"I could just have easily written 'I prefer LD's tweet.' But people are so touchy about anything that suggests an actual comparison of IQs. A lot of pride and anxiety at that location, I suspect."
Said I, commenting at 5:01 AM at what is at the moment the end of a comments thread on a post where I'd called Lena Dunham's tweet about the naked-celebrity-pics leak "smarter" than the tweet by Ricky Gervais.
I didn't even say I thought Lena is smarter than Ricky, though it sure would be fun to watch them go head to head on the LSAT.
ADDED: Ricky's subtextual message to readers of his tweet was: It's okay to look at the pictures. Lena's overt message was: "It's not okay." That's the basis for my preference.
September 2, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
107 comments:
I think you misunderstand, Professor. One of the two said something obvious, and the other said something stupid.
Whether you think Dunham's statement was smarter or instead you just prefer it, for whatever reasons you may have, it was still still stupid.
I don't know or care which of the two would do better on the LSAT. Smart people say stupid things all the time.
The chasm between common sense and intelligence continues to widen.
Well, I'm up early for school (though not mine).
I'd be interested in seeing a chart of the time stamps on blog posts and comments from last Tuesday to today. There might be quite a sharp rise in early posts, and a corresponding drop-off in late evening ones.
What does 'smart' even mean?
we need more: practical, useful, insightful, funny, poignant, ...
I don't think it was the word choice so much as the preference of Dunham's idiotic rehashing of "proper" fauxminist rhetoric over Gervais' common sense statement.
Could you explain exactly why you thought Dunham made the better statement?
"What does 'smart' even mean?"
The oldest meanings have to do with inflicting pain: sharp, stinging, quick, intense.
You see how that becomes cleverness.
"I don't think it was the word choice so much as…"
That's fine, but my point here is that there was static over the word "smarter." I can't rerun the experiment and see the reaction without that word, but I am theorizing that people have a particular sensitivity about comparative intelligence, so you're only disputing that if you want to say the reaction would have been the same if I'd said merely that I prefer LD's comment.
Also, Gervais meant to be funny, not just to issue a common sense statement.
He apologized for making his joke like that. He didn't stand by it as common sense.
Well, twitter doesn't lend itself to intelligent discourse. Witty banter, sometimes. But not discourse.
I think Gervais would have been better off saying something like, "Those are some interesting pictures you took with a device that can literally instantly send them around the world."
Also, I don't understand why everyone is focusing on the Jennifer Lawrence pictures, which were racy, but not "intimate.". The Kate Upton pictures are very much violations of her privacy, those are the ones women should be upset about. Many were private pictures of her and her boyfriend, intimate moments they shared with each other. But that's jiggly Kate Upton, a model who sells herself on her curvy sexuality. She's not a stand up, sometimes fall down drunk, Feminist Icon like J-Law.
I mean, that's what I've heard about the pictures anyhow.
"Also, Gervais meant to be funny, not just to issue a common sense statement."
I sure didn't read it that way. I think Gervais was saying "Don't do stupid stuff" (to borrow a phrase).
I'm not sure why we should put forward the LSAT as a mark of intelligence or common sense, two characteristics the people who took these photographs seem to lack. Like many people they bought their phones and agreed to have photographs backed up to iCloud, placing their faith in the Church of Apple.
BTW, when I heard of this yesterday, I looked at 4chan.org, and Miss Lawrence has nothing to be ashamed of.
Ann sure loves her some Lena. Girl Power!
Was Lena making a joke when she said it was a sex crime?
As for the outrage over the use of "smarter" I think (or at least am speaking for myself here) it's more to do with the preference of the one statement over the other. Whether Dunham is smarter than Gervais I'm not equipped to say--they have different styles of comedy but neither seems "smarter" than the other.
I didn't read Gervais' comment as humorous though--rather just a common sense point that many celebs seem to lack. Considering that (a) it's a well known fact that there are people out there who would pay good money for unauthorized photos of celebs, and (b) digital photos can leak out more so than traditional film could, it seems unnecessarily risky to take such photos in the first place. It's unfortunate, but these things happen, they're hard to prosecute, and impossible to undo.
