The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.

Tanoomba · Jul 12, 2015

Quaid: "Complains a poster is arguing semantics.

Argues semantics.

That's our Tanoomba!"

Say Quaid, do you think Gawker would consider either the Fappening OR the Hulk sex tape "hate speech"? (I'm sorry, I know I present you with these not-really-ultimatums once in a while, but it's because I believe you to be honest...)

Lith: "Article originally discussed disagrees with you."

Ummm... How so? Gawker doesn't allow hate speech in any way, shape or form, far as I know. The only reason why "Reddit" is a fairly recognizable word at all is because they went a long time pretty much letting anybody say whatever they wanted. Your "gotcha!" is based on your fairly ridiculous interpretation of an otherwise straightforward article and the mental gymnastics you've put that through in order to come up with what you consider "hypocrisy".

Real talk here: If you give people a forum to say whatever they want, you're going to get people saying some really terrible things. Terrible people will seek out and exploit any opportunity to be as terrible as they can be. Somehow (somehow?) you've decided that pointing out this fact is an act of hypocrisy because the person pointing this out did so on the same site in which another person referred to viewing hacked nude pictures of celebrities an act of "sexual violence".

Your entire argument is based on the fact that you consider the Hulk sex tape to be "hate speech". I think that's fairly ridiculous, and I have no doubt ANY of the writers/administration at Gawker would think the same (as well as the majority of readers who aren't looking for "gotchas" to push their agenda). You THINK you've got them (as if there was a "them" and not just some person writing an opinion piece) admitting as much, but that's because you're intentionally misinterpreting what some writer said about an unrelated topic in order to score points for your "side".

Also, you don't quite seem to understand what "hate" means. What would make you think sexual violence is based on hate? The author of the article used the term "sexual violence" because people were exploiting private sexual images without consent of the people involved. "Hate" is not a part of that equation, and you're the only person trying to imply that it is. I only confronted you about this in the first place because it seemed like a pretty strong example of confirmation bias, and everything you've said since has only confirmed that.

Lith: "If you don't cone sent and the photos are release? It is a sexual violation, and she states, quite clearly, it is revenge porn and it is an act of sexual violence against women to even look at it. But for Tan, she didn't say that...because reasons. hah. He really is amusing sometimes, he does try so hard."

Ummm... is there any reason you're conveniently ignoring that I gave you that point? I figured that what she said could be interpreted by the layman as equating the Fappening to revenge porn. If you weren't so obsessed with looking for opportunities to snark up the board, you might have noticed that (you know, since I explicitly stated it and all). Take a deep breath, detach yourself from your biases and your deep-rooted need to feel superior to others, and try again... with less snark, perhaps.

radditsu · Jul 12, 2015

Tanoomba_sl said:
Quaid: "Complains a poster is arguing semantics.

Argues semantics.

That's our Tanoomba!"

Say Quaid, do you think Gawker would consider either the Fappening OR the Hulk sex tape "hate speech"? (I'm sorry, I know I present you with these not-really-ultimatums once in a while, but it's because I believe you to be honest...)

Lith: "Article originally discussed disagrees with you."

Ummm... How so? Gawker doesn't allow hate speech in any way, shape or form, far as I know. The only reason why "Reddit" is a fairly recognizable word at all is because they went a long time pretty much letting anybody say whatever they wanted. Your "gotcha!" is based on your fairly ridiculous interpretation of an otherwise straightforward article and the mental gymnastics you've put that through in order to come up with what you consider "hypocrisy".

Real talk here: If you give people a forum to say whatever they want, you're going to get people saying some really terrible things. Terrible people will seek out and exploit any opportunity to be as terrible as they can be. Somehow (somehow?) you've decided that pointing out this fact is an act of hypocrisy because the person pointing this out did so on the same site in which another person referred to viewing hacked nude pictures of celebrities an act of "sexual violence".

Your entire argument is based on the fact that you consider the Hulk sex tape to be "hate speech". I think that's fairly ridiculous, and I have no doubt ANY of the writers/administration at Gawker would think the same (as well as the majority of readers who aren't looking for "gotchas" to push their agenda). You THINK you've got them (as if there was a "them" and not just some person writing an opinion piece) admitting as much, but that's because you're intentionally misinterpreting what some writer said about an unrelated topic in order to score points for your "side".

Also, you don't quite seem to understand what "hate" means. What would make you think sexual violence is based on hate? The author of the article used the term "sexual violence" because people were exploiting private sexual images without consent of the people involved. "Hate" is not a part of that equation, and you're the only person trying to imply that it is. I only confronted you about this in the first place because it seemed like a pretty strong example of confirmation bias, and everything you've said since has only confirmed that.

