Dubstepforum.com

hubb wrote:

Is scrutiny the right to see them naked and/or having sex? Really?

Oh ofcourse not. But it's their responsibility to defend their privacy more so than everybody else because they are paid to be a product.

totally agree. But it's not that it's sacred, it's that the way media culture is, her being naked on a phone almost becomes a form of currency if we agree that it's not just on her phone but actually on the net and therefore her responsibility in an obviously convoluted terrible way - but still thats the price now.

That's not victim blaming that is being realistic unfortunately.

I mean technically in a judicial sence.

It functions on a complex principle- because all of us have a celebrity that we sort of stand by, despite being critical of the whole thing and maybe even refusing celebrity culture. + and this is important - there's been established an overlap of influence in the usual celeb sence combined with actual pornography in the cases of paris and kardassian which sort of opens a grey zone for spastics.
That's where someone sound like you comes in and understands that there's a line between that and jenniffer lawrences case, but when the outcome of both situations is money and clicks - people just take the argument of money over morality and that is just a general function of capitalism unfortunately.

One is setting out to be vengeful and deliberate and the other is getting paid for trawling through something that is already 'available'.
Oh and pipe down - I'm defending women that doesn't have her money.

hubb wrote:

magma wrote:

hubb wrote:The sensible response is that it's media and low standards, the economy of clicks or whatever.

A lot of people will physically need to fap over this, because they've been told how attractive and classy she is on all the other pages, that is hard to blame them with tbh.

Christ almighty.

A lot of people will PHYSICALLY NEED to fap over a woman just because she's famous?

No, a lot of people will be PSYCHOLOGICALLY UNABLE TO STOP THEMSELVES fapping over any woman they're seeing naked when they know they shouldn't be. It's a cheap thrill because it's ever so slightly forbidden, just like catching sight of your neighbour changing through her bedroom window. Just because the Internet has allowed us all to be Peeping Toms doesn't mean we PHYSICALLY NEED to be Peeping Toms. We have brains. We have choice. We're better than this.

A generation ago this wouldn't have been morally confusing.

i dont' disagree about where the responsibility lies mostly and you are almost right here, but it doesn't make sence to refute the culture that is set in place that people actually respond to.

magma wrote:

hubb wrote:

Is scrutiny the right to see them naked and/or having sex? Really?

Oh ofcourse not. But it's their responsibility to defend their privacy more so than everybody else because they are paid to be a product.

I still don't really get this. Obviously certain people can be assumed to be a more likely target of certain crimes than others so I guess ramping up personal security is a sensible idea for the famous, but that doesn't stop a criminal being a criminal. It doesn't make the people who *intentionally* stole and distributed these images globally any less wrong; just like the rapist who targets provocatively dressed women isn't less wrong than the one who targets women in hijab.

It doesn't change them being a criminal - but the way culture works will mean the criminals are not doing the crime by themselves - we are part of committing it by watching but that will gradually change and become everyones 'property' the very next day... right?
I just find it important to distinguish in cases where the leak is used politically, which the other case did.

totally agree. But it's not that it's sacred, it's that the way media culture is, her being naked on a phone almost becomes a form of currency if we agree that it's not just on her phone but actually on the net and therefore her responsibility in an obviously convoluted terrible way - but still thats the price now.

That's not victim blaming that is being realistic unfortunately.

Only that assigning of responsibility and realism is entirely false assigning of responsibility and realism, isn't it? It's victim blaming, isn't it? Yes, maybe she could've avoided it by living a chaste life of biblical virtue, just like the rape victim could've avoided being raped by staying indoors for her whole life... but neither of those are actual solutions are they? They're just pathetic male work-arounds to a problem none of us have to experience let alone have a clue or even the desire how to solve, aren't they?

Maybe but I'm trying to put it on her team of advisors however silly that is. Because she is a shop that is run and in accepting that have lost some privacy but gained money from it, meaning that is what the criminals are targetting.