The outrage over Gervais' comment mirrors the discussion we always see when someone seems to "put the burden on the victim" to prevent the crime in the first place--whether it's saying "keep your car door locked" or "don't walk down dark alleys alone at night" or "don't get blackout drunk among strangers". They want the focus on the perpetrators, so as not to share blame with the victim. However, it's a bit of a straw man argument--I have yet to read any comment or hear any person say that the perpetrators should be treated more lightly. Also, this attitude tends to take agency and independence away from victims by assuming there's nothing they can do to prevent their own victimhood. And clearly there are those who could use common sense advice--why deprive them of it just to prove a point?
I do find it interesting that nobody is crying for Justin Verlander, whose account was also hacked and nude pictures of him also posted.
Or any of these other male celebrities when nude photos of them were released.
Nobody says it's sex discrimination when Chris Christie's weight is discussed (as opposed to Kirstin Gillibrand).
The difference in the way the genders are treated is still quite stark, isn't it?
Oh! Or the way Lena Dunham whines about the way her naked body is received by the public. You think Seth Rogan whines when people talk about him being fat and naked?
Dozens of actresses nude, but all anyone can say is Jennifer Lawrence-Jennifer-Lawrence-Kate Upton. All the other nude actresses must be feeling both exploited and ignored.
All the other nude actresses must be feeling both exploited and ignored.
Especially Lena Dunham who felt the need to jump into fappable-celebrities-nude-photos context even if she's not any.
PS If there is sex crime it's Lena Dunham's showing naked on TV without loud, long and repeated warnings from the network.
Washington is loaded with over-the-top intellects and has been for decades. Think Robert McNamara and his whiz kids who led the US into the Vietnam war. I suspect the recent crop in DC lawmakers *cough* performed on the high end of the LSAT's.
Buckley was right when he said: "I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University."
You might have avoided the enraging the village idiots (with whom I agree)with "preferred," but I doubt it.
I can't think of a comparative-praise-word that could have passed (more astute, better, brainier, brihter, more brilliant , cannier, craftier, shrewder, slicker, wiser, more astute, more of genius type statement, keener, more perceptive, more knowing, more apt, more clever, more effective, more eggheaded, more ingenious, more quick-witted) except maybe "more on the ball" if the reference is to stirring up the left-wing PC hornets nest.
Lena Dunham would have more credibility if she were attacking Islamic degradation of women.
One might be able to extrapolate Professor Althouse's lecture schedule from analysis of blog posts over the next few weeks.
However, there are tools to delay posts going live. That could cloud the data.
Anyway, I'm too lazy to test the theory, and it'd probably be faster to just look somewhere on wisc.edu. Still, a bored stats student might look into this as a leaping-off point for analyzing behavior based on blog time stamps. Could make for a really chart-heavy thesis that readers would be too lazy to grade carefully.
(Way off-topic, but alluded to above, so I demand non-deletion! If you delete, you're a commenter-offender!)
"THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was
stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213 th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General."
-- Harrison Bergeron, by Kurt Vonnegut
A machine can be smarter than another machine; indeed, it seems practically all machines are now described as "smart."
But with very few exceptions, one person may not be recognized as smarter than another. Even (especially) when they are.
Traditionally, "smart" means "better option," not necessarily "uses big words."
Ann, is "wait for Utopia" better advice then "Avoid these risky behaviors?"
One of the definitions of "academic" is "Even if you're right, it doesn't matter." Academics need to wonder why that is.
I didn't even say I thought Lena is smarter than Ricky, though it sure would be fun to watch them go head to head on the LSAT.
So, let's be clear...the LSAT is Althouse's preferred objective measure of intelligence?
Ann Althouse said...
I can't rerun the experiment and see the reaction without that word, but I am theorizing that people have a particular sensitivity about comparative intelligence...
9/2/14, 6:15 AM
Hmmm, so the statement was an experiment. Would you be so kind to let us know the hypothesis you were testing? Because it seems to me that the commentariatti were responding to the fact that an obviously fatuous, obnoxious and wrong assertion was declared "smarter" than one which was obviously factual and true. In this experiment, the decision was unanimous, and the commentariatti were correct.
I wonder if the movie stars used their "smart" phones to upload their pics to iCloud?
If you are having nude photos taken it is in your interest to look your best. Flattering poses. Good lighting. Not obviously drunk or drugged. Watch out for the bags under the yes. Smile. Project confidence. This may be the way people remember you.
it sure would be fun to watch them go head to head on the LSAT.
Your faith in Credentialsim is naive and rather touching.
chickelit said...
I didn't even say I thought Lena is smarter than Ricky, though it sure would be fun to watch them go head to head on the LSAT.