Lith: "If you don't cone sent and the photos are release? It is a sexual violation, and she states, quite clearly, it is revenge porn and it is an act of sexual violence against women to even look at it. But for Tan, she didn't say that...because reasons. hah. He really is amusing sometimes, he does try so hard."

Ummm... is there any reason you're conveniently ignoring that I gave you that point? I figured that what she said could be interpreted by the layman as equating the Fappening to revenge porn. If you weren't so obsessed with looking for opportunities to snark up the board, you might have noticed that (you know, since I explicitly stated it and all). Take a deep breath, detach yourself from your biases and your deep-rooted need to feel superior to others, and try again... with less snark, perhaps.

Holy crap dude. Seeing nudes of J-law and the hulksters Wang is the same fucking thing. One article they are laughing it up (hulk) the other they are shaming humanity for daring to look at one of the hottest(personal opinion) woman alives cooter. There is no amount of mental gymnastics that can get around that point.

We are all superior to you in every way BTW. And you deserve more snark.

Tanoomba · Jul 13, 2015

Radditsu: "Holy crap dude. Seeing nudes of J-law and the hulksters Wang is the same fucking thing. One article they are laughing it up (hulk) the other they are shaming humanity for daring to look at one of the hottest(personal opinion) woman alives cooter. There is no amount of mental gymnastics that can get around that point."

Me, a while ago: "I thought it was super hypocritical of Gawker to publish the Hogan sex tape while chastising anyone who even looked at the Fappening's harvest."

See? I agree with you. Unfortunately, that is in no way the point Lith was making.

Cad · Jul 13, 2015

His point was about gawkers hypocrisy not whether or not either the Fappening or Hulkster was hate speech. Either they both were hate speech or neither of them were, because they were both the same fucking thing. Gawker just bandwagon hates on one because it involves females and thinks victimizing a white male is fine because privilege. It's obvious hypocrisy and you're just arguing the definition of words even though it doesn't change his point because you're a fucking tool.

Lithose · Jul 13, 2015

So, Tan...Lets just be clear, Violence against women does not equal hate? (The author in the original article referred to it as "hosting hate", not just hate speech). I'm just curious buddy, is attacking and violating women, to you, not a hateful act?

Tanoomba · Jul 13, 2015

Cad: "His point was about gawkers hypocrisy not whether or not either the Fappening or Hulkster was hate speech. Either they both were hate speech or neither of them were, because they were both the same fucking thing. Gawker just bandwagon hates on one because it involves females and thinks victimizing a white male is fine because privilege. It's obvious hypocrisy and you're just arguing the definition of words even though it doesn't change his point because you're a fucking tool."

No, no, Cad, that was most definitely NOT his point. If that had been his point, he would not have used an article about ditching Reddit because they profit off of hate speech to make that point. Here's his actual point, in case you forgot (or didn't understand): If the Fappening was an act of "sexual violence", then so was the Hulk Hogan video. If sexual violence counts as an "attack" against someone based on gender, then it is "hate speech". Therefore, by publishing the Hulk's sex tape, Gawker profited off of hate speech. Therefore, it is hypocritical to criticize Reddit for profiting off of hate speech if Gawker is also profiting off of hate speech. Lithose's entire argument is based on interpreting Hulk Hogan's sex tape and the Fappening as "hate speech". If that sounds ridiculous to you, then you understand why I felt the need to chime in. But don't take my word for it, re-read Lith's original post and his responses to my criticism. You'll see that I understand what he's trying to say completely, unlike you and Radditsu (we've actually got a kind of confirmation bias inception going on here, which I'll admit is kind of interesting to see in action).

As I've already stated, it seems pretty clear Gawker does NOT consider either the Fappening OR the Hulk Hogan sex tape "hate speech". Lith is claiming one author's heavy-handed use of the "sexual violence" metaphor indicates otherwise, but that is an incredibly narrow-minded and dishonest way to interpret the author's words. If any Gawker writer had EVER referred to the Fappening as "hate speech", Lith might have had a point. But he was putting a square peg in a round hole to get to his conclusion, and I called him on it. No big deal. People allow their confirmation bias to get the better of them ALL THE TIME. I've certainly been there. No need to make a whole shebang out of it.

Tanoomba · Jul 13, 2015

Lith: "So, Tan...Lets just be clear, Violence against women does not equal hate? (The author in the original article referred to it as "hosting hate", not just hate speech). I'm just curious buddy, is attacking and violating women, to you, not a hateful act?"

