History of Feminism

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)

59. what a stupid conclusion you give to a well argued article. cause people like this woman? really?

Mon Sep 15, 2014, 12:48 PM

Sep 2014

that is what you conclude? i do not know the woman. i know she is a woman, minding her own business, and some creeps hacked her info, gave it to the public, and hte public feels they have a right to something she did not give consent on being seen. the whole argument for men jacking off to porn, is consent. there is none here. and now you dismiss her lack of consent cause YOU feel i like the woman? i do not watch tv. i do not watch movies. i do not give a crap about her popularity. the issue is beyond that and YA... it is derailing to suggest the only issue here is her popularity. really? that is your well thought out argument to creeps abusing her right to keep her personal pictures to herself?

first.

second. that is a minimal part of the whole discussion on the article i put up. ya. derailing.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

97 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Online abuse, leaked nudes and revenge porn: this is nothing less than terrorism against women [View all] seabeyond Sep 2014 OP

“This could happen to you, you uppity bitch. Watch your mouth.” Tuesday Afternoon Sep 2014 #1

just saying. can happen? does happen. crickets. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #2

we have watched it happen, haven't we, sea - Tuesday Afternoon Sep 2014 #3

who is the worse offender? creating DU women rape porn fantasy? rape threats? or uppity women that seabeyond Sep 2014 #4

I'm with you sea JustAnotherGen Sep 2014 #5

I understand what you are saying. It is happening to me, also. My last two hides happened Tuesday Afternoon Sep 2014 #6

yes. taken out of jury pool. taken out of serving in host. all kinds of means, shutting us down. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #8

Yes, it is built into the system, whether it is an unintentional consequence or not, It Is Inherent Tuesday Afternoon Sep 2014 #13

i know. lol. after 3, 4, 5th kick off du, i was hearing rumblings i should feel shame. lol. seabeyond Sep 2014 #14

I stand with you, sea. I am learning a lesson but, I don't think it is the one intended. Tuesday Afternoon Sep 2014 #24

beautiful post tuesday. i hear ya.... sister. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #27

I am sooooo glad I put down my coffee-- YOU need to be nicer, niyad Sep 2014 #26

some of us like you just the way you are! seabeyond Sep 2014 #28

Yup, saw that. And that list should continue on...sea sheshe2 Sep 2014 #80

Are you saying the OP's you mentioned were allowed to stand? CrispyQ Sep 2014 #7

the throwing around the cum at me, specifically, were hidden. The OP was allowed to stand, seabeyond Sep 2014 #9

I logged in just to see the hidden post by Baines???? If that hide is not proof that their are AuntPatsy Sep 2014 #10

did you notice if she was still flagged? i havent checked. seabeyond Sep 2014 #11

Last time I looked yes AuntPatsy Sep 2014 #16

no, she is no longer flagged, sea. sheshe2 Sep 2014 #22

thank you sheshe. i had not read that. a message to be heard. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #25

Yes, sheshe2, she is still flagged. her Transparency Tab is still Yellow. She can not post Tuesday Afternoon Sep 2014 #29

no. she is not flagged. flagged is two or more hides, small period of time. cannot pm. seabeyond Sep 2014 #31

I am using the word FLAGGED because her Transparency Tab is FLAGGED bright YELLOW Tuesday Afternoon Sep 2014 #33

Thanks Tuesday, sheshe2 Sep 2014 #32

I think sea did mean FLAGGED FOR REVIEW and YES there is a difference. Tuesday Afternoon Sep 2014 #34

Stay safe, Tuesday... sheshe2 Sep 2014 #81

The good news is feminisms not only isn't "dead" ismnotwasm Sep 2014 #12

yup. ism. you are so right on. now it is so, in the face, people simply cannot pretend, seabeyond Sep 2014 #15

and that is wonderful news to hear. niyad Sep 2014 #19

woman.... how are you doing? good to see you. seabeyond Sep 2014 #20

doing okay here. computer problems, so not spending much time niyad Sep 2014 #21

still sittin in wait, and i do it so well. yet, looking to wrap shit up seabeyond Sep 2014 #30

k and r + gazillion. no matter how some try to deny it, we know niyad Sep 2014 #17

I'm surprised Apple is getting away with all of it at the moment jakeXT Sep 2014 #18

you wonder how a whole lot of powerful rich men are getting away with misogyny? lol. seabeyond Sep 2014 #23

If Longoria didn't want that creep to call her, she shouldn't have owned a phone. Orrex Sep 2014 #35

Calling a spade a spade. Bravo. riqster Sep 2014 #36

Leaked nudes weren't called "terrorism" after it happened to Vanessa Hudgens or Scarlett Johansson. Eric J in MN Sep 2014 #37

wrong seabeyond Sep 2014 #38

Who called it "terrorism" after it happened to Vanessa Hudgens or Scarlett Johansson? NT Eric J in MN Sep 2014 #39

