And the auto caption has problems with technical and medical terms. I remember seeing a screenshot from some live criminal trial where a medic was testifying and regardless of what he said the caption was:

"And the cat pornography levels were low, only 16."

No one told me that for thousands of years....I've never heard that said to anyone...ever....not seriously.
First, very few want a dick pic free world, and the anti pornography people can just stop looking. An unsolicited dick pic free world, yep, that should be the stated goal if they want support.
Second, demeaning a body part in that hyper sexist way is never appropriate, and makes Sam one of the infantile sexist douchbags she's railing against, just on the chick side instead of dude.
Third, it's just plain wrong. Plenty of people find penises attractive. If they didn't, explain gay porn.

Not necessary at all, any more than men body shaming women is necessary. It's nothing more than shameful bitter divisiveness, fostering the 'us vs them' mindset that is the problem.
You don't, can't eradicate inappropriate behavior by repeating it. That has never worked.

The problem with offensive jokes is the same as the problem with pornography.

No, I don't mean they're both great. Even if they are.

I mean just like the line between art and pornography, there can be a fine line between comedy and hate speech. It's all in the intention of the creator and the eye of the beholder. Similarly, you can make 'artistic' pornography, and racist jokes can be used to stir up hatred.

It's a tough one, but the problem is it's all subjective. There's no simple way to objectively judge someone else's intentions besides looking at patterns, and even that's not always black and white. So to speak.

@gorillaman

It's almost as if some countries have different cultural values than the United States. For example:

Japan:
--Distributing pornography is illegal and punishable by up to two years in prison and a $25,000 fine (under Article 175 of the Penal Code, which defines pornography as showing the naughty parts of a man or woman, hence mosaics on all Japanese porn)
--Domestic violence and rape laws are often unenforceable
--LGBT community has almost no legal recourse in the face of discrimination of virtually any kind (housing, work, banking, etc.)

America itself has its share of bat-shit insane laws (from the rest of the world's perspective at least) such as legalized death penalty, and "well-intentioned" Christians are still fighting to deny gay people the right to marry in court at this very moment.

Should we come to the conclusion that Americans and Japanese people are "bad people" because these laws exist? Or maybe, as Ahmed Ahmed suggested, we should stop lumping huge groups of people (in the case of Muslims literally millions of people from an extremely culturally diverse group of countries) together and assuming they're all alike and believe exactly the same things?

Dubai & the UAE:
Shari'a
Torture
Slavery
Homosexuals, adulterers and apostates can be stoned to death.
Abortion, blasphemy, public displays of affection, premarital sex, all illegal and punishable by flogging.
Domestic violence against women is legal.

Qatar:
Shari'a
Sodomy, extramarital sex, alcohol consumption, blasphemy, apostasy, proselytism all illegal and punishable variously by flogging or imprisonment.

Kuwait:
Blasphemy, homosexuality, transgenderism, public displays of affection, eating or drinking in public during ramadan, alcohol, pornography and 'sending immoral messages' are all illegal.
Domestic violence and marital rape is legal.

Indonesia:
Islamist violence against religious minorities is widespread.
Muslims are pushing hard to criminalise homosexuality.
Female applicants to the military and police are subjected to 'virginity tests'.
Shari'a in Aceh province includes the flogging of homosexuals among its atrocities.

Tunisia:
Homosexuality and blasphemy are illegal.
Persecution of the LGBT by both government and private groups is common and increasing.

Mali:
~90% prevalence of FGM
Half the country under islamist control, with all the oppression, murder, torture and rape that implies.

OK, you could make that argument about the first amendment, even though the supreme court has ruled “Child pornography, defamation and inciting crimes are just a few examples of speech that has been determined to be illegal under the U.S. Constitution.”, and there's also the "clear and present danger" exception as written in 1919 by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. -“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic … . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger.”
The decision says the First Amendment doesn’t protect false speech that is likely to cause immediate harm to others. Because the court is the legal interpreter of the constitution, it's not neglect, it's judicial interpretation. The buck stops at the Supreme Court.

But the second amendment, the topic, STARTS with "A WELL REGULATED militia...", so clearly regulations limiting/regulating firearm ownership and use was exactly what they intended from the start....no?

no mistaken assumption my friend.
just looking at the bigger picture is all.

was the "company" really disgusted by this mans behavior?
or were they performing damage control?
i suspect the latter.

which is why i brought up the PC police and the inherent dangers within.i even referenced a case in canada which had gone too far.(in my opinion).

does the company have a right to fire him? short answer? yes.
but nobody is asking about this mans rights,and if they are honest with themselves it is because he is a grotesque example of a human being.

so you try to further your point by doing a thought experiment,and i hate thought experiments,but ok..lets play:
what if he was advocating the legalization of sex with prepubescent children?

ah my friend.
this is easy.
the answer is arrest and convict.
but why you may ask?

here is where i think you may be misunderstanding my argument and your thought experiment reveals this quite plainly.

to YOU.this example of child sex and our racist turdnugget here are the same.

they are not.

because advocating to legalize child sex is an "intent to harm".the adovcating will result in actual harm of actual children.see:child pornography.

while turdnugget here has actually harmed no one.
nobody was actually harmed.
maybe disgusted.
maybe a feeling or two.

lets try another thought experiment.
what if this man was filmed not being an ugly racist but rather smoking weed with some buddies.

should he be fired?

another one:what if he is filmed at a sanders rally (unlikely) and the president of the company is a die-hard trump supporter?

should he be fired?

look,it is easy to view this man losing his job as some kind of justice,but we need to be honest why we are ok with THIS man getting fired and that reason is simply that he is grotesque and offensive.

but he did not actually HARM anyone.he was just offensive and IS offensive to our sensibilities.

i agree that there is an irony in this situation.the man verbally attacks a perceived threat to his livelihood,and then loses that livelihood.

it may have a certain poetry to it,but is that justice?
no.

the larger argument is this:when is it considered normal or acceptable to hold people to a company standard when they are:
not working.
not in uniform.
not representing the company in ANY way.
are not getting paid for this off time.
are engaging in activities which are harming no one but may be viewed as contrary to company standards?


where is the line drawn?
and who draws that line?
who enforces it?

while the company has a right to fire you for any reason it wishes,does it have a right to impose behavior,activities,personal life choices when you are not on the clock?

with the PC police engaging in ever more draconian and bullying tactics to impose their own sense of morality upon others,based on what THEY feel is righteous and morally correct.i feel this will get out of hand very quickly,and the canadian example i used is only one of many.

here is one thing i do not understand.
how come when the religious right uses tactics very similar to this,we all stand up and shout "fuck you buddy",but when the PC police behave in an almost identical fashion....people applaud.

that is just NOT a morally consistent stance.
it is hypocritical.

so maybe in the short run we can view this ugly example of a human being and think to ourselves that some form of justice was served,but that is a lie.it may make us feel good and tickle our moral compass as somehow being a righteous outcome to a reprehensible piece of shit,but it is no way justice.

in the larger context and taken to its logical conclusion:this moral calculus could be a future metric to impose obedience and compliance from,not just turdnugget,but EVERYBODY...and that includes you.

and THAT is something that i find extremely disturbing.

the PC police are having a real impact,with real consequences and even though they may have the best of intentions,the real result is social control,obedience and compliance.

i would rather i keep my liberty and freedoms to do as i wish.the PC police can suck a bag of dicks.

Let us also be reminded that they are behind most (or all) of Japan's child pornography industry.

Not true, and that's why I posted the actual definition, rather than my personal feeling on what the word means. Then we can all start from the ACTUAL definition(s) rather than just making some up and arguing about it.

Your second paragraph/sentence makes no sense at all to me, and sounds like a disjointed red herring/straw man/bad attempt at creating a false argument you can shoot down....but it's so all over the place it's unfollowable.

You continue to confuse feminism with Feminism, and also continue to paint all Feminists in the worst possible light based on a few overboard examples rather than describing the normal, average Feminist.
For instance, many Feminists see pornography and prostitution as empowering and taking control of their own sexuality, and it was actually prudish anti-feminist men who tried to censor it in the courts.

In fact, there ARE many people in the civilized world who still think women don't deserve the same rights as men in many areas, and insist they are unable to perform tasks men can perform, must be coddled and subservient, and are lesser beings based purely on gender, despite all evidence to the contrary.