Looking at naked celebrities is not a hateful act, and it most certainly doesn't qualify as "hate speech". It can certainly be immoral and it can be a tremendous violation of that celebrity's privacy, but it is in no way an act of hate. Nothing any writer at Gawker ever said indicates otherwise. You're reaching, dude.

Lithose · Jul 13, 2015

Tanoomba_sl said:
Lith: "So, Tan...Lets just be clear, Violence against women does not equal hate? (The author in the original article referred to it as "hosting hate", not just hate speech). I'm just curious buddy, is attacking and violating women, to you, not a hateful act?"

Looking at naked celebrities is not a hateful act, and it most certainly doesn't qualify as "hate speech". It can certainly be immoral and it can be a tremendous violation of that celebrity's privacy, but it is in no way an act of hate. Nothing any writer at Gawker ever said indicates otherwise. You're reaching, dude.

Literally what the writer at Gawker said.

When society fails to object loudly to its sexual abuse of victims of "revenge porn" and continues to perpetrate {sexual violence with every click on their naked bodies}....It tells other young women about the protection they can expect against sexual abuse in light of the absent outrage at what amounts to a {young woman's societal gang rape}.... viewing the hacked image as a misdemeanor rather as an act of {sexual violence}.

She literally calls it gang rape, and clearly states it is sexual abuse and a violation of young women's bodies. Is sexual abuse and gang rape not hate for you, Tan? I'm really curious now. Just state it clearly for me, sexual violation, abuse, violence and gang rape are not hateful acts, according to Tan.

Lithose · Jul 13, 2015

Tanoomba_sl said:
No, no, Cad, that was most definitely NOT his point. If that had been his point, he would not have used an article about ditching Reddit because they profit off of hate speech to make that point. Here's his actual point, in case you forgot (or didn't understand): If the Fappening was an act of "sexual violence", then so was the Hulk Hogan video. If sexual violence counts as an "attack" against someone based on gender, then it is "hate speech". Therefore, by publishing the Hulk's sex tape, Gawker profited off of hate speech. Therefore, it is hypocritical to criticize Reddit for profiting off of hate speech if Gawker is also profiting off of hate speech. Lithose's entire argument is based on interpreting Hulk Hogan's sex tape and the Fappening as "hate speech".

Hate and hate speech were use interchangeably in the article. This really comes down to whether you consider sexual violence and gang rape to be "hate". If so, Gawker hosted hate...it's pretty clear.

Tanoomba · Jul 13, 2015

Lith: "Hate and hate speech were use interchangeably in the article. This really comes down to whether you consider sexual violence and gang rape to be "hate". If so, Gawker hosted hate...it's pretty clear."

Why would what I consider even be relevant in determining hypocrisy on Gawker's part? No, Lith, it comes down to whether or not GAWKER considers Hulk Hogan's sex tape "hate". They very clearly don't, except in your forced misinterpretation of an article that has nothing to do with hate or hate speech. The little trap you've been trying to set for me is cute, in a "13 year old logic" sort of way, but your point is still ridiculous and your straw man dishonest. Stick to the point and stop trying to put words in my mouth.

fanaskin · Jul 13, 2015

Tanoomba_sl said:
Looking at naked celebrities is not a hateful act, and it most certainly doesn't qualify as "hate speech". It can certainly be immoral and it can be a tremendous violation of that celebrity's privacy, but it is in no way an act of hate. Nothing any writer at Gawker ever said indicates otherwise. You're reaching, dude.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/22/revenge-porn-women-free-speech-abuse

Revenge pornography and other abusive behaviour, like trolling, constitute a kind of gendered hate speech

fanaskin · Jul 13, 2015

to rebut the idea that "nobody" says that

Lithose · Jul 13, 2015

Tanoomba_sl said:
Lith: "Hate and hate speech were use interchangeably in the article. This really comes down to whether you consider sexual violence and gang rape to be "hate". If so, Gawker hosted hate...it's pretty clear."

Why would what I consider even be relevant in determining hypocrisy on Gawker's part? No, Lith, it comes down to whether or not GAWKER considers Hulk Hogan's sex tape "hate". They very clearly don't, except in your forced misinterpretation of an article that has nothing to do with hate or hate speech. The little trap you've been trying to set for me is cute, in a "13 year old logic" sort of way, but your point is still ridiculous and your straw man dishonest. Stick to the point and stop trying to put words in my mouth.

So you do admit that article said these words right?

