History of Feminism

Orrex

(63,224 posts)

50. That's a meaningless objection.

Mon Sep 15, 2014, 01:33 PM

Sep 2014

By your reasoning:
When Bob ran a stop light in 2013, it wasn't called a moving violation by the cop who saw him do it; therefore running a stop light can never be called a moving violation.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

97 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Online abuse, leaked nudes and revenge porn: this is nothing less than terrorism against women [View all] seabeyond Sep 2014 OP

“This could happen to you, you uppity bitch. Watch your mouth.” Tuesday Afternoon Sep 2014 #1

just saying. can happen? does happen. crickets. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #2

we have watched it happen, haven't we, sea - Tuesday Afternoon Sep 2014 #3

who is the worse offender? creating DU women rape porn fantasy? rape threats? or uppity women that seabeyond Sep 2014 #4

I'm with you sea JustAnotherGen Sep 2014 #5

I understand what you are saying. It is happening to me, also. My last two hides happened Tuesday Afternoon Sep 2014 #6

yes. taken out of jury pool. taken out of serving in host. all kinds of means, shutting us down. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #8

Yes, it is built into the system, whether it is an unintentional consequence or not, It Is Inherent Tuesday Afternoon Sep 2014 #13

i know. lol. after 3, 4, 5th kick off du, i was hearing rumblings i should feel shame. lol. seabeyond Sep 2014 #14

I stand with you, sea. I am learning a lesson but, I don't think it is the one intended. Tuesday Afternoon Sep 2014 #24

beautiful post tuesday. i hear ya.... sister. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #27

I am sooooo glad I put down my coffee-- YOU need to be nicer, niyad Sep 2014 #26

some of us like you just the way you are! seabeyond Sep 2014 #28

Yup, saw that. And that list should continue on...sea sheshe2 Sep 2014 #80

Are you saying the OP's you mentioned were allowed to stand? CrispyQ Sep 2014 #7

the throwing around the cum at me, specifically, were hidden. The OP was allowed to stand, seabeyond Sep 2014 #9

I logged in just to see the hidden post by Baines???? If that hide is not proof that their are AuntPatsy Sep 2014 #10

did you notice if she was still flagged? i havent checked. seabeyond Sep 2014 #11

Last time I looked yes AuntPatsy Sep 2014 #16

no, she is no longer flagged, sea. sheshe2 Sep 2014 #22

thank you sheshe. i had not read that. a message to be heard. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #25

Yes, sheshe2, she is still flagged. her Transparency Tab is still Yellow. She can not post Tuesday Afternoon Sep 2014 #29

no. she is not flagged. flagged is two or more hides, small period of time. cannot pm. seabeyond Sep 2014 #31

I am using the word FLAGGED because her Transparency Tab is FLAGGED bright YELLOW Tuesday Afternoon Sep 2014 #33

Thanks Tuesday, sheshe2 Sep 2014 #32

I think sea did mean FLAGGED FOR REVIEW and YES there is a difference. Tuesday Afternoon Sep 2014 #34

Stay safe, Tuesday... sheshe2 Sep 2014 #81

The good news is feminisms not only isn't "dead" ismnotwasm Sep 2014 #12

yup. ism. you are so right on. now it is so, in the face, people simply cannot pretend, seabeyond Sep 2014 #15

and that is wonderful news to hear. niyad Sep 2014 #19

woman.... how are you doing? good to see you. seabeyond Sep 2014 #20

doing okay here. computer problems, so not spending much time niyad Sep 2014 #21

still sittin in wait, and i do it so well. yet, looking to wrap shit up seabeyond Sep 2014 #30

k and r + gazillion. no matter how some try to deny it, we know niyad Sep 2014 #17

I'm surprised Apple is getting away with all of it at the moment jakeXT Sep 2014 #18

you wonder how a whole lot of powerful rich men are getting away with misogyny? lol. seabeyond Sep 2014 #23

If Longoria didn't want that creep to call her, she shouldn't have owned a phone. Orrex Sep 2014 #35

Calling a spade a spade. Bravo. riqster Sep 2014 #36

Leaked nudes weren't called "terrorism" after it happened to Vanessa Hudgens or Scarlett Johansson. Eric J in MN Sep 2014 #37

wrong seabeyond Sep 2014 #38

Who called it "terrorism" after it happened to Vanessa Hudgens or Scarlett Johansson? NT Eric J in MN Sep 2014 #39

15 yrs ago is not today. that would be the first and simplest explanation. what is clear, seabeyond Sep 2014 #41

