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

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Where does it say I said she didn't have the right not to? I said in a work place, I grin and bear it. I don't quit and complain online.

But you can quit at any time...Unless your a slave? ?

.....your trying to run rough shod over someone's right to not consent to sex.....no matter how much you shout and say homophobic over and over...it's what it looks like to me

Your health is alway worth more than any money you'll ever earn

Help!!!! wrote: »

She can be called out on it, for sure but no one should be told to kill themselves.

This is the internet. A woman working on a Mass Effect game gets told to kill herself. ****. It happens. Turn off your twitter if you don't like what you are reading.

Help!!!! wrote: »

She can be called out on it, for sure but no one should be told to kill themselves.

We also don't know what kind of abuse or threats she was getting privately.

I don't like the "kill yourself" thing, but at least it's just a suggestion. Usually when someone's getting that sort of crap, they're also getting private messages along the lines of "I'm going to kill you" or "I'm going to hack all your accounts and release your private information."

That kind of stuff needs to be really strongly dealt with, because it's so easy to do but can create such absolute terror.

tomwaterford wrote: »

But you can quit at any time...Unless your a slave? ?

.....your trying to run rough shod over someone's right to not consent to sex.....no matter how much you shout and say homophobic over and over...it's what it looks like to me

Your health is alway worth more than any money you'll ever earn

Don't you know that bad grammar triggers JackTaylorFan?

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Where does it say I said she didn't have the right not to? I said in a work place, I grin and bear it. I don't quit and complain online.

Are you in the porn industry as well? Bit different having to put up with some ar$ehole of a colleague rather that some colleague trying to put something up your ----

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

This is the internet. A woman working on a Mass Effect game gets told to kill herself. ****. It happens. Turn off your twitter if you don't like what you are reading.

Grim AF

She can't say xy and z.....but your ok to go online and abuse the crap outta her

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

For the record: I have not argued once, that this woman did not have the right to choose who she "worked" with - simply suggesting her motives were based in prejudice

Sure, and for the most part I even agree with you. The distinction however is WHERE we think that prejudice lay.

She said, and I take her word for it, that it was with the gay porn industry. You think, for some reason, that it was against homosexuals. That being, you might have noticed, what the word "homophobia" actually means.

I can only repeat for you that:

She did say: "you’re shooting with a guy who has shot gay porn"

She did not say "you’re shooting with a guy who has had gay sex".

She did not say "you’re shooting with a guy who has engaged in homosexual behavior".

So it seems you are reading what a person said, but simply hearing what you want to hear while doing so.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Well, then she deserved some of the abuse she got. fair is fair.

Nope. If someone (she certainly didn't) expresses an abhorrent attitude or idea through free expression, then similar free expression should be used to combat the ideas or attitudes thus expressed. Escalating that to abuse however is not "fair" at all.

"Abuse" tends to be the go to approach for people who can not actually articulate a rebuttal to what a person espoused. If she expressed a position that was wrong or erroneous or harmful or damaging (she didn't, but if) then the "fair" response is to clearly and maturely explain to her the error of her ways.

Abuse is rarely (ever?) an approach that is "fair". Let alone at the level of the mob.

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't you know that bad grammar triggers JackTaylorFan?

:pac: "Triggers" is one of those buzzwords bellends use on social media

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

:pac: "Triggers" is one of those buzzwords bellends use on social media

Seems appropriate so.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

This is the internet. A woman working on a Mass Effect game gets told to kill herself. ****. It happens. Turn off your twitter if you don't like what you are reading.

Shouldn't the people offended by her tweet not abide by the same logic, then?

It's not acceptable to post public attacks about your colleagues online no matter what industry you work in, but equally it's not acceptable to threaten people or tell them to kill themselves.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Don't you know that bad grammar triggers JackTaylorFan?

Tbh I'm a bit tick on the grammer front

I could never get me head about it

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Where does it say I said she didn't have the right not to? I said in a work place, I grin and bear it. I don't quit and complain online.

