glitzfrau: (jesusgun)
[personal profile] glitzfrau
Please stop posting that wanky macro about how Assange is a HERO and yet treated like a VILLAIN, whereas Zuckerberg is the real CROOK HERE.


Then, when I point out that there are outstanding rape allegations against Assange, and that he has wantonly endangered the lives of human rights defenders by leaking their details, do not respond by saying 'we are all entitled to a fair trial'. We are all indeed entitled to due process, indeed, but skulking abroad evading trial, complaining that we are 'emasculated' by having to wear an ankle tag and playing the martyr does not add to our heroism. Instead, it makes us look like a rapey wanker.

Also, no-one is forcing us to sign up to Facebook. By doing so, we enter into a contract with Zuckerberg willingly - unlike the women who may not have been allowed to consent to sex with Assange, or the defenders who did not consent to the endangerment of their lives.

Seriously, so-called 'friends'. THREE TIMES? Could somebody kill this rapey macro now, please?

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-26 04:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] leedy.livejournal.com
Oh, BLEEEUUURRRGHHHH. (Er, to the macro, not to your post, which is full of right)

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-26 04:23 pm (UTC)
ext_37604: (jesusgun)
From: [identity profile] glitzfrau.livejournal.com
Thank you!

The offenders included self-declared feminists and gay men. I would really have thought that they would have known better. Seriously, WTF?

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-26 04:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ms-siobhan.livejournal.com
I had no idea what Zuckerberg looked like until now.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-26 04:49 pm (UTC)
ext_37604: (Default)
From: [identity profile] glitzfrau.livejournal.com
Didn't see The Social Network? The actor playing Zuckerberg pulled off a pretty good impersonation, from what I can see.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-26 05:25 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ms-siobhan.livejournal.com
No, Mr Pops has seen it though. It didn't appeal to me but then not many modern films do, I'd far rather be watching some black and white gorgeousness from the 30's and 40's. I have seen 3 modern films so far this year though and might make it four if I get to see the adaptation of 'We need To Talk About Kevin'.

I don't get the lionisation of Assange either - leaving aside whether he's a rapist or not and I certainly wouldn't want to be left alone in a room with him, I've seen him being interviewed and he came across as an arrogant knobhead.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-27 09:13 am (UTC)
ext_37604: (Default)
From: [identity profile] glitzfrau.livejournal.com
Exactly! Arrogant knobhead! Not man of the year or even of the hacktivist movement!

(Can't face 'We need to Talk about Kevin', myself. I loathed the book, and would be too upset at the sight of goddess Swinton lowering herself to such tiresome fare.)

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-27 10:23 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ms-siobhan.livejournal.com
I couldn't put the book down - well I could actually when I found it just too grim to go on with and so had to look at pictures of kittens to distract myself for a bit. I didn't find it quite as grim and upsetting and distressing as Zombie by Joyce Carol Oates though, it's her take on Jeffrey Dahmer and every so often I had to stop reading and play with the cats and look at pretty pictures to reground myself. Mr Pops got quite upset as he had bought it for me as an anniversary present, I did ask for it though so we decided next time I want a book based on a serial killer I just have to remind myself of Zombie and then decide do I *really* want it?

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-27 10:41 am (UTC)
ext_37604: (Default)
From: [identity profile] glitzfrau.livejournal.com
Ah yes, of course you are more sympathetic to serial killer narratives than I am! Anything about serial killers upsets me too much to think about it. I thought Striver's book was a really intellectually dishonest work, but it definitely provoked a strong emotional reaction.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-27 10:47 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ms-siobhan.livejournal.com
I am turning into my mother - she is never happier* than when there is a documentary about a serial killer on, she has some knitting on the go and a glass of wine to hand and I am becoming the same.

Am intrigued by what you mean about Shriver's book being intellectually dishonest, can you explain? I haven't read any of her other work yet though I did hear a bit of a serialisation on R4 of a family where the wife has cancer - at least I think it was by her.



