nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

SJW campaign leads to porn star suicide.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/august-ames-dead-porn-actress-suicide-body-adult-films-actor-a8096496.html

So basically August refused to do a scene with a male star who also does Gay porn scenes. This was apparently because gay porn actors do not get tested because they wear condoms. However there was huge backlash against the girl for this by women and gay men on social media platforms to the point where they told the girl to kill herself.

Is it time to start handing out harsh punishments for bullying on social media?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

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?

Half the thread is people giving out about the mob and bullying, the rest is people upset at the usage of "SJW".

RayM wrote: »

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.

And those in turn seem to be interchangeable with "awful unimaginative bores" and "too thick to come up with a better insult" among do-gooders who get accused of virtue signalling.

Speedwell wrote: »

Independently of anything here, including the telltale "SJW" which announces to the aware that the OP is against social justice,

It's possible to be in favour of social justice while having a general disapproval of Social Justice Warriors, just as it is possible to be Pro-Life while having a general disapproval of Pro-Lifers.

RayM wrote: »

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.

Not particularly. Usually people that are offended by the term by an abnormal amount could probably use the term for themselves.

_Dara_ wrote: »

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?

anna080 wrote: »

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

I'm just curious, not attacking your choice at all, as it is your choice. I'm just wondering why you feel that way. Is it to do with a concern about unprotected sex in the past and possible STIs or is it just that the thought or idea that a man has had sex with another man turns you off them sexually?

This post has been deleted.

anna080 wrote: »

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.

Unfortunately, all too often, they do, because social media allows for very public humiliation of an individual, and there have been many examples of young people who have taken their own lives following their public humiliation on social media.

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 don't think it's particularly platform specific, same thing goes on here on Boards all the time for example.

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.

It does, but that shouldn't be a mitigating factor for the bullying behaviour of the people who directly contributed to this young woman's decision to take her own life. The even more horrible thing is that those people will feel their behaviour was justified. They won't recognise their behaviour as bullying because they have themselves convinced of their own righteousness, validated and judtified by the mob mentality they're all part of. It's only when they themselves as individuals are the target of public humiliation that they'll cry foul.

Infini wrote: »

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."

It's ironic to think that SJWs probably indirectly helped to get Trump elected.

A lot of psychologists frequent AH, I was not aware of this.

As for the OPs question, bullying is bullying, regardless of the median, and should be dealt with severely.

Gijoseph wrote: »

Not particularly. Usually people that are offended by the term by an abnormal amount could probably use the term for themselves.

Very much this.

anna080 wrote: »

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

I think the problem is that people are not just getting offended anymore.

That would be fine. Someone says something I don't like and I get offended and that's that.

Groups of people have convinced themselves that words are tantamount to violence. Since meeting violence with violence could technically be seen as self defense, there's only one way this can go.

We've seen how it goes because historically we know what happened to many people who once "offended" religious sensibilities. The causing of offence was seen as fundamentally dangerous and was dealt with as though the person causing offence was a danger to society.

So you post a thing like "I wouldn't have sex with a man who has had sex with another man" and someone takes it upon themselves to find out who you are and where you work etc and then suddenly it's a serious problem.

Or maybe they go to other people who might be less rational and more quick to violence and sneakily convince them that you are a "Nazi" and we all know what should be done with Nazis.

The worst thing is that the person doing this might think that they are doing a good thing.

You said these words therefore they've interpreted that and applied this label to you. Now they are going to administer the agreed punishment for being an <insert label here>.

Anyone who defends you or says "hey, this is going to far now" is an <insert label here> apologist which is really just the same as <insert label here> so they can face the punishment too.

For cultures like the USA, Canada and Ireland etc this is completely regressive.

anna080 wrote: »

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

I'm with you, the way I look at it is, I am perfectly entitled to only have sex with people I want to have sex with, I couldn't give a rats arse what anyone else thinks of my reason.
If you're too fat, skinny, tall, short, white, black, young, old or whatever for my tastes that is all the reason I need right there. No correspondence will be entered into!

LadyMacBeth_ wrote: »

I'm just curious, not attacking your choice at all, as it is your choice. I'm just wondering why you feel that way. Is it to do with a concern about unprotected sex in the past and possible STIs or is it just that the thought or idea that a man has had sex with another man turns you off them sexually?

I honestly don’t know. I can’t quite put my finger on it. I’m straight and I think I’d prefer a sexual partner to be too. Statistically, HIV is much more likely if you have anal sex often too due to bodily mechanics, that’s another issue at the back of my mind.

I'd say a few posters here are so angry that they can't call others misogynists. They've had to resort to their permanent offence at the term SJW.

Hitman3000 wrote: »

A gay cake?

Bakers up north found to be breaking the law by not doing business with someone based on their sexuality. This girl's business was her body. Seems like a reasonable parallel to me.

LadyMacBeth_ wrote: »

I'm just curious, not attacking your choice at all, as it is your choice. I'm just wondering why you feel that way. Is it to do with a concern about unprotected sex in the past and possible STIs or is it just that the thought or idea that a man has had sex with another man turns you off them sexually?

It's just a preference, LMB. I suppose if I'm being honest with myself it just does nothing for me to imagine two men together. It doesn't turn me on and as a straight person I'd prefer it if my partner was straight too.
As Dara said above me HIV is also more prevalent among gay/bi men too. I suppose that fact is there are the back of my mind too contributing to my decision.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm with you, the way I look at it is, I am perfectly entitled to only have sex with people I want to have sex with, I couldn't give a rats arse what anyone else thinks of my reason.
If you're too fat, skinny, tall, short, white, black, young, old or whatever for my tastes that is all the reason I need right there. No correspondence will be entered into!

I would like to refer you to the following article from Everyday Feminism.

https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/12/dating-preferences-discriminatory/

I'm sorry but, in respect to your "tastes", that's pretty discriminatory.

So you disagree with "Everyday Feminism"? That means you don't agree that men and women should be treated equally under the law. So you are a misogynist. You know who else is misogynists? The alt-right. You know another name for the alt right? Nazis.

Hey everyone! This poster over here is a Nazi! Get them!

I'm just a good person though. A very good guy. Reasonable too.
None of you are as good as me.

Yours sincerely,

A Warrior for Social Justice. xx

I don't think it was so much based on whether she had an opinion on the rights or wrongs of gay sex. It was due to the maddening fact that performers are not tested.

_Dara_ wrote: »

I honestly don’t know. I can’t quite put my finger on it. I’m straight and I think I’d prefer a sexual partner to be too. Statistically, HIV is much more likely if you have anal sex often too due to bodily mechanics, that’s another issue at the back of my mind.

anna080 wrote: »

It's just a preference, LMB. I suppose if I'm being honest with myself it just does nothing for me to imagine two men together. It doesn't turn me on and as a straight person I'd prefer it if my partner was straight too.
As Dara said above me HIV is also more prevalent among gay men too. I suppose that fact is there are the back of my mind too contributing to my decision.

Thanks for your replies, I've just never really thought about it. I'm coming from a different place as a bi-sexual person though. I think it's probably similar to the fact that I generally tend to be more attracted to white people than black people or Asian people. I don't consider it to be racist, just my general sexual preference.

Just edited to say that I suppose it struck a cord with me because I've often heard of gay/straight people not wanting to go out with bi people because of the stereotype of promiscuity and other reasons like this. It is of course everyone's individual choice but I am uncomfortable with the idea that someone would rule me out because of my sexuality alone. Then again they could rule me out because I'm a chubster, or because they aren't typically attracted to white people and I couldn't object to that.

suicide_circus wrote: »

Bakers up north found to be breaking the law by not doing business with someone based on their sexuality. This girl's business was her body. Seems like a reasonable parallel to me.

To be fair, that person in the north only wanted them to bake a cake, not put his untested bodily fluids into them. So I'm not sure I'd call it a reasonable parallel.

Gijoseph wrote: »

I don't think it was so much based on whether she had an opinion on the rights or wrongs of gay sex. It was due to the maddening fact that performers are not tested.

I think this is perfectly rational position to hold

Gijoseph wrote: »

I don't think it was so much based on whether she had an opinion on the rights or wrongs of gay sex. It was due to the maddening fact that performers are not tested.

Exactly! She made no comment about gay sex, and she wouldn't because she would be aware that a number of straight male performers also do gay porn because it simply pays better and there are more opportunities for them than just doing straight porn.

To me it sounds like what she said was purposely misconstrued in order to publicly humiliate her for something she hadn't even implied.

tomwaterford wrote: »

I think this is perfectly rational position to hold

Not to the irrational idiots that bullied the crap out of her.

RayM wrote: »

To be fair, that person in the north only wanted them to bake a cake, not put his untested bodily fluids into them. So I'm not sure I'd call it a reasonable parallel.

Agree to disagree. The principle is the same.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Exactly! She made no comment about gay sex, and she wouldn't because she would be aware that a number of straight male performers also do gay porn because it simply pays better and there are more opportunities for them than just doing straight porn.

To me it sounds like what she said was purposely misconstrued in order to publicly humiliate her for something she hadn't even implied.

Hence why I used SJW as a term. The headline reading mouth breathers failed to pick up on that.

RayM wrote: »

To be fair, that person in the north only wanted them to bake a cake, not put his untested bodily fluids into them. So I'm not sure I'd call it a reasonable parallel.

I would hope a court wouldnt be retarded and make a similar judgement if something like ever became a case but I think the parallels are there none the less

LadyMacBeth_ wrote: »

I'm just curious, not attacking your choice at all, as it is your choice. I'm just wondering why you feel that way. Is it to do with a concern about unprotected sex in the past and possible STIs or is it just that the thought or idea that a man has had sex with another man turns you off them sexually?

I have a scary feeling that it's harking back to the start of AIDS and a WHOLLY UNFOUNDED myth that only gay men got it.

Would I sleep with a man who had also previously slept with a man ? Why ever not ???

silverharp wrote: »

I would hope a court wouldnt be retarded and make a similar judgement if something like ever became a case but I think the parallels are there none the less

I think the parallels could be there, if and only if the baker sincerely believes that baking the cake could potentially result in negative personal consequences - like being struck down by a wrathful God. Otherwise I'm not seeing it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

To me it sounds like what she said was purposely misconstrued in order to publicly humiliate her for something she hadn't even implied.

I would say this is exactly what has happened.

I don't think it's particularly unusual human behavior as, in real life, I've witnessed such behavior in groups I've been part of over the years. People trying to victimize others by spreading half-truths or misinterpretations. They always tried to hide it though.

There seems to be a growing trend of these kind of things being done openly and in public. It can even get to the extent of people having misrepresentations of their character and points of view openly shared by media outlets.

It's disturbing to watch someone be lied about and bullied in public and not being able to do anything about it.

I mean not even being able to speak up about it on an anonymous internet forum without having people implying that you are against social justice.

Look at the OP here for example. The 5th reply to the OP was a statement that the OP is against social justice. A post with 7 likes.

So long as the "right" people are being targeted and you can gain some sense of being virtuous by joining the mob then nobody really seems to care.

suicide_circus wrote: »

Agree to disagree. The principle is the same.

I dunno, a cake is a food item. A human being is an individual with preferences and a desire to avoid health issues as far as possible.

Call me crazy, but I think one might be slightly more important than the other with more complex issues as a result of their sentience.

I hope that doesn't come across as discrimination against cakes.