So, let's be clear...the LSAT is Althouse's preferred objective measure of intelligence?
Wouldn't be a bad measure. It's got nothing to do with credentials either.
Gervais might have meant to be funny but he was also right. He retracted in the face of political correctness. There is no worse offense than to be politically incorrect.
When you are older you will look at the nude photos of your youth and say 'I used to look this way'. Make it count.
Once you have submitted to a TSA body scan all future claims on your nudity are not your own.
I think the real provocation was your validation of a stupid comment by Lena Dunham.
In the profession of law, words mean things.
If these women wore a burka at all times this would be a non-event.
Now that the LSAT has been proclaimed the measure of "smarts" I declare victory.
Now that the LSAT has been proclaimed the measure of "smarts" I declare victory.
And you preferred Obama too, was he really the smarter choice?
betamax3000, it would have to be a burka with leaden thread.
Business opportunity!
The intelligence of a statement has little to do with the intelligence of the person who said it.
ADDED: Ricky's subtextual message to readers of his tweet was: It's okay to look at the pictures. Lena's overt message was: "It's not okay." That's the basis for my preference.
I didn't get that from Gervais' tweet at all. Interesting that Althouse did.
Here's what Vox has to say:
This isn't about iPhones. This is about women being shamed, objectified...
The response to these pictures is a reminder that your body can be used as a weapon against you.
Ok, first of all....shamed?
Second. These are actresses. Is there anyone who has more objectified women's bodies than the entertainment industry?
Re: "The response to these pictures is a reminder that your body can be used as a weapon against you."
And also as an aid to masturbation.
@maybee. It's quite possible that the women's careers will be affected since society places extraordinary monetary value on the display or withholding from display of their bodies or what they look like. Not the case with the guys. The guy is literally just the dick in the picture.
Neither comment was smart or stupid. Lena's acted as a reminder of conscience, but I'm afraid it's like telling a pedestrian to go ahead and cross the street when a truck with no brakes is barreling down the road. It is going to be of small comfort when they are recuperating in the hospital that they had the right of way.
When I was a kid, I remember refusing to watch the Rob Lowe tape my friends had for similar reasons. That was considered quaint then, much less now with embedded images and one click access. Depending on the web sites you frequent, those pics were almost unavoidable yesterday.
And you preferred Obama too, was he really the smarter choice?
I wonder what the Mittens to Swaggy LSAT comparison would reveal?
Or Swaggy to Hillary?
In the end, the only one that wins in this situation is Kleenex.
Interesting that Dunham talks only about the women's pictures that were leaked. Gervais is talking to men and women.
Conclusion: Dunham is sexist.
@maybee. It's quite possible that the women's careers will be affected since society places extraordinary monetary value on the display or withholding from display of their bodies or what they look like. Not the case with the guys. The guy is literally just the dick in the picture.
SOJO- I liked the rest of your post, but I disagree with this part.
If you are talking about *these* women's careers being affected- that isn't going to happen. They are actresses. Hollywood and the Music industry treat women's naked bodies incredibly cheaply.
Now, if they didn't look good, yes, perhaps that would hurt them. But I'm guessing they wouldn't be sending unflattering nude pictures of themsleves to their boyfriends (or whatever).
Are we talking about Gillibrand vs Christie?
I've never once heard anything but flattering things said about Gillibrand. Christie's fortune as a presidential candidate have been directly, publicly tied to weight questions about him.
As for "just the dick in the picture". YMMV, but as a straight woman, that's more interesting to me.
(but that reminds me how the prostitute Hugh Grant picked up was encouraged to talk about how small his penis was. I don't remember a big "sexism!" outcry)
Isn't it incredibly sexist to just assume guys are perfectly fine with butt and dick picks being released publicly? But women are traumatized and judged?
In many cases, the *guys* apologized.
ADDED: Ricky's subtextual message to readers of his tweet was: It's okay to look at the pictures.
In with MayBee. That was a stupid analysis, Professor. Gervais didn't say "it's okay". How the hell do you defend that?
Ricky G also addressed his comments to "celebrities" while Lena addressed hers to women. That's also key.
I guess it was a dog-whistle, or a wolf-howl, MayBee.
Gervias was NOT saying it was OK to look at them. He was saying it was beyond stupid for people to post such pictures, and if they do, their fault if they get published.
Cue Mussorgsky: Pictures of an Exhibitionist.
