>> ^blankfist:
So spousal abuse is the one thing on the internet not okay to jab at? Lesson learned. I apologize. I will remove that from my list of things that are funny and replace it with retard sodomy and skull fucking the Christ child.


But there is one question out of this that I am curious? What IS inappropriate to most people? Facebook comments laughing at someone's dead daughter? Live videos of stoning in places like Iraq and Iran? Child pornography? Where does the laughter cease?

I guess, to strict religous libers, none of these offend, but then I am a moderate liber...

>> ^RadHazG:

Ah the FCC. Keeping everyone safe from those dirty dirty harmful words. Without them, surely we would all be robbing, looting, and killing everything in sight.
Also: we all know the "real" words. Everyone does, without exception (because if everyone didn't, bleeping them would be pointless). So every time anyone see's this stuff, they hear "monday to friday!" their brain translates "fucking!". So in reality the FCC is even more pointless than its already pointless (and in my opinion unconstitutional) existence.


There's definitely good reason to have the public have some control over the quality of content on the public airwaves. There's a very finite amount of bandwidth that we, ahem, rent to companies and if we just let it go completely free market, it'd all be pornography.

Of course what the FCC does in practice is ridiculous. I wish they'd pay more attention to content before the watershed and less attention to four letter words. When I lived in Los Angeles, you could see four women and one man in a hot tub making out and suggesting the things they'd do later on Elimidate right when kids got home from school. No 'F' words, but I'd really hate my kids watching that every day.

*discuss

I didn't realize he died either. I'd take the vote back in an instant. According to the rules in the FAQ, this is snuff. As a reminder:

#3

Please do not post pornography or "snuff" films (which we define as the explicit depiction of loss of human life displayed for entertainment).

Note: The presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary. Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera.

The underlined part is relevant because even though we don't see him hit the ground, as joedirt said people are watching and laughing at the last few seconds of someone's life.

Pornography may be mainstream with easy access to alright 20 minute scenes ; but it is not absolutely accepted. I've lived in fairly open homes where girlfriends, girls who were in opposition to porn and in general could walk in and out freely so I had to be fairly careful with my own porn consumption.

Not only were there women around who had great disdain for porno but in the household were men who also hated the thought of porno. Now, mind you - KINK.COM's "huge fucking castle" was the next block down in a very very liberal part of town. On the same block was some orgy house where some of it's participants every now and then thought our front door was the entrance to their ultimate fantasies. I always knew which way to point them, "Oh, I think I know what you're looking for..."

Everyone knew I watched porn and I stuck up for other men's porn habits but I still had to be on edge all the damn time to get a wank. It just wasn't right! Sometimes your gf isn't in the mood, sometimes you're pissed at your gf and you're not in the mood, sometimes there just isn't enough time... I don't like the thought of my politics in porno so I say fuck - let it be; and let me watch it if I so choose. If a girlfriend doesn't like it - just encourage her to go watch some.

I swear that being anti-porn is the beginning of the progessive pendulum swing back to being tie-jerking conservatives and we just don't need any more of those.

It seems that to be precise, the study says that any male over 20 years old has seen porn at least once.

I think there actually are a few very "tightly wound" guys who buy in to a religious or otherwise strict upbringing that convinces them that porn and/or sexual thoughts in general are wrong, and who therefore decide to avoid actively seeking out porn themselves.

However, I would say that it is increasingly difficult to completely avoid unintentional exposure to porn, even if you actually want to. Google image search for completely innocuous search strings, even with safe search on, and you'll occasionally bump into something.

Still, I think it would probably be more interesting to know the results of a study that tested what percentage of men actively seek out pornography. I guarantee it would be a very high percentage, but I bet that it would be (slightly) less than 100%, as Cenk seems to be suggesting.

Personally, I find that pornography is great for masturbation.

I have disgraced my community. i will now commit the sift-seppuku........just fucking around, I will do no such thing. To be likened to a Salem witch tribunal or McCarthy era blacklister is a personal first. The only thing i would have done differently is send it up for discussion rather than making the ban nomination without giving tigroom the benefit of making a defense, but you live and you learn....i'm all for encouraging anyone who chooses to participate on the sift by posting and adding content...I just don't want to see the sift devolve into a spammers paradise for multi-level marketing schemes and penis-enhancing herbal supplements. Neither do I want to see the sift exploited by people trying to clock adsense dollars from their personal youtube accounts. When it comes to maintaining the integrity of vs, I believe this to be a far more important issue than snuff or the art/pornography issue. Just now I've realized that I've devoted far too much thought into this issue..........meh.

jimnms actually does have a very valid point....obviously a double-standard exists....i find the Zapruder film to be far more disturbing than this....the Oswald/Ruby assassination is also on the sift...much like the pornography issue, snuff isn't always black and white and easily defined....given the greater historical context, I think that this video is sift-worthy....

I agree with your first point, but when you get into "artistic merit" is where you've gone over the cliff. We cannot, I repeat, cannot have aesthetic taste police and still think we possess the right to freedom of expression.

>> ^jimnms:

I find pretty much two definitions of pornography no matter where I look.

The explicit depiction of sexual subject matter, especially with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer.

I find pretty much two definitions of pornography no matter where I look.

The explicit depiction of sexual subject matter, especially with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer.

Obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.

>> ^ponceleon:

Actually, I'm going to throw this into the discuss pile because I just had a very interesting thought:
The last time we had this debate it was that video of the attractive woman in the car, smoking and fondling her own breasts. In the end I feel like we missed the point of both that video and this one.
I actually find this video both more artful AND more pornographic than the chick in car with tits video which brings me to the conclusion that "art" and "pornography" are NOT necessarily mutually exclusive.
This brings me to my next question: The sift rule on porn seem to imply that as long as it has some artistic or educational merit, it is okay. By that logic, I'm kind of the mind that this should be okay, but on the other hand it does seem to open up a potential barrel of porn monkeys if we say out loud that artful porn is a-ok...
... so what do people think? I'm kinda on the fence leaning towards saying yes, because frankly this video is just full of awesome.


You make an interesting point. As it stands in the US now, pornography is illegal because of obscenity laws. That is the reason for porn plot, because a video of nothing but sex could be brought up on obscenity charges. Porn is still made on the basis it is an "Art" movie that has sex in it. And as you point out, are and pron aren't mutually exclusive. However, you could just have an understanding that pron, without any artistic merit, isn't allowed. This creates a gray area and becomes very arbitrary, but might be one of the only solutions that doesn't involve over censoring, or opening the flood gates of pron trolling.

On that note, I thought the video was kind of neat, mainly because of the slow motion shock waves rippling across the buttock. Hard to show that without some kind of nudity. I know there exists a sexual fetish based around spankings, but this didn't seem to fit in that category of video.

Quoth the FAQ for convenient reference:

#3. Please do not post pornography or "snuff" films (which we define as the explicit depiction of loss of human life displayed for entertainment).

Note: The presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary. Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera.


Sounds like a yes, but I'm never sure about these things. This is why I stick to cat videos!

Actually, I'm going to throw this into the *discuss pile because I just had a very interesting thought:

The last time we had this debate it was that video of the attractive woman in the car, smoking and fondling her own breasts. In the end I feel like we missed the point of both that video and this one.

I actually find this video both more artful AND more pornographic than the chick in car with tits video which brings me to the conclusion that "art" and "pornography" are NOT necessarily mutually exclusive.

This brings me to my next question: The sift rule on porn seem to imply that as long as it has some artistic or educational merit, it is okay. By that logic, I'm kind of the mind that this should be okay, but on the other hand it does seem to open up a potential barrel of porn monkeys if we say out loud that artful porn is a-ok...

... so what do people think? I'm kinda on the fence leaning towards saying yes, because frankly this video is just full of awesome.

I'll just respond to your statements in bold in the quoted text.

In reply to this comment by chtierna:
Okay, at least we agree on the fact that she shouldn't receive death threats for the mistakes she made.
In your first comment I really felt you meant she deserved everything that was coming her way, no matter how nasty.

Also, I did go to Encyclopedia Dramatica and read the article. I'm not sure what the source is for the nudity, it said she almost showed her boobs or something and that she posted naked pics of herself. Regarding the sources in this story I don't regard either side as very believable. It is for example unclear if she really did receive death threats according to ED.

You may not find it believable, but Encyclopedia Dramatica is pretty much the Wikipedia of 4chan. Have I seen these pictures posted on /b/? Yes. Did I then report those posts for child pornography to get taken down? Yes. This is just something they do. They find pictures/humiliating information and then post it, repost it, and repost it again.

Something I cannot agree with is some kind of justification that as long as she clicked away a warning she was free game for any tactics from anyone that didn't like her. Imagine in real life if I put up a sign that said "warning: passing this door gets your raped" and then someone crossed the door anyway and I raped them. Would I then when the police showed up be able to say: "Hey, she read the sign, she voided her rights to object to being raped the minute she passed my door". And yes, she made provocative statements etc, but to use the disclaimer as a shield for whatever consequences it brings on the girl... it just doesn't hold up.

Your argument here is in no way comparable. Lots of mature sites on the internet use disclaimers to dissuade minors from entering their sites. This ranges from porn sites to sites which just feature mature(violence/language/etc) content. It amounts to the same as signing a legal contract, and has held up in court countless times. You can give it any ridiculous example, but the disclaimer is there for these exact reasons, to attempt to deter minors, and it exonerates the owner of the site from any legal recourse that he would suffer when a minor attempts to access the site

Contacting the child services would be the right thing to do, and as I see it was done, her parents do not seem to be protecting their daughter well enough and certainly don't seem very bright, but then going on and trying to make an 11-year old cry, that's just weak somehow.

