Fortunately for the UK, the photos of Boris Johnson holding a pint during covid lockdowns he'd ordered, mean that Boris Johnson is no longer a threat to the UK.
There's also the inconvenient truth that a very specific part of the world was online in the 1990s.
Primarily more educated, more liberal, more wealthy.
Turns out, when you hook the rest of the planet online, you get mass persuasion campaigns, fake genocide "reporting", and enough of an increase in ambient noise that coherent anonymous discourse becomes impossible.
I mean, look at the comments on Fox News or political YouTube videos. That's the real average level of discussion.
The 1990s internet was definitely not more liberal! 4chan style forums were probably the rule. I can’t believe someone would say that, clearly you didn’t use the same internet that I did.
He didn't say the internet was more liberal, he said the people on it were.
Before you start forming your reply, think about the actual culture back then. If you take slashdot as somewhat representative of the 90s internet culture, it was basically anti-corporate, meritocratic, non-judgmental, irreligious, educated, non-discriminatory, and once 2000 came around tended to be highly critical of the Bush agenda.
4chan at that time and places like it represented more of an edgelord culture, where showing vulnerability or sensitivity was shunned, everything revered by the larger populace was ruthlessly mocked, and distrust of society and government in general was taken as natural. Calling them conservative would have been non-sensical.
Exactly. If I had to characterize the general internet (read: what would and wouldn't raise an eyebrow in an average forum) in terms of political alignment, it'd probably be:
That SA / 4chan (both of which were really post-90s) existed were in no way proof of an anti-liberal bent. Their very edgelordness was an implicit reveling in absolute freedom of expression (even if their later liberal-pro-censoring and alt-right splinter movements subsequently forgot that).
Parent was saying that most men don't understand the amount of casual sexual harassment women are subjected to in unmoderated online spaces -- much more so than men receive.
Which makes me sad.
Apparently Y chromosome + enculturation = prerogative to send unsolicited photos of ones genitalia to random internet strangers.
I know. Parent, along with the reply, also said that women as a result are much less active online, but that's a belief caused by a lack of grass touching.
> "I know nobody that comments on online forums. Nobody would ever comment to strangers on the internet. It's too dangerous."
> Most of her friends are probably women
-> "Women don't comment on the internet (especially compared to men) because it's a hostile place".
No, rather both are on opposite sides of an equation, and being buried in competition from folks trying to solve their part of it in isolation.
Women == get too much attention, often of the wrong type. How to get the right kind of attention?
Men == not getting any attention, of any type. How to get some attention?
So women either get ‘the wrong kind’ of attention, but plenty of it - or somehow figure out the magic of getting the right kind of attention? Not easy.
And men work hard to get any attention, often overdoing it on the only way they can figure out - which usually has poor (but not zero!) results. Folks good at playing the game get excellent results, however.
Meanwhile, everyone is getting played by the folks in the middle.
Notably, there are plenty of women taking advantage of the attention they get on Tinder. They just have no problem solving for what it works for, which is getting laid with near zero effort.
The way this previously got figured out was a ‘managed market’ - arranged marriages. Religious/social rules, etc.
Sexual harassment (having been a target of it), is pretty much the definition of ‘unwanted attention’. Targets typically just want to be left alone.
It’s also a crime in some places, not (!!!) in others, or called different things in other places depending on the details.
For example, is sending an unsolicited dick pic on a dating app sexual harassment? Is getting felt up at work, with the implication ‘or else’? Is being stalked by members of the opposite gender? Or having career advancements blocked by a lack of ‘playing the game’?
I can give you concrete examples from a number of cultures that each culture will write off as ‘he/she/they were asking for it’, or ‘she/they/he deserved it’, or ‘it’s just boys/girls being girls/boys.’.
I’ve seen it up close and personal, and have lived it.
The underlying ‘attention economy’ dynamic is still the same.
Edit: meant to add - plenty of 80/20 also applies here of course (though more extreme). Top 1-2% men (esp. from earning or traditional looks perspective) deal with the same issues that top 50%-80% of women deal with, bottom 20% of women (from traditional looks perspective) deal with issues that 80-90% of men deal with, etc.
Sure, there are misogynistic cultures out there, but that doesn't justify it from a categorical imperative perspective.
If it's okay, then it's okay for all sexes. And I'm hard-pressed to name a world culture that's equally accepting and promoting of men-sexually-harassing-women and women-sexually-harassing-men.
Can you?
It feels like you're trying to make this an argument about statistics, when it's an argument about ethics and morality.
I never said it’s okay at all. Where are you getting that from?
Reality doesn’t particularly care about one persons idea of right or wrong. And if you look at the planet, good luck coming up with a consistent definition either.
I’m also 100% sure some random persons idea on the internet or what is moral or right has zero to do with the dynamics of dating or social interactions either.
What sort of discussion do you want this to be about?
And if my cat was an eldritch god in disguise life as we know it is in danger because I forgot to feed him this morning and surely he'll take revenge by destroying the universe.
Credit where credit due: "creative regulatory evasion" was first attributed to Professor Michael P. Fleming of the University of Cincinnati College of Law to describe the tactics employed by the small loan industry to circumvent early 20th-century usury law.
Seems this would likely be one of the most salient terms the DOJ would use at trial.
There's functionally little difference between spaces being non-printable characters, unless there are examples of text editors that do not render offset empty space when they're used.
Spaces vs tabs, sure, that's an argument.
But it doesn't seem reasonable to argue that {something that is visible in a text editor} is different than any other kind of character.
It's not like Python was using the bell ASCII or somesuch.
reply