*well she is when she is with her grandchildren but reading/watching things about murder,wool and booze are her favourite ways to relax.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-27 11:07 am (UTC)
ext_37604: (dorian grey)
From: [identity profile] glitzfrau.livejournal.com
Hee! I think at our age, it's fast becoming a badge of honour to turn into our mothers.

I thought it was intellectually dishonest because it was so calculatedly written to allow blame to be equally placed EITHER completely on the mother OR completely the son, in a way that's very neatly calibrated for book group discussion. For me, the idea that a child can be purely 'evil' is... well, nonsense that has no place outside of fanatical religion or less pretentious genre fiction.

A more honest novel would subtly reveal either the mother's self-delusions about her son and family or - and this would be far more interesting - the social factors involved in high school shootings too. I particularly disliked the crossbow scenario, which Shriver said was chosen to prevent her book 'just' being about gun laws. But as far as I can see, school shootings usually do take place where teenagers have access to guns. The debate is a debate about gun laws, not about 'is the child EVIL or the woman a BAD MOTHER'?
Edited Date: 2011-10-27 11:12 am (UTC)

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-27 01:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ms-siobhan.livejournal.com
I'd have to re-read it to see if the blame can be apportioned neatly either way but I did feel sorry for the Mum and didn't feel much sympathy for Kevin. I think you're right in that no-one can be purely evil but I do think they are people who have a lot less good in them than others but whether that is innate or as a result of the way they are brought up I'm not sure.

I didn't know that was why she picked a crossbow - I thought it made him all the more calculating and horrible.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-27 01:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ms-siobhan.livejournal.com
And by brought up - I don't just mean by parents but their life experience as a whole.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-27 12:58 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] biascut.livejournal.com
Goddess Swinton signed the petition to leave poor Roman Polanski alone. She is not on my goddess list at all!

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-27 01:39 pm (UTC)
ext_37604: (Default)
From: [identity profile] glitzfrau.livejournal.com
Oh bollocks, you are of course right. Icons crashing all about us.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-26 04:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sushidog.livejournal.com
Yabbut you see, rape doesn't really happen, it's just an accusation that some people throw around for political reasons, or because they're bitches with buyer's remorse. It's not an actual real thing!

(Or in other words, yes, right with you, also a bit sick of the lionising of a guy who has been accused of rape by at least two different women.)

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-26 04:46 pm (UTC)
ext_37604: (jesusgun)
From: [identity profile] glitzfrau.livejournal.com
Those whinging women. They give real rape a bad name (Naomi Wolf).

And yeah. One of the posters of the meme responded that powerful men are the sorry victims of false rape allegations, and we should sympathise with them. Look at poor Dominique Strauss-Kahn!

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-26 04:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sushidog.livejournal.com
Yes, _poor_ Strauss-Kahn! Did you know that at least one of the women who accused him wasn't even a virgin? Ridiculous. Women, can't trust 'em at all.

Gah. It gives me The Rage.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-26 04:53 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] biascut.livejournal.com
I loved Zoe Williams comment: wishing that someone had examined Strauss-Kahn's story the way they did his accuser:

Similarly, when a charge of sexual assault is made, everything the accuser says is picked over for inconsistency and improbability. This is an extreme example, but it's a real question from someone I interviewed in Paris: "She claims he forced her to give him head, twice. But what does that even mean? Just sticking it in twice, or two full cycles of fellatio?" All the accused has to say is: "It was consensual." Nobody says: "What exactly made her consent to sex with you? What was your killer move? Do you have a really good line, or do you just do it with your eyebrows?"

PLEASE, PLEASE, SOMEONE POSE THAT QUESTION TO DSK.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-26 04:34 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] chiller.livejournal.com
Wow, I feel lucky that this is the only place I've seen this, so far.