Everyone is different, and when under the guise of anonymity, it allows them to be someone who they are not. Now maybe you can't imagine doing something "questionable," but /b/ is a testament to the fact that under that anonymous guise, people can turn into something terrible.

There is of course the argument that the lulz make everything permisable. So in a way, there is a mentality where the more harm comes to the victim, the more lulz are to be made. Suggesting that she commit suicide was apparently 2nd on some "further trolling" list, and both you and I know it would certainly be considered a huge success for the trolls if they managed to convince the girl to take her life. There would be plenty of lulz indeed. I find this utterly beyond contempt.

I'd have to point out again that this is something that you would personally do in your own opinion. I can assure you it is not shared by everyone

To me it seems most people on 4chan (I guess /b/ would be the main culprit here) don't do stuff because they want to correct the behaviour of someone, but simply because they are bored and want something fun to occupy their time with. Forming a mob and making someone cry or be humiliated passes time. 4chan doesn't care about this girl or any other girl. They have used her for amusement, and will continue until she dies or hides or they find something else more interesting. In the end their motto and their actions do not amount to something I can respect or admire the way I feel some do.

I would personally hypothesis that the admiration comes from minors, because they want their 15 minutes of internet fame being able to say "I was a part of that." Of course I could be wrong and it could really be anyone(which would be even more disturbing, but ultimately not surprising).

In the end as you point out, they cannot be stopped. But I feel sorry for the girl and I don't think she or anyone else in her situation deserves to go through what she did however stupid she is. Posting that she deserves everything 4chan can muster against her, as you seemed to be doing in your original post, doesn't sit very well with me, but from your response at least you seem to draw the limit far sooner than others.

For that I'd have to say I used a poor choice of words to get my point across. I was merely trying to point out that her actions(which were undoubtedly incredibly dumb) awoke an internet beast that would not stop until it succeeded in "ruining" her life.

Pardon the wall of text.

In closing I'd like to add that I believe /b/ comes with good and bad sides. It is the ultimate definition of freedom of speech on the internet, a forum where anyone can post anything anonymously(that's the whole point, to REMAIN anonymous). It is one of the last bastions of the internet where intelligent as well as retarded discussions can occur without censorship(unless illegal ie. child porn).

>> ^kronosposeidon:
I'm not in the chorus line of people who usually say "cops are never held accountable," but I am in the chorus line of people who say "cops are rarely held accountable." I stand by that.
I have little faith in our government. All three branches are broken. And Obama is proving himself to be more and more a typical politician these days. So it should be no surprise that law enforcement (a part of the government) would also be broken.
I'm not an anarchist. I'm not a minarchist. I'm not a libertarian. I'm just a pissed-off liberal. Most Americans have gotten lazy, across the entire political spectrum, not watching the government as closely as we should. And we've allowed corporate interests to control the government. But that really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Our vaunted Founding Fathers created our representative democracy, which was designed that way primarily so that the wealthy would have more control than the rabble, so it's basically been that way since the beginning. It only got worse over time, especially when corporations were granted the status of legal personhood by the Supreme Court.
So here we are. Sure, cops get prosecuted for wrongdoing some of the time. Gotta throw the public a bone every once in a while. But the remainder of the time police abuse is allowed to slip through the cracks, just like most cases of white collar crime aren't even investigated, just like most cases of political corruption never see the light of day. Yet we'll send some kid to the big house for possessing a nickel bag. It's all part of the same crippled, disfigured beast.
Can we fix this fucking mess, or is it a hopeless case? I don't know for sure. I want a decent country for my son. Maybe the best thing I can do for him is emigrate, but a lot of other countries are fucked too. (Thank you, Canada, for letting us know that your cops aren't any better than ours.) I still vote, and I still throw a little green at a few political figures and causes I believe in. (Sorry Obama, but don't count on my contribution in 2012.) Still it seems like I'm shoveling shit against the tide, but I feel like I gotta try something. Anything.
So I'm a cycnical bastard. But I think I've got a right to be.>> ^NetRunner:
I'm waiting for the chorus line of people who usually say "cops are never held accountable" to show up and explain to us that they're certain the cops still won't face any punishment for what they did...
Because, by their logic, if the video clip doesn't show Obama personally beheading all six officers, you know nothing will happen because the justice system never, ever works right. Ever.




So humanity really is the f-cked up part of nations. Well, that goes without saying. All I can do is teach my children a better way and protect them all I can. It is all any man or woman can do.

In this PC world we live in with cameras all over the place, at least where I live, cops are now being hammered. Something that would get you or me just jail time now gets a cop jail time and fired. Take drunk driving. Most jobs, no biggie. Law enforcement down here? Instant termination.

Remember too that regular joes get away with incredible amounts of crimes every day, just like cops--or more so... Some murder, some rape, some selling drugs or child pornography...

I won't argue with the premise of your post--you did very well. I am just pointing out that cops get away with the same or less than citizens get away with. We do have a f-cked up system, but that starts at home--not behind the badge.