"Ricky's subtextual message to readers of his tweet was: It's okay to look at the pictures. Lena's overt message was: "It's not okay." That's the basis for my preference."
Maybe this is like one of those "dog whistles" I always hear about (such as criticizing Obama for taking too many vacations, valid or not, is a dog whistle for secretly telling others that Obama is lazy because he's half black).
Let's try an analogy--a celebrity leaves their door to their car unlocked, and a box of nude Polaroids in the back seat of the car. A car thief sees it, opens the car door, takes the photos, and reproduces them all over town to sell to perverts. Gervais then tweets that the celebrity was an idiot for leaving the car door unlocked and the photos in plain view. Does this somehow mean that Gervais is okay with the car thief's actions?
We have to get away from this idea that taking charge of your own defense (whether it be of your property, your body, or your image) is "victim blaming" or "excusing the violator". It is not. It is empowering, and it would be nice if the Dunhams of the world who call themselves "feminist" with a straight face could understand that.
ADDED: Ricky's subtextual message to readers of his tweet was: It's okay to look at the pictures. Lena's overt message was: "It's not okay." That's the basis for my preference.
OK, that's your opinion. Here's mine.
Ricky's subtextual message was to the stars themselves: Don't be naive about promises of privacy. You'll have only yourself to blame if people look at the almost-certain-to-eventually-be-compromised pictures.
Lena's overt message to the stars was: "There should be no consequences to your naive and risky behavior. It's never your fault."
That's the basis for my preference of Ricky's tweet.
Someone on another message board had said that a lot of Kate Upton's appeal was obviously her boobs, but that they were perfectly packaged. They had never just been out there for free as it were. Now that they are it's conceivable that they will have less value.
Jennifer Lawrence had refused to do full frontal. Now it hardly matters. She has a pic with some guy's stuff across her back all across the internet. And poor Lady Sybil with a dick in her face.
No one's career is going to be ruined in the current climate, but their control over their image has been taken away without their consent, so yeah, I think it still matters for the bigger names. Some of the lesser knowns may benefit.
Still the best approach is a simple "Yeah, I have a life, and the ppl who did this are assholes." The pics aren't the scandal in this case, the hack n dump is.
Probably all of the women in the photos view themselves as Feminists yet willingly take photos that specifically objectify them (and probably for a specific man to view).
I am OK with this type of Feminism.
"My casual choice to use the word 'smarter' really provoked a reaction!"
No, I'm pretty sure the reaction would have been the same whatever choice of word/phrase you used.
People read both Gervais' and Dunham's words and came to the conclusion that one was spot on and the other, not so much and not useful when it comes to protecting oneself from such hackery.
As far as 'subtexts'...where on earth do you get he was saying they were okay to look at, from what he actually said?
And of course he would back off from his comment when a bunch of harpies of la-la-land pounced on him.
@Althouse, we men have enjoyed looking at pretty women with their clothes off (or mostly off) since about the time clothing was invented. Millennia of conditioning couldn't be changed quickly even if we wanted to. And few of us want to.
I can understand why Lena Dunham said what she said -- if she had half a brain it would be the first half she had. You, I'm surprised at.
The actresses in these photos were most likely taking them for a significant other who -- most likely, again -- occupies the same (upper) social level as the actress. By feeling violated that the lower classes are now seeing these photos is elitism at its finest.
"Ricky's subtextual message was to the stars themselves: Don't be naive about promises of privacy. You'll have only yourself to blame if people look at the almost-certain-to-eventually-be-compromised pictures."
But the audience for his tweets isn't other celebrities. It's the ordinary people who read the Twitter feeds of celebrities. So what is the message to them, his audience? I say it's: The stars are to blame for those pictures being there, so you don't need to feel guilty if you look.
Dunham went very heavy handed on the guilt-tripping. Speaking to the audience for celebrity tweets, she said explicitly: You are committing a wrong if you look. Old school shaming. I approve.
"So, let's be clear...the LSAT is Althouse's preferred objective measure of intelligence?"
It's the one I know most closely and would find most entertaining to impose on celebrities in an intelligence contest. Maybe just the logical reasoning section.
Is there anyone who has more objectified women's bodies than the entertainment industry?
I haven't looked at these pictures yet - there's a backlog of pictures of nude women on the internet, I probably won't get to these latest for another eight thousand years or so - but if I do, I'll first photoshop in the word FEMINISM in big white block lettering behind them so when I look at the nudes it will be empowering.
Dunham is wrong. It's as simple as that. Everything Dunham wrote was wrong. It was fractally wrong. No matter how you parse that statement, each segmant of it is as completely wrong as the statement as a whole.
It is, like Lena Dunham, just wrong.
(It is also patronizing to women, and horribly dismissive or real victims of assault. The only thing these ladies lost was property. It was simple theft; nothing more, and they aren't owed any more outrage than one would expect if ones car was stolen. And no, looking at the pictures isn't tantamount to joyriding around in a stolen car that you didn't steal yourself either. It's equivalent to reading a news account of the theft that includes a picture of the car)
Gervais' comment may be crass, but it's true. Expecting other people to look out for your interests better than you do yourself is an exercise in wishful thinking at best, and suicidal at worst. It also has the benefit of not being patronizing.
We need a game program for Twitter:
"If it's from Gervais and is ostensibly addressed toward other famous people, don't read it, because you're a peasant. Don't even start. You might get the wrong idea."
"If it's from Dunham, and it suggests you might be a perv, read away! Might be her naked, but don't comment on that. Might be her saying you should look away from something. Obey."
I never knew Twitter had such exclusivity rules. Couldn't they create their own liddle clubs, like Journolist?
Is it OK that I say you're wriggling badly on this stupid call? Are other people who read this comment allowed to read it, even though I'm addressing it to you, Professor?
"So what is the message to them, his audience? I say it's: The stars are to blame for those pictures being there, so you don't need to feel guilty if you look."
I see the first part, but I don't see the second.
Gervias was NOT saying it was OK to look at them. He was saying it was beyond stupid for people to post such pictures, and if they do, their fault if they get published.
But, it's not - it's the fault of the of those who hacked and shared. These pictures were stolen and distributed without the consent of those involved.
In the end, the only one that wins in this situation is Kleenex.
The titillation and gratification. Yes, this is why Lena went there and called it sexual assault.
Actually, the only subtext in Gervais's message is that life is an exercise in risk management. The context and content of this incident is similar to the message delivered to men when they are advised to remain aware of their sperms' redistribution.
In any case, I agree with both Gervais and Dunham; but I note that opportunistic men and women will not be dissuaded from exploitation with shaming or proscriptive laws. Gervais's advice is practical, and is not limited to unwanted exposure of sensitive physical attributes.
In any case, the notion of "privacy" has been so well distorted that it is almost meaningless. I would imagine that not a few people are confused by the hypocrisy of its promotion and messengers, including Dunham.
That said, I wonder what other sensitive information was exposed in this incident. Is the celebrity angle intended to deflect from the commission of greater violations? People need to be aware of the risk they accept with progressive exposure of sensitive personal information and the steps they can take to mitigate the risk.
I have not noticed any mention of black actresses in the leaked photos: racism. Obviously.
Roughly 2% of those in the photos are lesbians, I am to assume.
Sometimes when you are looking through the keyhole you see another keyhole.
No doubt we will find that ALL of the photos came from George Clooney's phone. Women: do not be alone with sweet-talking George Clooney and his phone.
Dunham's comment involved (factually incorrect ) shaming, which might have persuaded a few of her devoted follwers to rethink clicking that button. But not a lot of people who care what Dunham has to say are the target for the photos.
Gervais comment is actually more helpful to more people. As someone said yesterday, it was the "don't get blackout drunk" tweet of the internet. The "don't take a ride from strangers" kind of advice.
Gervais deals with the world we are in, and may help others from making the same mistake. Celebrities need to be careful about what happens with nude selfies, but so do school teachers and Congressmen.
More helpful to more people = a much better tweet.
This kind of thing didn't happen when we had rotary phones.
How many more clicks on those photos have been generated by all the news stories and blog posts about them?
Re: "How many more clicks on those photos have been generated by all the news stories and blog posts about them?"
It's because people keep abreast of the news: when it comes to nudity news spreads fast.
Last year, in upscale Saratoga California, a teenage girl hung herself because of pictures taken while she was passed out at a party with her "friends".
Hard to be distressed over titty pictures of good looking actresses.
A privacy goes, I am more concerned by the fact that for 20 bucks or so, friends ,neighbors, clients and strangers can possibly find arrest records and newspaper articles with my name (or yours) from "back in the day". Not to mention divorce records, loan balances, medical records.