I don't think the "signing up to FB" issue is quite as clearcut as that, though. Sure, you don't have to sign up. But if you don't, you will probably get forgotten in terms of invitations for about 90% of stuff that's going on. And the stuff that isn't invitation based - well you just won't know that that stuff is happening at all unless someone mentions it in real life.

If you're like me and are engaged in #occupysofa (I'm an inactivist), that's fine, because your very closest friends are less likely to forget you. But if you're a normal person who likes going out, FB is pretty important.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-26 04:47 pm (UTC)
ext_37604: (Default)
From: [identity profile] glitzfrau.livejournal.com
Yes, those are really good points. I completely agree.

At the same time, a reasonably significant level of social exclusion is not comparable to having your details leaked to brutal authorities who may be likely to imprison, torture or disappear you for your activities.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-26 05:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] chiller.livejournal.com
Yes, that meme is awful, full stop.

My interior clock is ticking on FB at some point in the future becoming the tool of an oppressive government, though. And I'm not even joking.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-26 05:07 pm (UTC)
ext_37604: (Default)
From: [identity profile] glitzfrau.livejournal.com
I think it's exactly that kind of thinking that makes Assange feel justified in refusing to stand trial. He's a libertarian! The oppressive government only really wants to persecute the innocent, and the rape case is only a pretext!

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-26 05:29 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] chiller.livejournal.com
I don't think the two are connected, and those who assume they are either haven't examined that idea, or are capable only of thinking in very binary ways about human nature and human behaviour.

The means for a totalitarian state are there, and the legal protections necessary to prevent abuse are not, and where they are present they are vulnerable (look at what this government is attempting with the Human Rights Act, for instance). That bothers me (probably because I spent so long working with and around data privacy internationally). And it probably bothers Julian Assange and all his supporters.

It is true to say that people have been smeared or worse when they prove politically inconvenient, and we do not know whether that is the case with Assange.

It is also true to say that someone's politics may be correct in principle but deeply flawed in execution, and a person whose ideas you find agreeable may commit acts you find abhorrent.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-27 09:06 am (UTC)
ext_37604: (Default)
From: [identity profile] glitzfrau.livejournal.com
Sorry for reacting snippily! What is making me angry is not your comment, but people on my flist suggesting that Assange shouldn't stand trial because then he'll be persecuted by the oppressive Swedish/UK/US government, and that would be MUCH SCARIER than a rapist being allowed to walk free. I think a healthy scrutiny of government is essential; I don't think that all of government's functions should be suspected as steps to totalitarianism. Justice, for instance, is essential and a good thing. As is the Human Rights Act, which is also part of the law.

Like you, I don't like what the UK government is doing with the Human Rights Act. And I completely agree that oppressive dictatorships have used social media to persecute opposition. But I think that mistrust of the organs of government in the UK presents as great if not a greater danger than the potential of those organs to be oppressive. We need transparent, democratic, accountable government, not none at all.

However, I can't disagree with you that a person's politics and behaviour may be deeply at odds. I happen not to agree with Assange's politics either, but that's neither here nor there.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-26 04:49 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] biascut.livejournal.com
I still think that puts Zuckerberg in the "ordinarily successful businessperson making a profit by providing a service" category, though, rather than "villain of the year".

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-26 04:56 pm (UTC)
ext_37604: (Default)
From: [identity profile] glitzfrau.livejournal.com
Yep. Exactly.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-26 04:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sorenr.livejournal.com
I'm not going to preach to the choir... (Though I had written a long-ish comment and then pressed CTRL+A DEL!)

Assange has morally lumped himself in with Polanski, and that's not great company in my book.

(And I agree with Chiller; Facebook does have a semi-monopoly in its field. Mind you, their data policy is consistent with Danish legislation, which is actually a lot more protective of private data protection than most.)

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-27 09:17 am (UTC)
ext_37604: (Default)
From: [identity profile] glitzfrau.livejournal.com
Assange has morally lumped himself in with Polanski, and that's not great company in my book.