15 yrs ago is not today. that would be the first and simplest explanation. what is clear, seabeyond Sep 2014 #41

The leak of Scarlett Johansson nude photos was in 2011. NT Eric J in MN Sep 2014 #43

whatever your purpose is here, i am not playing, i do not care seabeyond Sep 2014 #46

this is where i am having issues with your post. did you read the article? cause i can see no way seabeyond Sep 2014 #40

I read your excerpt. NT Eric J in MN Sep 2014 #42

It simply wasn't recognized then, but it's all part of the same pattern, obviously. n/t pnwmom Sep 2014 #44

Should people who posted hacked-and-leaked photos of nude celebrities be charged with terrorism Eric J in MN Sep 2014 #45

put them in fuckin prison. you betcha. criminal behavior. lock em up seabeyond Sep 2014 #47

For decades? NT Eric J in MN Sep 2014 #48

There are different levels of all crimes, including terrorism. So, no, they shouldn't go to prison pnwmom Sep 2014 #49

So true ismnotwasm Sep 2014 #68

Your seem to be here to derail the conversation ismnotwasm Sep 2014 #51

Expressing a contrary opinion isn't "derailing." Eric J in MN Sep 2014 #53

Well perhaps. ismnotwasm Sep 2014 #54

It isn't just the title. Eric J in MN Sep 2014 #56

What would you prefer it to be called ismnotwasm Sep 2014 #60

It's hacking. NT Eric J in MN Sep 2014 #63

And the personal and social repercussion for the persons involved? ismnotwasm Sep 2014 #64

this article has gone beyond talking about merely hacking, talking about a social structure that is seabeyond Sep 2014 #66

He didn't read the article ismnotwasm Sep 2014 #69

This message was self-deleted by its author seabeyond Sep 2014 #72

Hence, you're not taking exception with the actual premise of the article, merely the use of idioms LanternWaste Sep 2014 #83

i really wish more would take serious thought with what this article is saying. seabeyond Sep 2014 #84

Calling hacking "terrorism" is the premise of the article. NT Eric J in MN Sep 2014 #85

The premise is calling "deliberately outrageous acts designed to create a spectacle and to instill LanternWaste Sep 2014 #86

The hackers weren't trying to spread fear. NT Eric J in MN Sep 2014 #87

merely a thing to use, not a human. yes. it is clear the message. that is precisely what they are seabeyond Sep 2014 #88

Your allegation rather than an objective analysis. And yet it does indeed, spread fear. LanternWaste Sep 2014 #96

That's a meaningless objection. Orrex Sep 2014 #50

There have been lots of celebrities whose photos were leaked previously. Eric J in MN Sep 2014 #52

Times are changing ismnotwasm Sep 2014 #55

And the guy who hacked Scarlett Johansson is doing a decade in prison. JTFrog Sep 2014 #57

People convicted of terrorism get decades in prison, not one decade. Eric J in MN Sep 2014 #61

Oh for fuck's sake. JTFrog Sep 2014 #62

This message was self-deleted by its author seabeyond Sep 2014 #67

This message was self-deleted by its author ismnotwasm Sep 2014 #70

If you're referring to me, I never wrote anything of the sort. NT Eric J in MN Sep 2014 #71

werent you in the continuous threads defending the right to view the pictures and ignoring the women seabeyond Sep 2014 #73

This is the only DU thread on this subject I've posted in. NT Eric J in MN Sep 2014 #74

That seems to be true ismnotwasm Sep 2014 #75

Yes, I want the word "terrorism" to be used in a limited way. NT Eric J in MN Sep 2014 #77

it is being used in the manner it is defined. not your way, but the proper manner. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #78

Ok I get your objection now ismnotwasm Sep 2014 #79

Dictionaries want something else. Let's defer to them, hmmm? LanternWaste Sep 2014 #97

ahhhh. i believe i was mixing you up with another. at least he has an interest in womens issues. seabeyond Sep 2014 #76

now you are holding tight to the term terrorism. here is a simple definition for you. seabeyond Sep 2014 #65

Refresh my memory, because I haven't followed the prior examples too closely. Orrex Sep 2014 #58

what a stupid conclusion you give to a well argued article. cause people like this woman? really? seabeyond Sep 2014 #59

i wanna kick this cause i really like the article. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #82

There really is an implied aspect of intimidation to it. Somewhat similar to the rape/murder threats nomorenomore08 Sep 2014 #89

I think that last line covers a lot of ground as far as the 'why' ismnotwasm Sep 2014 #90

interesting. and i would also like to explore, the women that do not intimidate. seabeyond Sep 2014 #91

Yeah ismnotwasm Sep 2014 #92

lmao.... +1. two different man got us to the same point. OR seabeyond Sep 2014 #93

K&R freshwest Sep 2014 #94

woman. seabeyond Sep 2014 #95