Sorry I'm shameless - I not only would look, I'd ogle the pretty ones - sorry Lena. We all know these "celebrities" would only be truly upset if no one looked.
I'm sure several - if not all - are secretly pleased at all the free publicity and attention.
Its rather humorous that with free porn on the internet, anyone would get upset at nude photos of anyone.
Dunham went very heavy handed on the guilt-tripping. Speaking to the audience for celebrity tweets, she said explicitly: You are committing a wrong if you look. Old school shaming. I approve.
But what is the harm to the stars, if I look? They don't even know I am doing it.
I'll answer my own question: It violates a person's right to not be the unwilling subject of another person's sexual titillation.
And that is true. But therefore, why do lesbian gym teachers get to hang out in the girl's shower room?
Similar things that should have gotten Americans equally upset:
The Edward Snowden revelation about the NSA collection all of our phone meta-data
The FBI reading Gen Petraeus's private email, and releasing information about the affair it revealed
Tapes released of Mitch McConnell aides meeting in a private office
Tapes of Donald Sterling having a private conversation with V whatshername.
All incredible invasions of privacy, all possibly devastating or devastating.
Yet we have to talk about women being shamed and sex crimed. Let me know when Dunham cares about *any* of that other stuff.
Is it really surprising The Professor chose Mommy tska tska over daddy duh?
No one learned from Pam Anderson's sex tape or the current news stories about hackers and what's being hacked?
Besides if Hollyweird could get away going to awards shows naked, they would just for shock factor. They push the edge, why the outrage? It's just sex, right? I thought Hollyweird was more sophisticated than that. What prudes.
Ann Althouse said...Dunham went very heavy handed on the guilt-tripping. Speaking to the audience for celebrity tweets, she said explicitly: You are committing a wrong if you look. Old school shaming. I approve.
Wait, though, Dunham was shaming the people benefitting from the sext stoogery (the public who have access to the private pictures). Surely you also approve of shaming the sext stooges themselves, right? Gervais' tweet is a little closer to that, I think. They're not mutually exclusive, of course, but given the precedent the Prof. should be laughing in the celebrities' faces, right?
The reason Dunham warns against viewing nude pictures of beautiful women is that her target has always been the attractive woman and, in particular, the physical qualities that make her attractive.
Her goal is to re-define feminine beauty. The new criteria is poor posture, a soft and flabby body that is at least 25 lbs. overweight, and absolutely no sense of fashion.
The reason Dunham parades her body around in the nude during her show and then covers it in frumpy clothes is to highlight these very characteristics. "Look at me," she says, "I'm beautiful."
In Dunham's new world order, the higher a women scores on these criteria, the more beautiful she is.
Public viewing beautiful women like those in the hacked photographs completely undercuts her mission.
"Yet we have to talk about women being shamed and sex crimed. Let me know when Dunham cares about *any* of that other stuff."
MayBee, do you have any inkling that the Dunhams of the world even understand half that stuff, let alone can get outraged by it? As far as she's concerned, invasions of privacy to "out" racists or give more power to the state (as long as the state is personified by a thoughtful Cicero type like Obama, and not a country rube like Bush) are perfectly fine.
The Donald Sterling example is an excellent one--I recall when that drama unfolded a few months ago there was very little concern from the Hollywood Left about the private conversations of a senile old man being leaked. No--instead what we got was a lot of victim blaming, about how maybe you should know better than to say racist things, even in private, because everything's recorded these days and technology means even things said in private will get out.
Funny how they didn't consider such sentiments to be "victim blaming" because a rich old senile racist was the "victim." It's almost as though they're completely full of themeselves!
Gervias was NOT saying it was OK to look at them. He was saying it was beyond stupid for people to post such pictures, and if they do, their fault if they get published.
I took more as a 'lesson learned, folks. This is not a safe thing to do if you are concerned about privacy.'
Lena's comments were fine, but not particularly earth shattering.
The only thing these ladies lost was property. It was simple theft;
I do not agree with this. What they lost wasn't really about property, it was privacy. Some people still care about that. I completely understand why they are angry.
The Donald Sterling example is an excellent one--I recall when that drama unfolded a few months ago there was very little concern from the Hollywood Left about the private conversations of a senile old man being leaked. No--instead what we got was a lot of victim blaming, about how maybe you should know better than to say racist things, even in private, because everything's recorded these days and technology means even things said in private will get out.
Nailed the hypocrisy, Brando.
I've agreed with Maybee on this thread 100%.