What's wrong with someone standing up for themselves because they choose not to grin and bear being subjected to poor working conditions? Instead of condemning her for drawing attention to the ill treatment and disrespect shown to women in the adult entertainment industry, she should have been commended for her actions, because far too many women are afraid to speak out for fear of condemnation, and your attitude only contributes to that fear of being condemned for speaking out.

tomwaterford wrote: »

Tbh I'm a bit tick on the grammer front

I could never get me head about it

Ever use Grammarly? It's f*cking amazing, if you haven't.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ever use Grammarly? It's f*cking amazing, if you haven't.

This is an app...i assume

May check it out✌

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

She did say: "you’re shooting with a guy who has shot gay porn"

She did not say "you’re shooting with a guy who has had gay sex".

She did not say "you’re shooting with a guy who has engaged in homosexual behavior".

All the above are interchangeable statement and all amount to the same meaning - i.e. She refused to work with a guy because he had gay sex. Your argument is circular.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So it seems you are reading what a person said, but simply hearing what you want to hear while doing so.

Nope. If someone (she certainly didn't) expresses an abhorrent attitude or idea through free expression, then similar free expression should be used to combat the ideas or attitudes thus expressed. Escalating that to abuse however is not "fair" at all.

"Abuse" tends to be the go to approach for people who can not actually articulate a rebuttal to what a person espoused. If she expressed a position that was wrong or erroneous or harmful or damaging (she didn't, but if) then the "fair" response is to clearly and maturely explain to her the error of her ways.

Abuse is rarely (ever?) an approach that is "fair". Let alone at the level of the mob.

She tweeted her reasoning for discriminating within a workplace. You may not call it abuse, but it's a prejudice she aired on a public platform.

tomwaterford wrote: »

This is an app...i assume

May check it out✌

It's an extension that works with Chrome. It works as a spell check, but also checks grammar.

https://www.grammarly.com/

People are as*holes.
Give them twitter etc and watch them be as*holes online.

Let's be naive here too... There would be some who after reading about her suicide will smile and say "good" to themselves.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's an extension that works with Chrome. It works as a spell check, but also checks grammar.

https://www.grammarly.com/

Looking into this now....no android app yet

...but should have laptop back up and running next week

Deleted User wrote: »

Ever use Grammarly? It's f*cking amazing, if you haven't.

Grammarly is ****e, to be fair. It's mostly about enabling introverted misanthropes. I no longer follow it on my Facebook

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

If her reasoning for not consenting is based on any of the terms covered by the discriminatory in the workplace laws in her country? Yes.

To be honest here if the workplace laws in any country are such that, in the porn industry, an employer can order a woman to have sex with someone and she cannot refuse then those laws need to change.

There has to be some kind of clause that allows her to say "no, I don't want to do this" and she can walk away without punishment. Anything else is immoral to be honest.

I don't really care what her reason is. If an individual doesn't want to have sex with someone for any reason at all then that's the end of it.

It's kind of disgusting and disturbing that there are people trying to find a way around this.

Why would you even want to find a way around it?

If she says no then that's it. The end.

What good does it do anyone if we develop the idea that refusing to have sex with someone could result in being branded "phobic" and that could come with severe social shaming and/or backlash?

So women will always have to consider that some people can't be refused because there might be consequences if you say "no".

Didn't we just spend months having this kind of thing exposed in Hollywood and we all agreed that it's wrong?

I guess future Weinstein types will be saying "just come up to my room for a drink baby, it would be a real shame if the Twitter mob was calling you a Nazi tomorrow".

Saruhashi wrote: »

To be honest here if the workplace laws in any country are such that, in the porn industry, an employer can order a woman to have sex with someone and she cannot refuse then those laws need to change.

There has to be some kind of clause that allows her to say "no, I don't want to do this" and she can walk away without punishment. Anything else is immoral to be honest.

I don't really care what her reason is. If an individual doesn't want to have sex with someone for any reason at all then that's the end of it.

It's kind of disgusting and disturbing that there are people trying to find a way around this.

Why would you even want to find a way around it?

If she says no then that's it. The end.

What good does it do anyone if we develop the idea that refusing to have sex with someone could result in being branded "phobic" and that could come with severe social shaming and/or backlash?