The leak of Scarlett Johansson nude photos was in 2011. NT Eric J in MN Sep 2014 #43

whatever your purpose is here, i am not playing, i do not care seabeyond Sep 2014 #46

this is where i am having issues with your post. did you read the article? cause i can see no way seabeyond Sep 2014 #40

I read your excerpt. NT Eric J in MN Sep 2014 #42

It simply wasn't recognized then, but it's all part of the same pattern, obviously. n/t pnwmom Sep 2014 #44

Should people who posted hacked-and-leaked photos of nude celebrities be charged with terrorism Eric J in MN Sep 2014 #45

put them in fuckin prison. you betcha. criminal behavior. lock em up seabeyond Sep 2014 #47

For decades? NT Eric J in MN Sep 2014 #48

There are different levels of all crimes, including terrorism. So, no, they shouldn't go to prison pnwmom Sep 2014 #49

So true ismnotwasm Sep 2014 #68

Your seem to be here to derail the conversation ismnotwasm Sep 2014 #51

Expressing a contrary opinion isn't "derailing." Eric J in MN Sep 2014 #53

Well perhaps. ismnotwasm Sep 2014 #54

It isn't just the title. Eric J in MN Sep 2014 #56

What would you prefer it to be called ismnotwasm Sep 2014 #60

It's hacking. NT Eric J in MN Sep 2014 #63

And the personal and social repercussion for the persons involved? ismnotwasm Sep 2014 #64

this article has gone beyond talking about merely hacking, talking about a social structure that is seabeyond Sep 2014 #66

He didn't read the article ismnotwasm Sep 2014 #69

This message was self-deleted by its author seabeyond Sep 2014 #72

Hence, you're not taking exception with the actual premise of the article, merely the use of idioms LanternWaste Sep 2014 #83

i really wish more would take serious thought with what this article is saying. seabeyond Sep 2014 #84

Calling hacking "terrorism" is the premise of the article. NT Eric J in MN Sep 2014 #85

The premise is calling "deliberately outrageous acts designed to create a spectacle and to instill LanternWaste Sep 2014 #86

The hackers weren't trying to spread fear. NT Eric J in MN Sep 2014 #87

merely a thing to use, not a human. yes. it is clear the message. that is precisely what they are seabeyond Sep 2014 #88

Your allegation rather than an objective analysis. And yet it does indeed, spread fear. LanternWaste Sep 2014 #96

That's a meaningless objection. Orrex Sep 2014 #50

There have been lots of celebrities whose photos were leaked previously. Eric J in MN Sep 2014 #52

Times are changing ismnotwasm Sep 2014 #55

And the guy who hacked Scarlett Johansson is doing a decade in prison. JTFrog Sep 2014 #57

People convicted of terrorism get decades in prison, not one decade. Eric J in MN Sep 2014 #61

Oh for fuck's sake. JTFrog Sep 2014 #62

This message was self-deleted by its author seabeyond Sep 2014 #67

This message was self-deleted by its author ismnotwasm Sep 2014 #70

If you're referring to me, I never wrote anything of the sort. NT Eric J in MN Sep 2014 #71

werent you in the continuous threads defending the right to view the pictures and ignoring the women seabeyond Sep 2014 #73

This is the only DU thread on this subject I've posted in. NT Eric J in MN Sep 2014 #74

That seems to be true ismnotwasm Sep 2014 #75

Yes, I want the word "terrorism" to be used in a limited way. NT Eric J in MN Sep 2014 #77

it is being used in the manner it is defined. not your way, but the proper manner. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #78

Ok I get your objection now ismnotwasm Sep 2014 #79

Dictionaries want something else. Let's defer to them, hmmm? LanternWaste Sep 2014 #97

ahhhh. i believe i was mixing you up with another. at least he has an interest in womens issues. seabeyond Sep 2014 #76

now you are holding tight to the term terrorism. here is a simple definition for you. seabeyond Sep 2014 #65

Refresh my memory, because I haven't followed the prior examples too closely. Orrex Sep 2014 #58

what a stupid conclusion you give to a well argued article. cause people like this woman? really? seabeyond Sep 2014 #59

i wanna kick this cause i really like the article. nt seabeyond Sep 2014 #82

There really is an implied aspect of intimidation to it. Somewhat similar to the rape/murder threats nomorenomore08 Sep 2014 #89

I think that last line covers a lot of ground as far as the 'why' ismnotwasm Sep 2014 #90

interesting. and i would also like to explore, the women that do not intimidate. seabeyond Sep 2014 #91

Yeah ismnotwasm Sep 2014 #92

lmao.... +1. two different man got us to the same point. OR seabeyond Sep 2014 #93

K&R freshwest Sep 2014 #94

woman. seabeyond Sep 2014 #95