@birkel
Actually, the ultimate measure of IQ is the avoidance of double posting.
"It's okay to look at them" is not the same, at all, as saying that celebrities shouldn't upload nude pictures onto what they think is a "private" and password protected internet server.
You're obviously projecting here, Professor Althouse.
I read both tweets as suggesting means to prevent strangers from viewing your private photos. Gervais gets there more fundamentally by precluding the photo from being hacked. Dunham rejects that and relies on the decency of everyone looking at the internet not to look once the photos are hacked. Not too smart.
Dunham said that anyone looking at the pictures was committing a sex crime. Unless the nude celebrities were children, then she is fundamentally wrong. Her argument only serves to cheapen the accusation in the same way that cries of racism anytime Obama is criticized have devalued the charge.
Actually, the ultimate measure of IQ is the avoidance of double posting.
The times I've double-posted have usually been related to internet snafus at home. WiFi conks out, seemingly, but not really. I usually delete the multiples when it happens because, even though my prose is worth so very very much, I figure people don't want to read it twice.
I guy got 10 years recently for pleading guilty to this stuff (judge actually tacked 4 years on to prosecutors' recommendation), so the people who need warning are the would-be hackers. Sounds like a lot were involved in this latest crime spree.
Ricky's subtextual message to readers of his tweet was: It's okay to look at the pictures.
What a bizarre interpretation.
It's like saying that because you advise tourists not to be stupid and wave their passports about, you therefore think it's okay to steal tourists' passports if they're stupid and wave their passports about.
Or that because you advise people it is prudent to lock one's doors at night because a burglar might enter and steal one's valuables, you therefore think it is okay to burglarize any house that has not locked its doors at night.
Or that because you advise young women that it is prudent not to get blotto at a party because they might get raped, you therefore think it is okay to rape girls who have got blotto at a party.
The height of absurdity. It's like insisting that people ought never modify their behaviour to avoid risk, out of the principle that the world ought to be something it is not -- stamping one's foot down so! Can't allow ourselves to take any precautions, or the terrorists will have won.
Balfegor said...Or that because you advise people it is prudent to lock one's doors at night because a burglar might enter and steal one's valuables, you therefore think it is okay to burglarize any house that has not locked its doors at night.
...or that because you advise men not to be splooge stooges you therefore think it is ok for women to impregnate themselves with said material and force the stooges to pay for the unwanted child they tried insufficiently hard to avoid (despite taking clear, reasonable, and prudent affirmative steps to do so).
"Bizarre" as it may be, Prof A is charmingly consistent! If we can find some video of Jeniffer Lawrence or some other victimized celebrity crying over this incident (w/scrunched-up faces) the Prof should happily laugh right in their faces.
Michael wrote:
Dunham said that anyone looking at the pictures was committing a sex crime.
Sending out pictures of people that other people look at may involve things like theft, illegal distribution of protected data, etc. But it's not a sex crime to look at nude photos that are up on a website. It's the distribution of said material that MIGHT be an issue, not the viewing of the material.
It's okay to look at pictures. It's not okay to look at THE pictures. Why? Because its sex? Because its stolen? Because its embarrassing to someone? How will I know for sure unless I look at them? Did I just commit a crime in my thoughts?
I saw the photos and felt no worse than if I was watching a '40s Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers movie about the lifestyles of the rich and famous. If anything, I thought what I've always have about the "selfie" phenomena:
Stupid people revealing who they are to others.
Now it's Apple's fault they didn't know how stupid they are?
O.K., I can kinda agree with that (who reads the fine print?) but the obvious consequences are also partially on them.
Like those who go to psychics, anyone half-way intelligent could've seen what was coming,...
"And that is true. But therefore, why do lesbian gym teachers get to hang out in the girl's shower room?"
Or gay boyscout leaders get to go camping with the boys?
"He apologized for making his joke like that. He didn't stand by it as common sense." - Althouse
Doesn't matter a whit whether he stands by it or not as to whether it is true.
While I agree that IQ seems to set some people off, you used "smarter" in a value judgement. Liberals do this all the time. They accuse people who come to different conclusions, often based on different life experiences, of "stupidity."
Well, Dunham = cheap to be sure. And stupid. There are sharks in that pool, but YOU HAVE A RIGHT not to be bitten! The funny part is that when you put your smarts on the line by saying stupid is smart and smart is stupid, it devalues your own smarts.
Post a Comment