So women will always have to consider that some people can't be refused because there might be consequences if you say "no".

Didn't we just spend months having this kind of thing exposed in Hollywood and we all agreed that it's wrong?

I guess future Weinstein types will be saying "just come up to my room for a drink baby, it would be a real shame if the Twitter mob was calling you a Nazi tomorrow".

I am not refusing a porn star's right to deny working with someone. But when the decision is based on homophobia I think it's fair to call her a homophobe. She really didn't need to transmit a personal work matter with the whole internet. It was silly, at best. And it's very sad she killed herself over it.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

I am not refusing a porn star's right to deny working with someone. But when the decision is based on homophobia I think it's fair to call her a homophobe. She really didn't need to transmit a personal work matter with the whole internet. It was silly, at best. And it's very sad she killed herself over it.

I would never have sex with a man that has had sex with another man, does that make me a homophobe?

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.

??? Ask someone what they mean by social justice and you'll have a much more difficult time.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nope, that's not her job description. She is an actor. She has employment law on her side, whereas all you appear to have is just your opinion.

Lol... Spraying some fine ass bull**** here.

I'm sure you watch porn for the Shakespearean level acting and not the ****ing part too, then?

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

I am not refusing a porn star's right to deny working with someone. But when the decision is based on homophobia I think it's fair to call her a homophobe. She really didn't need to transmit a personal work matter with the whole internet. It was silly, at best. And it's very sad she killed herself over it.

you keep using that word but I don't think it means what you think it means. Everyone makes risk based decision, Ive decided not to go to Somalia for my summer holidays because its too risky, does that make me racist? (No is the required answer here)

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

??? Ask someone what they mean by social justice and you'll have a much more difficult time.

This.

People who throw around the term Social Justice Warrior do it to try and belittle valid points. It's ad hominEminem - or however you spray it

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

All the above are interchangeable statement and all amount to the same meaning - i.e. She refused to work with a guy because he had gay sex. Your argument is circular.

Had gay sex =/= Had gay sex in a gay porn film

She refused to work with a guy who had performed in a gay porn film. Yes, that brings about all sorts of health risks and she felt it wasn't a risk worth taking, especially as it could affect not only her health but also her career.

Her actions were not discriminatory, as it's quite obvious that when it comes to the industry she works in, there can be segregation based on sexuality as part of the job (eg. people's sexuality is an important factor in most cases as opposed to being discriminated against where sexuality does not affect the job). There is also a much higher risk of contracting an STD through what their job entails compared to simply working in the same environment as someone with an STD.

You simply cannot treat this case as being along the same lines as if she refused to work in an office job with a gay man in case he had HIV/Aids. The porn industry is not a normal workplace and there are inherent risks involved in same. It's not discriminatory to protect yourself from those risks.

Saruhashi wrote: »

It's kind of disgusting and disturbing that there are people trying to find a way around this.

Why would you even want to find a way around it?

For their own ends, basically. It's really not all that new, the idea of shaming and condemning women in order to guilt trip them into having sex with someone they don't want to. "The Cotton Ceiling" is the term used in some quarters -

Cotton ceiling is the situation of trans women of being excluded from cisgender-dominated women's and gay spaces — specifically within the dating scene, but also society in general. The term was coined by Canadian trans woman and activist Drew DeVeaux. The term has been criticized by supporters of other feminist movements who claim the term suggests that sexual access to women is a right, the denial of which constitutes oppression or marginalization. These critics of the term also view trans women as people targeting lesbian women who assert their boundaries.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

This.

People who throw around the term Social Justice Warrior do it to try and belittle valid points. It's ad hominEminem - or however you spray it

So --- the same as your pointing out grammar mistakes, then?

silverharp wrote: »

you keep using that word but I don't think it means what you think it means. Everyone makes risk based decision, Ive decided not to go to Somalia for my summer holidays because its too risky, does that make me racist? (No is the required answer here)

If they guy is working in straight porn - he is subject to the same testing as all straight porn actors. That is the crux here. She refused to work with him based on her deep seeded fears and prejudices. End of.

I'm out this garbage pile.