Yep. Word.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-27 12:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] marrog.livejournal.com
Innocent-until-proven-guilty-aside, I think Polanski is a good comparison, because I love some of Polanski's work, and I don't really have a problem with hating the man and loving the art. I would in many cases extend the same courtesy to Assange (although not in all).

That being said, Wikileaks lost basically all their ground with me when they were pissy about someone else (was it the Grauniad? I'm fuzzy now...) releasing stuff before what they considered to be 'the right time'. Once the information-should-be-free crowd starting attempting to influence events according to their own agenda, all I can see is a bunch of pigs sitting round a table morphing into people... man that was a creepy cartoon.
Edited Date: 2011-10-27 12:26 pm (UTC)

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-26 07:17 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tafagirl.livejournal.com
Oh thank god I hadn't seen that one yet! Makes me kind of scared to check my FB feed now, in case I find it all over ... Bleurgh.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-27 09:07 am (UTC)
ext_37604: (Default)
From: [identity profile] glitzfrau.livejournal.com
Bleurgh is right. It's come up three times now on mine. I find it a bit baffling anyway, because isn't it at least a year out of date?

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-27 10:22 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tafagirl.livejournal.com
Maybe it's come up in the context of Wikileaks' financial troubles? I am glad to say it still hasn't popped up at all in my corner of Facebook!

Now for something totally different: any recommendations for social-y hangouts for lesbians online? In Germany? Not necessarily dating-specific, I'm covered on that front, lol.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-27 10:38 am (UTC)
ext_37604: (executive lesbian from sinsense)
From: [identity profile] glitzfrau.livejournal.com
No! I am the world's crappest lesbian! I know nothing about how to meet lesbians if they are not on LJ or people I know from school!

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-27 11:24 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tafagirl.livejournal.com
Lol! It just struck me today that I've been doing none of my Must Read and Google To Death routines on the issue of Halp! I'm a Lesbian! yet and that I should maybe change that ...

On yet another note - Irini took a new picture for the club database today. I'm wearing my lovely fake leather jacket. I shall try to get my hands on the file ;-)

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-27 11:15 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] whatsagirlgotta.livejournal.com
How very...sophomore. Euch.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-27 11:21 am (UTC)
ext_37604: (Default)
From: [identity profile] glitzfrau.livejournal.com
And behind the times, no?

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-27 11:23 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] whatsagirlgotta.livejournal.com
Well yes, and posting it on fbk. It's also really indicative of this idea that rape is a mistake that just happens, unless it's really horrible and violent and the woman assaulted was sober.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-27 11:26 am (UTC)
ext_37604: (jesusgun)
From: [identity profile] glitzfrau.livejournal.com
Absolutely, absolutely. Or that rape is an evil plot dreamed up by teh oppressive Swedish government with the express design of entrapping heroic freedom fighter Assange.

I'm really shocked that the three people who posted it didn't seem to think that the rape issue need be mentioned at all. I assume they meant it as a sophomore dig at Facebook, in which case they could just delete their accounts.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-27 11:36 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] whatsagirlgotta.livejournal.com
Well yes, it's tapping into the basic assumption that women lie about rape unless it can be conclusively proved that they were not lying on this particular instance in these very particular circumstances. Which I think is why it can be so easy for people to dismiss it as a plot.

Precisely. I might not agree with a lot of what Facebook does with data, but I choose to stay there and I change my settings and think about what I choose to post accordingly.

There's something terribly disagreeable about outing people who are in vulnerable positions for the sake of the cause too.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-27 01:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] biascut.livejournal.com
Remember! False rape accusations destroy lives just as much as rape do. Men accused of rape must be regarded as innocent until proven guilty. But it's fine to treat women as guilty of making a false rape accusation in the absence of a conviction, even if that's Just As Serious A Crime As Rape.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-10-27 01:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] whatsagirlgotta.livejournal.com
Because they are just as common as rape. And yes.