#freekesha

Mynight said:
If you don't have an interest in such areas it's not too hard to imagine not hearing of someone.

I've heard the name but didn't know what she looked like nor about any of this. Can't actually think of a song she's done either.
Click to expand...

who cares...

one poster was apparently so not interested that he posted twice in the thread to tell everyone he'd not heard of her - why bother posting in the thread in the first place?
 
dowie said:
who cares...

one poster was apparently so not interested that he posted twice in the thread to tell everyone he'd not heard of her - why bother posting in the thread in the first place?
Click to expand...

When did you get so angry?

Evidently anticonsious does or he wouldn't ask the question although probably rhetorical. I posted in reply to that.

I never said I wasn't interested, even if I don't follow the singer does that mean I can't post in a thread about her accusing someone of rape to seemingly get out of a contract. It's the subject not the person that interests me.

Edit: I realise now I never quoted him my bad.
 
Last edited:
Angilion said:
Since you are opposed to that, why do you choose to be part of one such '-ism'?
Click to expand...

I don't. I said I was a feminist, not that I was sexist. Wanting equal opportunities for women is not the same as wanting to discriminate against males.

Angilion said:
You can't advocate for one sex without, as a first step in everything, defining people by their sex (it's obviously impossible to advocate for group X without defining people in terms of being X or not-X)
Click to expand...

If you're going to oppose prejudice by people who use a definition of X, you end up engaging with their definitions. I'm not defining people by their sex, I'm opposing prejudice by those who do. Yes, that means that if I encounter people with prejudices against women (group X), I oppose prejudice against "women" (group X). When you oppose wide-spread prejudice do think it is effective to not recognize a pattern? By all means oppose defining people by their sex if you wish. You'll probably get my support. But telling people they can't recognize the form of prejudice they oppose isn't doing that.

Angilion said:
I've met a fair few feminists (or more accurately "feminists" since they advocate sexual equality and therefore aren't feminists)
Click to expand...

So basically, you are refusing to accept how we define ourselves in favour of imposing your own definition on us? A definition at odds with both the majority of people who self-identify as feminists and at odds with the traditional meaning of the term.

Angilion said:
who, after years have passed, spent a lot of their time pointing at examples of feminism and saying that feminism isn't meant to be like that (as you have just done in your post). Yes, it is. That's the whole point of it. That's how it's always been. That's how it is. That's how it always will be. That's its purpose.
Click to expand...

And yet, it's not and the majority of self-identifying feminists would disagree with you. You're doing some strange variation on the No True Scotsman and discounting anyone of my position from being a feminist whilst I am not doing the inverse. I don't claim that everyone who self-describes as a feminist shares my exact position - that would be absurd. Like claiming that because both Malcom X and Martin Luther were Black Rights activists, that their positions were therefore the same. You, however, insist on imposing your own One True Feminist definition and telling me (a feminist) that I can't be one because I don't fit your personal view of what a feminist must be.

I can support my position - it's simply that those who believe in equality are the huge majority of self-describing feminists and that is so. I've been an active feminist on and off for nearly two decades and feel I have a pretty good idea what I'm talking about. You can't support your position - it's that huge numbers who call themselves feminists can't because they don't fit your definition and that the traditionally recognized definition of feminism is wrong because you disagree with it.
 
Last edited:
Dis86 said:
I think you need to understand context and target audience. The magazines you mention are not doing it in the name of satire and humour, they post them to elicit very different responses.
So no, they're not the same.
Click to expand...

They look pretty similar to me. Posting pictures of someone's weight gain to make fun of it... You seem to have an uncommonly low definition of satire.

"Yes, Minister", "Brass Eye" and paparazzi shots of someone's belly. We'll just slot that last one in there, shall we?

Accept it - "LOOK HOW FAT SHE GOT - HAR HAR" is exactly the same reward system present in the mind of someone who picks up a cheap copy of Star magazine. If you don't like finding yourself in such company, well, saying "we're different, we're using it as satire", isn't going to carry much weight. ;)
 
It is dwindling, she's getting rather hagged now. I was going to bump this thread earlier when I saw it trending on facebook but promptly forgot about it.

SJWs have, predictably, gone mental over the decision.
 
The actual issue on hand is a real one.(I don't mean keesha specifically but the difficulty genuine victims have getting justice) Sadly it's being trivialised as usual when the clickbait ******* of the internet media is involved.
 
Last edited:
Jokester said:
The whole thing reeks to high heaven and I don't like the way everyone is jumping on the #freekesha bandwagon.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

FoxEye said:
Careful what you say, if you deny rape three times in front of the mirror you'll summon hurfdurf.
Click to expand...

:p

h4rm0ny said:
And now we've gone from it being right for a judge not to invalidate her contract based on unproven allegations to a thread taking delight in her having gained some weight.
Click to expand...

Sony did not rape her the contract is separate from any allegation, contract still stands. So she gained weight and some find that funny, it's not poking fun at her being an alleged victim. She did parade around for the sake of adoration for her looks/physique and now her physique is changed some will find that humorous.

G-MAN2004 said:
I'm surprised Sony don't want to get rid. Her 'music' is absolutely awful.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
 
Feef said:
However, for the quote above, you must surely have an idea of any one of the many, many reasons victims don't just go to the police?
Click to expand...

You can't have it both ways. If someone is raped, then report it and have the Police conduct an investigation. Otherwise keep quiet. What the point of the trial by social media is I really don't understand.
 
Hitman_Leon said:
Sony did not rape her the contract is separate from any allegation, contract still stands. So she gained weight and some find that funny, it's not poking fun at her being an alleged victim. She did parade around for the sake of adoration for her looks/physique and now her physique is changed some will find that humorous.
Click to expand...
She's always just looked like John Travolta to me :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom