756
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/national-security-agency-phones-judge-101203.html?hp=l2
>> No. 387332
>>387330
Artificial and token means are easier than actually advancing things.
>> No. 387333
File 138722614330.jpg - (22.92KB , 288x282 , 1387225640004.jpg )
387333
>> No. 387334
File 138722616833.gif - (106.00KB , 500x500 , 1387225640003.gif )
387334
>> No. 387335
File 13872262034.jpg - (91.24KB , 467x350 , braveheart11024.jpg )
387335
freedom prevails
>> No. 387337
FUCK YEAH!
>> No. 387338
Good ruling and all, but don’t celebrate just yet. It’ll be appealed, and Lord knows if it’ll hold up.
>> No. 387344
>>387338
>goes straight to the Washington Appeals court
>Oh hey new appointee judge in the pocket of the most intrusive admin ever.
>NSA Approved

SHOCK!!! Pppft no not really.
>> No. 387347
>>387338
In fact, the judge delayed any action taken against the NSA in the very same judgement because he expected it to be appealed.
>> No. 387349
Guess it'll be up to Snowball to release some more stuff.
>> No. 387360
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/isps-to-include-porn-filters-as-standard-in-uk-by-2014/
> Parental filters for pornographic content will come as a default setting for all homes in the UK by the end of 2013, says David Cameron's special advisor on preventing the sexualization and commercialization of childhood, Claire Perry MP.
>Perry said parents were "complacent" about the risks of online pornography, pointing out that only four in 10 parents use some kind of Internet filtering at home.
And like 3 in 10 probably don't let their kids near a computer. So, let me get this: Because a minute percentage of minute portion of the population are too lazy to protect their own kids the government are going to take a shit on 100% of the population?

At this level of nannystateism I don't get why the government doesn't simply take kids away at birth to be raised collectively by robots (according to media, teachers are all pedophiles and cant be trusted).
>> No. 387362
>>387360
that has been one iteration of "it takes a village" here in the states. the "village" of course now being government instead of community
>> No. 387378
>>387362
That statement in the modern age means baby shower gifts and family helping with babysitting.
>> No. 387420
>>387378
I feel like that's taken a different turn in the modern age, actually. Just loading materialism on a kid is a little less important than having their parents not be crazy. There is some need for a "nanny state" as provided by child protection services and foster homes, but that entire system is still woefully underfunded and falling through the cracks. People may hate the notion that the government can come in and take their kids away if they're an unfit parent, but the reality is that there are some people so unfit to be a parent that they should probably be held criminally liable for it (like chasing your kid around with a knife unfit).

I feel like porn and sexuality is an issue that still needs to be addressed by society, but blocking it is just more head-in-the-sand stuff. You'd at least prefer like a .xxx domain or something, something easy to block with existing whitelist/blacklist tech from your home pc. It doesn't really force parents to talk to their kids about it or talk about its' widespread proliferation.
>> No. 387421
>>387420
Yea sexuality not being addressed I think causes more grief then it needs to. Is why I'm writing some books that have that subject included. Kinda glad hearing the current Pope going the old school route of inclusive attitude towards people instead of excluding them like its been for a while. Also get a chuckle at the small groups of Catholic idiots that gripe "HE DOESN'T PAY ATTENTION TO US!!"
>> No. 387425
File 138740117182.jpg?nsfw - (110.62KB , 1024x640 , Hannibal TV show.jpg?nsfw )
387425
>>387420
>There is some need for a "nanny state" as provided by child protection services and foster homes
The problem here is not funding but structure. And the inherent nature of crimes being undetectable until after the damage is done.


The .xxx idea is pretty good, although the warning before entering a website is enough. Similar to how it's enough for TV.
IF they want to ban internet in this way then I demand they also ban any TV channel with sex, violence and profanity.

>>387421
I'm of the opinion that if kids and teens can handle serial murders and mutilation of bodies on regular television they can probably handle anything.
>> No. 387431
>>387425
>The .xxx idea is pretty good
At one time I agreed, but now I think it's a pretty bad idea. If you're trying to seriously "protect" someone from something, you don't send them into the wild and try to build fences around what you don't want them to see/interact: it's a losing fight. Instead, you keep them in designated, safe areas where you can monitor them.

We need the opposite: .kids With .kids, the "nanny state" can make whatever rules and regulations over it they like in the name of "protecting the children". They can set up an extra application system with .kids where you prove your intentions and have to follow certain standards. They can make a version of FireFox that will only ever access .kids domains and has nice, big buttons or something for easy browsing.

More importantly, .kids can't be used to hassle and beat down the Adult Entertainment industry or otherwise restrict adults in any way that just want to use the internet. .xxx almost certainly will be used in this capacity.
>> No. 387433
The triple X domain is also kinda like a big PSSST GO HERE sign. If whatever regulations are planned have any user input, some kids will probably be smart enough to work around them or parents not be smart enough to use them properly.
>> No. 387434
File 138742192358.jpg - (174.22KB , 645x756 , mark-twain-on-censorship_.jpg )
387434
>>387431
Kids don't need a bubble, wall or fence, or they'll never grow up. Kids need a signpost, a warning that tells them what they're about to enter and explains what they would see there.

I expect parents to supervise their kids access to devices that stream porn. This requires almost no effort, it's 4 clicks on my computer to enable parental controls on any account, and 5 clicks to make new password protected accounts.

Think of what kind of parenting you can expect from a person that can't click nine times with a mouse to protect their child. You cant stop that person from being a bad parent by putting a bandaid over their deficiency.

>>387420
>There is some need for a "nanny state" as provided by child protection services and foster homes,
Also, pretty sure this isn't nanny statism. Nanny states exercise their power when there's no real cause to do so, such as treating regular citizens like criminals, curtailing freedoms for no reason, or accusing people of precrime. Like banning gluten, peanut butter, kinder eggs or popsicle sticks because people might hurt themselves on it.

A foster home or CPS can only operate if there's a cause, so that's just a good policy. The proper policy in the case of UK would be to educate parents on how to setup safe accounts, have the schools release a pamphlet with a 10 step process the parent has to sign.
>> No. 387436
>>387434

I'm sure things are different now, but back when I had to deal with AOL's blockers, I still saw my fair share of porn. Just for the record.

It also blocked a bunch of harmless sites which is another issue entirely.
>> No. 387439
>>387436
>AOL
What is the meaning of these arcane symbols?

But seriously, the standard porn blocker back on Windows Vista could be time locked, stop BBS sites, censor bad speech and report what the kid saw, which helps the parent have a sitdown chat.
The ones on Windows 7 and 8 allow for far more customized apps.

Of course the simplest method is just make an account that can't access internet unless the kid is being supervised, leave them educational materials and a few gigs of offline games to fool around on.
>> No. 387440
Also don't think this new law will actually prevent porn, it's not meant to do that, the purpose is to shit on the population....
>> No. 387441
>>387440
be part of that damned kill switch the govermemt has been so keen on getting these last few years.
>> No. 387444
>>387431
>.kids

I actually see that as more dangerous then an .xxx domain, cause then you're saying "this is where all the kids are". Reminds me of any "newbie" forum or low-skill game bracket. That's just waiting for Trolling, let alone harassment and targeting. The adult industry at large can still operate even with that sort of barrier, and there isn't a potential for the targeting of kids.

I will admit that even as a child, the lines between what is and isn't "acceptable content" have really defined my internet experience, as I was more often on the side of more questionable elements in forums and in my larger web search abilities. But I feel like one of the bigger problems with content filtering right now is the problem of selecting the proper words to block. .xxx solves the problem of wayward porn sites and sites that are explicitly not about pornography being incorrectly filtered by putting up a big sign that essentially says "here lies titties", whereas when I was a kid, I didn't even need forums or interacting with people to just go look at porn. You encountered questionable subject material, yeah, but it was always within the context of other people. The ease of access may have problematic effects for adults who find themselves facing pornography addicting and without true working blockers.

"Default Blocking" feels like an early step towards Tiered Internet, which may end up being inevitable. But it wouldn't be my first choice
>> No. 387453
>>387434
>Kids don't need a bubble, wall or fence, or they'll never grow up.
I absolutely agree, but if they're going to fuck around and try to play Big Brother I'd rather limit their damage using .kids, which is more likely to work as a protection level, than .xxx, which is more likely to be used for as a way of beating porn sites over the head.

>>387444
>Reminds me of any "newbie" forum or low-skill game bracket.
Interaction would be extremely limited between users of .kids sites, if any. At best you'd get the limited kind of system Nintendo loves to use in their online interactions, where you can select from a predefined list of responses, sayings, and/or greetings.

When I say .kids, I'm imagining sites for 10/11 year olds or younger. If they want to go beyond that, they could do a .tween/.teen which they could still tightly monitor, but would be less restrictive.
>> No. 387454
>>387444
that system I remember being discussed in the upper levels back in the Netflix infancy with networks talking about how it would cause bottlenecks and stuff and have plans for different levels of net usage (this one for only news blogs and info, this for video etc) Course now it just looks like a nifty way to backdoor censorship.
>> No. 387457
>>387453
Eh, you can't make any kind of subsection of the net truly open to multiple developers if you want to have security for such a thing. You're talking about the restriction of a single network and device family over which a single group of companies has an incredible degree of control. Again, I feel like a "kids zone" in the internet wild west is just an open target. It may not be great for porn, and there may be some very good reasons that such a thing hasn't happened yet, but I feel like that industry could field such a restriction better than the groups who'd have to deal with it with a kids zone.

What I'm really wondering is what is hoped to be accomplished by this.
>> No. 387458
>>387454

A 'tiered' Internet looks like censorship because of how it could segregate parts of the population from accessing content publication platforms based on their level of income/wealth. Blocking people from accessing blogging platforms such as Tumblr based on how much they can afford to pay for Internet service would reek of the rich enforcing a sort-of 'speech tax' on the poor.

It would also make widespread use and development of platforms/technology such as Twitter or YouTube much harder: why bother developing a communication standard or a video-sharing site when you'd have to fight an uphill climb to get it onto any given tier of Internet service on a single Internet service provider AND pray that all the major ISPs decide to accept it as a standard worthy of cross-ISP usage?

A non-neutral Internet -- a tiered, paywalled, segregated, technologically-stagnant Internet -- might not resemble the Internet we have today. I pray we'll never have to find out.
>> No. 387459
>>387458
the response to that was the talk of development of a decentralized networking system that used an entirley new type of address system and would be untraceable. First heard about it five years ago, I think bitcoin is the spawn of some of that early talk.
>> No. 387464
>>387459

Yeah, stuff like peer-to-peer DNS and cryptocurrency technology (as well as advances in P2P communication services) have come as a response to all the 'tiered'/'non-neutral' Internet talk in the past few years.
>> No. 387469
>>387457
>What I'm really wondering is what is hoped to be accomplished by this.
Giving the nanny types something they can squabble over internally in the hopes that they'll leave the rest of us the hell alone.
>> No. 387480
>>387469
While that may be the case, my inner hustler says "look for a play". I feel like there has to be a good ancillary reason to really push this through.
>> No. 387484
>>387480
its restriction and control. Because new addresses will need "approval" or some such crap so make sure they fit in the right categories to "protect the children". Same tripe they peddle with some of those Anti-Piracy (Pro Hollywood-Censorship) when they yammer on about the children. Thing is seeing how utterly broken they already made one system they attempted to build from scratch kinda fear them touching the internet.
>> No. 387489
http://www.neowin.net/news/get-around-the-uks-national-porn-filters-with-a-simple-chrome-extension

yep screen door on a submarine.
>> No. 387490
>In practice, however, sites that are far from inappropriate or illegal are also being blocked. Examples include rape crisis centres, gay lifestyle (not porn) sites, and even the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community site for one of the UK's political parties, the Liberal Democrats, as Guido Fawkes reports.
For fucks sakes.

This is what happens when you give government power, sooner or later they misuse it or turn it against you.
>> No. 387491
>>387489
Did anyone seriously not see this coming?
Just a bunch of out of touch idiots ruling the world with a boney fist.
>> No. 387494
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/12/20/federal-judge-rules-utahs-same-sex-marriage-ban-unconstitutional/

Holy shit, Utah!
151 posts omitted. First 100 shown. [Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason