SJW campaign leads to porn star suicide.

GarIT

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You know the world's gone off the deep end when self-styled 'feminists' actually put political correctness above the concept of consent when it comes to sex. Jesus Christ. :eek:

It's happened to me once before and has happened to lots of friends too. I was bullied for not being willing to kiss a fat girl. I've seen friend bullied for not being willing to have sex with someone who said they were a woman but was born a man and hadn't had any surgery yet (I don't know the correct term, pre-op trans maybe?.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

greencap

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

this bit kinda blows me away:

“In light of today's tragic news Brazzers has decided to postpone the release of tonight's scheduled August Ames scene,” it said. "The scene will be posted at a more appropriate time, as we come to terms with this devastating loss. Thank you for your understanding.”

so, no w@nking to the dead girl tonight, but you'll be able to get sorted down the road. :eek::eek:

Think of it as an unreleased Bowie track - but just with more cum.

Or an unreleased George Michael video - but with just slightly less cum.

Gijoseph

Bambi wrote: »

You know when that sort of observation comes from other camps, you have people piling in screaming "victim blaming"

It just goes to show that this generation of identity politics obsessed hysterics need to be stamped out

Nail on the head. The same people who cry victim blaming in the usual topics on here are doing the exact same thing. I enjoy watching these people become massive hypocrites.

Your Face

The whole thing is greasy.

GLaDOS

Twitter is a fúcking cesspool. Hoards of people happy to abuse anyone and everyone for the slightest of reasons.

RIP to the poor girl.

RGDATA!

Saruhashi wrote: »

I though SJW stood for "Social Justice Warrior" and that the "Warrior" part of that is used in a sarcastic way?

so you're some kind of mind reader?

Stone Deaf 4evr

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

this bit kinda blows me away:

“In light of today's tragic news Brazzers has decided to postpone the release of tonight's scheduled August Ames scene,” it said. "The scene will be posted at a more appropriate time, as we come to terms with this devastating loss. Thank you for your understanding.”

so, no w@nking to the dead girl tonight, but you'll be able to get sorted down the road. :eek::eek:

... I mean it's no different to them releasing a Hunger Games movie the year after Philip Seymour Hoffman died.

There's precedents for content to be released posthumously -- only in this case, it's porn.

Tell me how

Speedwell wrote: »

No. I actually think people who use the term SJW are sneering at the idea of social justice itself. Which is, if you know the history of the "SJW" term, the actual case.

I am passionately in favour of social justice for all but I do differentiate clearly between the warriors (the few) and the advocates (the many).

The term SJW, in my mind is suitable for the likes of the students who challenged Professor Christakis at Yale. Not so much because they challenged him (which I wouldn't agree with anyway) but because how they did so and refused to engage in debate with him. The vast majority of marchers in the Womens Marches earlier this year, for example were advocates. Misue of the term is polarising but there are times when it is appropriate.



In this instance, I agree with the poster that said that unfortunately, this lady was probably in a difficult place leading up to the last few days and the reaction over this was the final straw.

retro:electro

Nothing wrong with what she said. But I'd imagine she wasn't in a sound space to begin with. Although Twitter can be a scourge, people don't take their lives solely off the back of vicious comments directed at them on a social platform. There must have been other factors at play and this merely compounded her already fragile state.

Having said that. Twitter makes it too easy for people to mock and deride others just for sharing a difference in opinion. I said this in another thread yesterday but It really is a cesspit. I would say it's an example of social media at its worst. The amount of bullying, shaming, harassment that is apparent on it is overwhelming. I've seen people being hounded for sharing a difference of opinion, their place of work shared, parental/marital/relationship status shamed- all in the name of one comment or remark that a group of people take issue with and feel it's okay to mock and deride everything about you. These things gain momentum too so an off the cuff remark can be retweeted and forwarded, shared and shamed before you know it. Mad.
I can imagine how easy it must be for a flippant remark to get out of hand and if you're already in a bad place it just exacerbates an existing problem.

hatrickpatrick

Speedwell wrote: »

Independently of anything here, including the telltale "SJW" which announces to the aware that the OP is against social justice, bullying should always come with consequences.

Particularly if the bullying is aimed at people who are legitimately defending their own or someone else's civil rights and personal boundaries.

SJWs aren't just people who support social justice, the word "SJW" refers to those who shame and bully everyone who doesn't agree with radical identity politics.

EDIT: Case in point, I vehemently support repealing the eighth amendment, but I don't believe in denying the pro-life crowd a platform to campaign against repealing it. SJWs, on the other hand, think it's ok within a democratic system to pull down the opposition's posters, and harass third party platforms into denying them a meeting space or a voice.

Saruhashi

Speedwell wrote: »

No, just a reader.

Great then you'll have read that people who are supposedly fighting for social justice managed to bully a woman, who seemingly was already in a vulnerable state, to the point where she committed suicide.

I'm sorry but if part of being a warrior for social justice means harassing people on social media then I think it's fair to call out "SJWs" as a bit of a problem.

No idea why you would try to cover for them in this instance. It's clear who the type of people harassing this woman are and the term that is commonly used to define such people is "SJW".

Sure, though it's the person who shared the story that's bad. They obviously have some issue with social justice.

Let's just ignore the bullying that led to the death of this woman because someone used the label that is most commonly used to describe these bullies.

The people who bullied and harassed this woman and the people who peddle the kind of rhetoric that leads to this kind of behavior online are commonly referred to as "SJWs".

Why throw shade at anyone who refers to them as such?

Hey lads, I think this woman might be homophobic so let's drive her to suicide in the name of social justice. Don't worry anyone who criticizes us will be shut down by useful idiots who can just imply that our critics are against social justice.

"Hans... are we the baddies?"

Ubbquittious

How do you pronounce SJW in real life? Sidge-a-woo?

o1s1n

[Deleted User] wrote: »

... I mean it's no different to them releasing a Hunger Games movie the year after Philip Seymour Hoffman died.

There's precedents for content to be released posthumously -- only in this case, it's porn.

Do to you regularly fantasize about sleeping with Philip Seymour Hoffman what watching The Hunger Games?

Otherwise you're not really comparing like for like.

o1s1n

I feel like SJW is like "f*ckboy". It's a term that's thrown around quite a lot lately, but if you ask people exactly what they mean, nobody really has a definitive answer.

o1s1n wrote: »

Do to you regularly fantasize about sleeping with Philip Seymour Hoffman what watching The Hunger Games?

Otherwise you're not really comparing like for like.

TBH I don't think there is much of a difference. Both are media. Do you think it shouldn't be released? If not, why not?

Saruhashi

RGDATA! wrote: »

so you're some kind of mind reader?

See the question mark at the end of my sentence?

"I thought SJW stood for "Social Justice Warrior" and that the "Warrior" part of that is used in a sarcastic way?"

That's what we refer to as a question. So rather than me making a statement about another poster or making a firm declaration about what they are thinking I have put a question mark in there that would allow them to reply.

So they could for example say "no the warrior part in SJW is actually sincere as SJWs are literally fighting for social justice".

No mind reading attempt there.

greencap

Gijoseph wrote: »

Nail on the head. The same people who cry victim blaming in the usual topics on here are doing the exact same thing. I enjoy watching these people become massive hypocrites.

People of all persuasions and camps and sides do this kind of thing, the pile on.

The opportunity to vent ones bile safely and almost anonymously, with the support of the crowd against one individual, especially one found in the wrong.

I've experience of it myself, albeit for much less serious stuff.

I had the crowd turn on me and for no reason, two or three people targeted me, a fourth saw and joined in, then a fifth and so on, til there was about 30 people just trying to pick on me for nothing in particular - not whinging its just I've seen it first hand, you don't have to even do anything, if some people see the opportunity they'll join in like rioters. Vent their spleen from safety and fade away.

AustinLostin

What hate did she receive? Report just details what she said. Tragic in any case.

Infini

From our greatest asset: Urban Dictionary!

"Social Justice Warrior

A person who uses the fight for civil rights as an excuse to be rude, condescending, and sometimes violent for the purpose of relieving their frustrations or validating their sense of unwarranted moral superiority. The behaviors of Social justice warriors usually have a negative impact on the civil rights movement, turning away potential allies and fueling the resurgence of bigoted groups that scoop up people who have been burned or turned off by social justice warriors.

If social justice warriors would just fu'ck off, we could actually make some progress."

Hector Bellend

August Ames had a fantastic pair of fun bags on her.

I'll miss her.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Saruhashi

greencap wrote: »

People of all persuasions and camps and sides do this kind of thing, the pile on.

The opportunity to vent ones bile safely and almost anonymously, with the support of the crowd against one individual, especially one found in the wrong.

I've experience of it myself, albeit for much less serious stuff.

I had the crowd turn on me and for no reason, two or three people targeted me, a fourth saw and joined in, then a fifth and so on, til there was about 30 people just trying to pick on me for nothing in particular - not whinging its just I've seen it first hand, you don't have to even do anything, if some people see the opportunity they'll join in like rioters. Vent their spleen from safety and fade away.

I think it's especially dangerous when they think they are doing the "right thing".

I'd imagine that's what's happening in this case. Convince enough people that this lady was homophobic and suddenly it doesn't really matter how badly you treat her because it's all in service of a good cause.

If she dies? Well hey there's one less homophobic person in the world.

You think they should go easy on her? You're not defending homophobic people, are you? *knife sharpening intensifies*

Plenty of people do bad things knowing fully that what they are doing is bad and wrong. They probably even feel some kind of guilt of self loathing about being an objectively bad person.

In cases like this though you have people doing bad things but firmly believing that what they are doing is objectively good. It seems that many of them buy into the idea that there are no bad tactics, only bad targets.

_Dara_

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

EDIT: Case in point, I vehemently support repealing the eighth amendment, but I don't believe in denying the pro-life crowd a platform to campaign against repealing it. SJWs, on the other hand, think it's ok within a democratic system to pull down the opposition's posters, and harass third party platforms into denying them a meeting space or a voice.

As far as I know, extreme campaigners on both sides get up to these kinds of shenanigans. (certainly, poster-ripping and protesting meetings taking place have happened for both sides.) So if pro-choice campaigners that do this stuff are classed pejoratively as SJWs, what moniker is given to pro-life campaigners who indulge in same? And why do you only mention pro-choicers who get up to this kind of nonsense? Surely it's shitty either way?

Saruhashi

_Dara_ wrote: »

As far as I know, extreme campaigners on both sides get up to these kinds of shenanigans. (certainly, poster-ripping and protesting meetings taking place have happened for both sides.) So if pro-choice campaigners that do this stuff are classed as SJWs, what moniker is given to pro-life campaigners who indulge in same?

Alt-Right?

I think the internet is just SJW vs Alt-Right at this stage.

If you refuse to take sides then then SJWs will call you Alt-Right and Alt-righters will call you SJW. Then they will both come after you! Good luck!

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And in my view, it isn't. There's precedents for content to be delayed for various reasons - porn is just another media, same as movies, TV shows, and anything else. It's a lot less respected socially than these other things, sure, but it is getting more mainstream with every passing year.

In my eyes, delaying the release of her scene is no different than the recent series of the Punisher being delayed because of the Las Vegas shooting, or Gone Baby Gone being delayed because of Madeline McCann.

RayM

Deleted User wrote: »

I feel like SJW is like "f*ckboy". It's a term that's thrown around quite a lot lately, but if you ask people exactly what they mean, nobody really has a definitive answer.

It seems to be interchangeable with "virtue signaler" and "do-gooder" among awful unimaginative bores who get accused of shitty behaviour and are too thick to come up with a better insult.

nozzferrahhtoo

Amazing that an expression of sexual preference now constitutes a phobia to some people. I myself so far in my life have never once found myself attracted to a man or woman of color. My entire sexual attraction matrix appears to be based on pale Irish skin. I even turned down a threesome in college that friends of mine were almost begging me to take up for their vicarious pleasure due to them being unattractive to me.

So I suppose I am someone with Negrophobia now or what?

I have heard that in some areas where porn is produced that there is a lot of pressure on participants to consent to the partners chosen for them. And being too picky or selective can get you a bad name, make you lose work, get black listed or worse. As a complete supporter of pornography and someone not at all convinced by the moral and ethical arguments against pornography (such as they are), I do think that that is an aspect that needs to be addressed better in some areas.

This ex-porn actress speaks a lot about that very thing in this "Why I left porn" video.

_Dara_

If I was a porn actress (there's a sentence I never thought I would type), I would hesitate to have sex with a man who had also had sex with men. I don't know why that is but there you go. Maybe that makes me a homophobe? But intellectually, I'm not. Viscerally... maybe?

retro:electro

Personally I wouldn't have sex with a man who has had sex with another man. It's a personal preference and it's my choice to make. I'm not homophobic whateverphobic phobicphobic. It's a bloody choice. If people get offended by that I don't really GAF

RocketRaccoon

I can't actually figure it out from this thread so could someone throw me a little TL;DR? Are people saying this girl was in the wrong to do what she did?