It's only because of this continuing misunderstanding on your part that you claim anyone said anything like "The implication, in any event, that this is somehow a novel position, for which we have feminist advocacy to thank... "...you are again confusing feminist with Feminist, and using the wrong one. We don't have Feminist advocacy to thank, we do however have feminist advocacy to thank for the advancements in women's rights...it's what the word means.


It doesn't sound at all like you 'appreciate the attempt at consensus building', or even understood my point, since you continue to conflate feminism with Feminism. I can't be certain, but it seems you are doing that intentionally in order to argue a moot point.



EDIT:sorry, I thought I quoted you @gorillaman, so I'll cut and paste....

gorillaman said:
Everyone has a different definition of feminism; that is to some extent the problem. Rather, this is the final bulwark to which its advocates retreat when their main arguments have been punctured and deflated.

"But surely," says the distorter of domestic violence and rape statistics - says the agitator who runs dissenting professors off campus - says the censor of allegedly harmful pornography - says the fascist who criminalises prostitution or BDSM - says the conspiracy theorist who sees systemic sexism in places it couldn't possibly exist, like science and silicon valley (and videogaming, and science fiction) - says the proponent of patriarchy theory in societies in which men are routinely sacrificed to war, to dangerous jobs, to extreme poverty; whose genitals are mutilated; whose children, houses and paychecks can be taken away essentially at the whim of their partners; for whom there is vanishingly little support in the event of domestic abuse or homelessness; who are assumed to be rapists and wife-beaters and paedophiles; and who are told, throughout all of this, that it is their privilege - "I'm just claiming that women have rights. How can you disagree with that?"

The implication, in any event, that this is somehow a novel position, for which we have feminist advocacy to thank and to which there is actually anyone in the civilised world who objects, is a laughable and insulting one.

Still, I'm sure we all appreciate the attempt at consensus building.

Everyone has a different definition of feminism; that is to some extent the problem. Rather, this is the final bulwark to which its advocates retreat when their main arguments have been punctured and deflated.

"But surely," says the distorter of domestic violence and rape statistics - says the agitator who runs dissenting professors off campus - says the censor of allegedly harmful pornography - says the fascist who criminalises prostitution or BDSM - says the conspiracy theorist who sees systemic sexism in places it couldn't possibly exist, like science and silicon valley (and videogaming, and science fiction) - says the proponent of patriarchy theory in societies in which men are routinely sacrificed to war, to dangerous jobs, to extreme poverty; whose genitals are mutilated; whose children, houses and paychecks can be taken away essentially at the whim of their partners; for whom there is vanishingly little support in the event of domestic abuse or homelessness; who are assumed to be rapists and wife-beaters and paedophiles; and who are told, throughout all of this, that it is their privilege - "I'm just claiming that women have rights. How can you disagree with that?"

The implication, in any event, that this is somehow a novel position, for which we have feminist advocacy to thank and to which there is actually anyone in the civilised world who objects, is a laughable and insulting one.

Still, I'm sure we all appreciate the attempt at consensus building.

As an avid consumer of increasingly obscure pornography, sometimes I'm surprised to learn that in the wider community many people haven't even considered the erotic possibilities of, for example, simulated alien impregnation.

Given you are a proponent of corrective rape, child pornography, genocide, mass murder, and political assassination, what makes you better? Not having millions of followers?

Oh God... he references child pornography for a joke, and the audience laughs at it because they've all watched child porn. As have I, and anyone who recognizes the 'psycho ex' bit

PS: Art cannot discriminate or objectify anyone. People do that. Someone runs over someone with a car, is it the cars fault? Someone gets stabbed, do you ban knives? Someone publishes a sexual fantasy, should we ban all books? Feminists embrace marxism for this reason.

I grew up watching all manner of pornography. Larry Flint is one of my personal heroes. Yet I never once tried to use a woman like some kind of fleshlight. Although I noticed boys all around me without access to pornography poaching school-girls with lies and deceit and then breaking their hearts by never calling them back, or worse, leaving them with child and no support. THAT is what objectifying someone is, if you think TV and comic books is what causes these monkey-men to behave this way, that a little bit of censorship is going to transform them into empathetic intellectuals, I just want to let you know you're in for some disappointment.