I mean technically in a judicial sence.

Ok, technically, in a judicial sense, they would be the same if the ps3 hack had resulted in something private of your being stolen and used against you. Credit card details, nude pictures, your Facebook login whatever... invasion of privacy with the intent to steal and/or humiliate someone is the fault of the person committing the crime; not the fault of the person who wasn't savvy enough to prevent it.

thats what i mean credit card details etc..

It functions on a complex principle- because all of us have a celebrity that we sort of stand by, despite being critical of the whole thing and maybe even refusing celebrity culture. + and this is important - there's been established an overlap of influence in the usual celeb sence combined with actual pornography in the cases of paris and kardassian which sort of opens a grey zone for spastics.
That's where someone sound like you comes in and understands that there's a line between that and jenniffer lawrences case, but when the outcome of both situations is money and clicks - people just take the argument of money over morality and that is just a general function of capitalism unfortunately.

There's no difference between any genuinely leaked sex tape and what's happened to Jennifer Lawrence. I'm not convinced I've ever seen a Jennifer Lawrence movie*, so I definitely don't "stand by" her in any sort of special sense. She's a woman who's privacy was invaded to such an extent that half the world has just seen one of the most private moments of her life, I'm assuming intended for a loved one. That's fucking DISGUSTING no matter who she is or how she earns her living.

*I checked; I've seen American Hustle and I thought it was a bit shit. No 'loyalty' at play here.

There is the difference that both videos i mentioned obviously weren't leaked leaked but just the first bit in trying to establish fame - using that as the example.
... I'm mean celebrity culture is something people in general won't assume or believe they take part in, only dumb teens do - sort of thing, but it's not true. That principle pays.

One is setting out to be vengeful and deliberate and the other is getting paid for trawling through something that is already 'available'.
Oh and pipe down - I'm defending women that doesn't have her money.

How is distributing unsolicited nude images of ANYONE not vengeful and deliberate? Someone DELIBERATELY put those images in a place where they knew they'd go global in the full knowledge that they'd cause at the very least public embarrassment and possibly genuine psychological damage to the victim. That deliberate and vengeful person needs finding and punishing.

They did it for clicks and probably money paid by some site, it's not using a personal relationship as far as we know.

Sorry, but I can't see how you're defending anyone by saying famous people deserve less protection than the rest of us. We all deserve the same protection. We all have to adhere to the same laws, we should all be protected by the same ones as well.

magma wrote:

hubb wrote:

magma wrote:

hubb wrote:The sensible response is that it's media and low standards, the economy of clicks or whatever.

A lot of people will physically need to fap over this, because they've been told how attractive and classy she is on all the other pages, that is hard to blame them with tbh.

Christ almighty.

A lot of people will PHYSICALLY NEED to fap over a woman just because she's famous?

No, a lot of people will be PSYCHOLOGICALLY UNABLE TO STOP THEMSELVES fapping over any woman they're seeing naked when they know they shouldn't be. It's a cheap thrill because it's ever so slightly forbidden, just like catching sight of your neighbour changing through her bedroom window. Just because the Internet has allowed us all to be Peeping Toms doesn't mean we PHYSICALLY NEED to be Peeping Toms. We have brains. We have choice. We're better than this.

A generation ago this wouldn't have been morally confusing.

i dont' disagree about where the responsibility lies mostly and you are almost right here, but it doesn't make sence to refute the culture that is set in place that people actually respond to.

It doesn't make sense to sit quietly and not complain about that culture so that it never changes, either. Society evolves. It's probably best if we all take some sort of responsibility for nudging that evolution into positive directions rather than just sitting back and going "Well, look at how that turned out. Isn't the world horrible place?"

Agent 47 wrote:how does complaining on dsf help magma?

magma wrote:

Agent 47 wrote:how does complaining on dsf help magma?

Clearly it doesn't, but still... never heard of Stetson Kennedy?