*****When society fails to object loudly to its sexual abuse of victims of "revenge porn" and continues to perpetrate {sexual violence with every click on their naked bodies}....It tells other young women about the protection they can expect against sexual abuse in light of the absent outrage at what amounts to a {young woman's societal gang rape}.... viewing the hacked image as a misdemeanor rather as an act of {sexual violence}.*****

Simple question Tan, it's obvious gawker views stolen videos as violence and literally societal gang rape.

Do you view those things as hatred?

Lithose · Jul 13, 2015

fanaskin_sl said:
to rebut the idea that "nobody" says that

Well, I mean he's got a Gawker article which says, and actually LITERALLY says, the Jlaw picture viewing were gang rape, and explicitly calls it sexual violence and a sexual violation and sexual abuse (Multiple times throughout the article). The last few pages I've really just been trying to get him to say the article contains those words and to agree that sexual violence is hate.

He ignores most of the posts that do and makes posts like the above, it's hilarious. I don't think he knows what to do, his troll programing is overloading.

Cad · Jul 13, 2015

And whether you want to argue the definition of "hate speech" or not, the hypocrisy still stands when gawker wants to hide behind free speech when they want to post things that they themselves would call problematic/invasive/shitlordy/whatever term, but wants reddit to censor everything they don't like. Tanoomba as usual is just going to shit up the place arguing about the definition of a term rather than the point which works regardless of which term you use.

Intrinsic · Jul 13, 2015

That and he's already fallen back to the 'no no it has nothing to do with what I believe! We're talking about something else!' defense. Usually takes a few pages to get that desperate.

Mario Speedwagon · Jul 13, 2015

You can tell that Tanoomba is a faggot because literally every argument with him ends up being about the definition of words being used in the argument.

Tanoomba · Jul 13, 2015

Lith, as I already said, the author of that article comes off a little heavy handed with the "sexual violence" metaphor. I don't believe it is meant to be taken as literally as you seem to think. Having said that, it is an article about sexual violation, not about hate. You seem to think the two are interchangeable so you're inferring a stance about hate from an article that in no way addresses hate or hate speech. That's dishonest.

Reddit was a free-for-all. When you give people free reign to say whatever they want anonymously and consequence-free, you're going to get some disgusting and hateful behavior. There were entire communities dedicated to ACTUAL hate speech, not just an article that, through a series of convoluted and nonsensical if=>then conditions, could theoretically be interpreted as having to do with some form nebulously-defined "hate" (and even then, only if you ignore the actual theme of the article in favor of seeking "evidence" to support a pre-conceived notion that has nothing to do with said article).

You're apparently trying to equate r/coontown with Hulk Hogan's sex tape. That's not even apples and oranges, that's apples and bicycles. One is explicitly and undeniably about hate, the other has absolutely nothing to do with hate. As long as you keep ignoring that basic fact to focus on your little word games, you're arguing dishonestly.

Cad · Jul 13, 2015

Reddit was a free-for-all. When you give people free reign to say whatever they want anonymously and consequence-free, you're going to get some disgusting and hateful behavior.

So?

Tanoomba · Jul 13, 2015

Intrinsic: "That and he's already fallen back to the 'no no it has nothing to do with what I believe! We're talking about something else!' defense. Usually takes a few pages to get that desperate."

"Already"? Bitch, I am contractually obliged to OPEN with that statement, otherwise I have to correct every overeager poster dishonestly trying to misrepresent what I'm trying to say.

Dr. Mario: "You can tell that Tanoomba is a faggot because literally every argument with him ends up being about the definition of words being used in the argument."

Funny, from my perspective the only one playing word games here is Lithose. Again, I remind you that this is his actual point:
If the Fappening was an act of "sexual violence", then so was the Hulk Hogan video. If sexual violence counts as an "attack" against someone based on gender, then it is "hate". Therefore, by publishing Hogan's sex tape, Gawker profited off of "hate". Therefore, it is hypocritical to criticize Reddit for profiting off of hate speech if Gawker is also profiting off of hate.

I don't have to argue any definitions of words for that to be ridiculous.

The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.

ジョーディーすれいやー

Silver Knight of the Realm

ジョーディーすれいやー

scientia potentia est

Buzzfeed Editor

ジョーディーすれいやー

ジョーディーすれいやー

Buzzfeed Editor

Buzzfeed Editor

ジョーディーすれいやー

Well known agitator

Well known agitator

Buzzfeed Editor

Buzzfeed Editor

scientia potentia est

Person of Whiteness

Gold Recognition

ジョーディーすれいやー

scientia potentia est

ジョーディーすれいやー