BUSTED and SUPER EMBARRASSED- and super long

[James (ellamalaka)]

1 minute ago, sneezyholmes said:

Where the hell do you live that people are purposely recording you solely to masturbate? Last I checked, I'm not a porn star so yes I would be creeped out by someone recording me SOLELY to beat his meat. And don't even give me that rights bullshit. No one has a right to record another without permission for pornographic intentions. At some point you have to realize what is morally and socially despite whatever the law says. It is disgusting that you're so determined to not see this from any other POV other than your typical, misogynist one.

And this woman couldn't. She was stuck on a subway! And she called him out on it but instead of atoning for his actions, he just shrugs it off. This behavior is practically entry level for much worse offenses. I can't even handle you, I have never met someone I dislike so much as I do you, James. Not one single person. And I never said I can stop it, I've merely been voicing MY opinion.

I have no intention of patting him on the back for violating her privacy. So you go ahead and continue blabbering your shit and I'll continue to criticize his predatory behavior as I see fit.

You can say it as much as you like but he didn't violate her privacy. She was in a PUBLIC space.

And I've never defended OPs actions, either.

[Rook]

6 minutes ago, James (ellamalaka) said:

It's been well established that there is no right to privacy in public spaces.

So he didn't violate her right of privacy.

And as I said, I wouldn't have recorded her. But I also don't do things like fart in public which people find gross but are not illegal.

Are you done? 

[SneezyHolmes]

1 minute ago, James (ellamalaka) said:

You can say it as much as you like but he didn't violate her privacy. She was in a PUBLIC space.

And I've never defended OPs actions, either.

Bullshit. Then what the hell have your comments been about? You sure as heck ain't helping him see how wrong his actions were.

[James (ellamalaka)]

1 minute ago, sneezyholmes said:

Bullshit. Then what the hell have your comments been about? You sure as heck ain't helping him see how wrong his actions were.

I don't place myself above others and try to teach them 'morals.'

Situations are rarely binary black and white. This isn't just a for or against situation. I refuse to classify things as yes/no, left/right, open/closed. I'm for and against things on both "sides" of the issue.

[James (ellamalaka)]

7 minutes ago, batmansgirl said:

Are you done? 

 

As a one-time member of the communist party, I still think that private spaces are bourgeois and reactionary and serve the ends of the extreme right-wing. But I'm trying to be understanding.

[SneezyHolmes]

Just now, James (ellamalaka) said:

I don't place myself above others and try to teach them 'morals.'

Situations are rarely binary black and white. This isn't just a for or against situation. I refuse to classify things as yes/no, left/right, open/closed. I'm for and against things on both "sides" of the issue.

You dont place yourself above others? Oh Jesus that is a conversation for another day.

Yes but I have yet to hear how you feel regarding things from the woman's point of view. She was clearly upset and caught him red handed. Yet when anyone mentions that to you, your immediate reaction is to say he was justified and totally in his right to do so. So if this is not a for or against argument, what is it? What are your thoughts solely from the woman's perspective, is she just supposed to submit and be sexualized? Because whether we're filmed in public constantly or not, I fail to see how he can not handle this from a social/moral standpoint.

[James (ellamalaka)]

1 minute ago, sneezyholmes said:

You dont place yourself above others? Oh Jesus that is a conversation for another day.

Yes but I have yet to hear how you feel regarding things from the woman's point of view. She was clearly upset and caught him red handed. Yet when anyone mentions that to you, your immediate reaction is to say he was justified and totally in his right to do so. So if this is not a for or against argument, what is it? What are your thoughts solely from the woman's perspective, is she just supposed to submit and be sexualized? Because whether we're filmed in public constantly or not, I fail to see how he can not handle this from a social/moral standpoint.

If I felt sexualized or uncomfortable I would have moved a few paces away from the situation. There's no way I would have sat back down next to the person. Video filming makes me uncomfortable, too, so when it makes me feel that way I remove myself from the situation. Unless the person is stalking or violating my privacy. Then I turn to the law.

The right to film in public is a 1st Amendment right. It's what allows amazing art and expression into our lives.

You say he sexualized her. So, by your thinking I should be forbidden from taking a picture of the pope and putting a dick in his mouth. Afterall, that's sexualizing him. I'm not sure you're thinking through how much of what you enjoy would be forbidden if the law worked the way you seem to wish it did.

Do you ever protest against things? I do, and i can tell you that we have the despicable Westboro Baptist Church to thank for preserving many of our protest rights. Snyder v Phelps is a landmark decision in this area.

