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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Cad: "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?"

So that's what the article Lith claims is hypocritical had a problem with. The author didn't approve of how Reddit was making money by allowing people to indulge in overt hate speech, so he quit Reddit. That was the whole point of his article.
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
Tanoomba_sl said:
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.
Click to expand...
I fail to see anything ridiculous with that reasoning. Pretty straightforward reasoning.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Ridas: "You are the only one, who thinks that reasoning is ridiculous, Tan."

No doubt. I'm also the only one not succumbing to confirmation bias in order to stick it to Gawker.
 
Soygen

Soygen

The Dirty Dozen For the Price of One
<Nazi Janitors>
28,585
45,256
Defending Gawker is truly a low point for you, Tanoomba. May God have mercy on your soul.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Soygen: "Defending Gawker is truly a low point for you, Tanoomba. May God have mercy on your soul."

For the second but almost certainly not last time, I am not defending Gawker. I am criticizing Lithose. There is a difference and one does not necessitate the other.
 
Quaid

Quaid

Trump's Staff
11,860
8,266
Did an article published by Gawker ever call what happened to JLaw a sex crime? If so, the same should apply to what happened to the Hulkster. As far as Lithose's position is concerned, there was indeed an overall media narrative at the time calling what happened to Lawrence as a 'hate crime'. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I do not recall Gawker or Jezebel explicitly refering to The Fappening as a hate crime at the time, but their overall presentation of opinion certainly suggests they view focused gendered 'sexual violence' as a hateful act. By Gawker's own standards, they are guilty of sexual violence against Hulk Hogan. Whether or not that sexual violence is a hate crime is irrelevant.
 
Cad

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
27,058
56,616
I'm not saying white supremacists are right, I'm just criticizing black people! There is a difference!

I'm not saying wife beaters are right, I'm just criticizing the wifes behavior in this domestic abuse case. There is a difference!

I'm not saying the cop was right, I'm just criticizing Mike Brown's behavior in this instance. There is a difference!
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Quaid: "Whether or not that sexual violence is a hate crime is irrelevant."

It's relevant when the claim being made is that it is hypocritical for a Gawker author to take issue with Reddit profiting off of hate speech. While Lithose has since muddied the waters by using increasingly nebulous versions of "hate", I remind you that this was his original statement:
"I mean, some people might argue Hogan's tape is not hate speech--but according to Gawker, 'revenge' porn is a kind of hate speech."
 
Quaid

Quaid

Trump's Staff
11,860
8,266
Gawker (and the guardian, Jezebel, etc) has called 'revenge porn' a hate crime during the Hunter Moore stuff iirc.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
"The practical reality is that Reddit seems to have overtaken Stormfront as the world?s largest White Supremacy community. And thus, every page view turns into some fraction of a dollar that powers a server that hosts hate."

"Hate for me and my children. Hate for my great-grandparents coming here. Hate that goes beyond talk, and becomes shootings and burning of churches, and ?standing your ground? against teenagers."

"So when people talk about hate, it may merely be ?offensive speech? when you, your children and your neighbours are not the people they want to exterminate."

"I don?t need to debate whether someone is legally allowed to have a certain type of hateful speech, or whether its effects go beyond merely being ?appalling? or ?offensive.? What I know is this: Choosing to build a for-profit business around hosting such speech is a choice, and choosing whether to support that business is also a choice."


All quotes from the article being accused of hypocrisy. Now, Lith is correct when he says that "hate" and "hate speech" are used interchangeably. Unfortunately, he's completely ignoring the context in which the terms are used. It is extremely clear that the author is talking about hate speech and pretty much exclusively about racist hate speech. There is zero connection between anything he says and sexual violence or "revenge porn". Is Gawker hypocritical for defending their showcasing of Hogan's sex tape while chastising those who looked at J-Law's nudes? Of course. Is Gawker hypocritical because one of their writers doesn't approve of Reddit making money off of hosting racist hate speech? Not so much.
 
Quaid

Quaid

Trump's Staff
11,860
8,266
It was pretty clear to me that Lithose was referring to Gawker's (and progressive media's) overall stance, rather than the single article he linked for context.

http://time.com/3506848/jennifer-lawrence-nude-photo-hack-gender-based-hate/
 
Soygen

Soygen

The Dirty Dozen For the Price of One
<Nazi Janitors>
28,585
45,256
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
Semantics. Definitions. Avoid all context. Repeat.
 
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,041
Tanoomba_sl said:
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
Click to expand...
So lets be clear, sexual violence and "gang rape" ect--is not "hate". This is what you're saying, right?
 
Cad

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
27,058
56,616
Soygen, wait.. have you seen Tanoomba post before? Your accuracy is uncanny.
 
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,041
Quaid_sl said:
It was pretty clear to me that Lithose was referring to Gawker's (and progressive media's) overall stance, rather than the single article he linked for context.

http://time.com/3506848/jennifer-lawrence-nude-photo-hack-gender-based-hate/
Click to expand...
Yeah, I just linked the one article because it was so over the top and ridiculous with declaring it to be beyond hate--but an actual act of overt sexual violence (Even referring to it as Gang Rape) that I truly didn't think Tan could stomach defending it. Apparently I was wrong! There is no hill to worthless for Tan to die on.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Cad: "I'm not saying white supremacists are right, I'm just criticizing black people! There is a difference!

I'm not saying wife beaters are right, I'm just criticizing the wifes behavior in this domestic abuse case. There is a difference!

I'm not saying the cop was right, I'm just criticizing Mike Brown's behavior in this instance. There is a difference!"

By this (retarded) logic, is Lithose defending racist hate speech on Reddit?
You're a clown, Cad.




Quaid: "It was pretty clear to me that Lithose was referring to Gawker's (and progressive media's) overall stance, rather than the single article he linked for context."

So if he was talking about their overall stance, why would he choose to illustrate that with an article that in no way reflects that stance? (The "quitting Reddit" article, to be clear.)




Lith: "Yeah, I just linked the one article because it was so over the top and ridiculous with declaring it to be beyond hate--but an actual act of overt sexual violence (Even referring to it as Gang Rape) that I truly didn't think Tan could stomach defending it. Apparently I was wrong! There is no hill to worthless for Tan to die on."

Straw man. Ad hominem.





Anyway, I made my point. To reiterate:
Is Gawker hypocritical for defending their showcasing of Hogan's sex tape while chastising those who looked at J-Law's nudes? Of course. Is Gawker hypocritical because one of their writers doesn't approve of Reddit making money off of hosting racist hate speech? Not so much.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Iannis: "There comes a point where you actually can start to believe your own bullshit. It's why it's important to stay grounded and social, and why the echo chambers are dangerous."

Absolutely!

Iannis: "Take Tanoomba. That motherfucker is criminally god damn retarted, but he's not actually bad.

It's to our good fortune that he's too timid to ever make a difference."

(...He exclaimed into the echo chamber.)
 
Cad

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
27,058
56,616
By this (retarded) logic, is Lithose defending racist hate speech on Reddit?

Actually yes. He's defending non-agenda driven free speech, and non-hypocrisy when it comes to defending free speech. In doing so, you implicitly defend the rights of racists and white supremacists and other unsavory characters to make posts and do their thing.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
I didn't ask if he was defending free speech, I asked if he was defending racist hate speech. Defending gun ownership is not the same as defending gun murders, you tool.




Quaid: "to demonize both the creators who make products, and those who consume them."

...Seriously? *face palm*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.