If you want to be able to protest against the KKK, you have to let Westboro protest against gay funerals.

If you want free expression in video and photography, you have to be willing to tolerate "creep shots."

[Anonymouse]

53 minutes ago, James (ellamalaka) said:

This is NOT the snakepit and your comments are way out of line.

My bad, I got this mixed up with another thread that blew up in the last few days. I'm curious to know why you think my comments are out of line.

[James (ellamalaka)]

6 minutes ago, AnonyMeows said:

My bad, I got this mixed up with another thread that blew up in the last few days. I'm curious to know why you think my comments are out of line.

It happens. No prob

I found them personal and deliberately inciteful towards a fellow member. What you wrote goes against the established guidelines of the forum.

[SneezyHolmes]

13 minutes ago, James (ellamalaka) said:

If I felt sexualized or uncomfortable I would have moved a few paces away from the situation. There's no way I would have sat back down next to the person. Video filming makes me uncomfortable, too, so when it makes me feel that way I remove myself from the situation. Unless the person is stalking or violating my privacy. Then I turn to the law.

The right to film in public is a 1st Amendment right. It's what allows amazing art and expression into our lives.

You say he sexualized her. So, by your thinking I should be forbidden from taking a picture of the pope and putting a dick in his mouth. Afterall, that's sexualizing him. I'm not sure you're thinking through how much of what you enjoy would be forbidden if the law worked the way you seem to wish it did.

Do you ever protest against things? I do, and i can tell you that we have the despicable Westboro Baptist Church to thank for preserving many of our protest rights. Snyder v Phelps is a landmark decision in this area.

If you want to be able to protest against the KKK, you have to let Westboro protest against gay funerals.

If you want free expression in video and photography, you have to be willing to tolerate "creep shots."

Do not assume I am not capable of thinking through things. Again, I must say that she could not just move away and even if she did, he clearly would've just readjusted to continue the shot. I'm done here, arguing my opinions with yours are clearly not conducive to either side of this.

[Anonymouse]

12 minutes ago, James (ellamalaka) said:

It happens. No prob

I found them personal and deliberately inciteful towards a fellow member. What you wrote goes against the established guidelines of the forum.

I disagree.  I just reread my post and I didn't see anything that could be construed as a personal attack. If you show me what you're referring to specifically and Cutekats comes forward to confirm that she felt the same way then I will apologize to her directly. 

ETA: I'm realizing now you may gave been referring to my assessment of the OP. I've seen others here share their feelings on members having personality disorders so I guess I'm just following suit. It's just an assumption based on the facts presented in the original post and his follow up statement, and should thus be taken with a grain of salt.

[James (ellamalaka)]

4 minutes ago, AnonyMeows said:

I disagree.  I just reread my post and I didn't see anything that could be construed as a personal attack. If you show me what you're referring to specifically and Cutekats comes forward to confirm that she felt the same way then I will apologize to her directly. 

Having off topic discussions in a thread is also against the guidelines so we should discontinue this.

[James (ellamalaka)]

9 minutes ago, sneezyholmes said:

Do not assume I am not capable of thinking through things. Again, I must say that she could not just move away and even if she did, he clearly would've just readjusted to continue the shot. I'm done here, arguing my opinions with yours are clearly not conducive to either side of this.

I'm not on either "side." Sides are illusions created by those that think only in binaries.

[Joal 555]

This thread has been locked for the time being.

Feelings have obviously run high, but this is not the Snake Pit and a "cooling off" period is now in place whilst the staff discuss the thread. It may or may not be reopened in due course.

Thank you for your attention.

[Joal 555]

The staff have now concluded their discussions about this thread and decided that it will remain locked.

We feel that this was an important topic and many valid and worthwhile comments have been made. For that reason, it has been left visible, rather than deleted or hidden. However, this was not a Snake Pit topic and we would remind members that when responding to "controversial" topics such as this, posts should be restricted to commenting on the actual topic, rather than outright flaming of other members.

We recognise that some subjects will cause feelings to run high and members will understandably want to post their opinions on the issues involved. We have no problem with this of course, but we ask that discussions remain more civil than ultimately turned out to be the case in this thread. We would remind members that action can be taken if the rules of the forum are not followed, even if the majority of members support your view.

If anyone feels unable to stick to the subject in a civilised manner, they are of course able to post their views in the Snake Pit (as indeed anyone can still do with regard to this particular topic, if they want to). In the meantime, we don't feel there is anything more to add to this topic on the main forum, so as stated earlier, it will stay locked.

Thank you for your attention.