Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Matrix ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

Episode 561: Hungry, Hungry Hunger Games (Patreon)

Published:
2021-01-23 07:32:32
Imported:
2024-12
Tags:

Downloads

Content

Show Notes

Commentary: It’s time to raise the cost of spreading conspiracy theories

Traditional Catholics Lose It After Pope Francis Says Women Can Serve in Mass

Catholic Cardinal Claims COVID Vaccine Contains Microchip with Mark of the Beast

India to hold nationwide 'cow science' exam | Religion News

Egyptian woman arrested for baking 'indecent' cakes

Pastor Who Advised Obama and Bush Is Sentenced to 6 Years for Cheating Investors Pastor Who Advised Two Presidents Is Sentenced to 6 Years for Cheating Investors

Police Investigate Arson of Historic ‘Halloween House' in Poughkeepsie

Christian Textbooks Are Already Rewriting the Obama and Trump Presidencies

Lin Wood Claims Clinton, Pence, and Chief Justice Roberts Conspired to Murder Federal Judges

Johnny Enlow Says the College Football National Championship Game Is Prophetic Confirmation Trump Will Remain President

The Trump Prophecies: A Look Back at Some of the Self-Proclaimed 'Prophets' Who Guaranteed Trump's Second Term

Misinformation went down after Twitter banned Trump


https://gfycat.com/heavenlymiserlyichneumonfly






Files

Comments

Asymetra

In violation of the Establishment Clause, we are enabling christian hatred through funding voucher schools with tax payer money. Excerpt: “Contrary to the high hopes that Obama’s presidency would bring the country together, Americans were bitterly divided leading up to the election in 2016. The Democratic Party had become increasingly concerned with identity politics, which is the idea that a person’s race, sex, and sexual orientation form the most important parts of their humanity and that politics should reflect that belief. Republicans, meanwhile, believed that their politicians had been too compromising with the increasingly radical left and that they needed a political outsider who would not back down or compromise with the Democrats." I will never believe that the republican party is anything but the party of hatred, racism, sexism, and lies.

Asymetra

Things may have changed since I stopped following the encryption debate. I don't know about encryption being illegal beyond the gov't's ability to decrypt, but that sounds like not a thing, or not even enforceable. How is that defined? It is (or was) illegal to export encryption over a certain key-size out of the US. Export being defined as sending source code via any means. The key-size was based on the gov't's ability to brute force crack it. PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) fought for years with the gov't over it's 124-bit key encryption program. At that time it could take thousands of years to brute force crack it. PGP got around the export ban by printing the source code, which is protected as free speech under the 1st Amendment, then scanned the printout and used OCR to turn it back into source code. Any company that put a back door into it's code and gave the key to the US gov't was allowed to export their software. Who is going to trust encryption software that has a back door, especially when the US gov't can open it at any time? Hell, the rest of the world can't trust the US not to overthrow their gov't and install a dictator if they piss us off for any reason. Do you think foreign corporations are going to trust the US gov't? Spoiler alert: No! The gov't's knee-jerk reaction to encryption ignored one thing. The rest of the world needed/ wanted encryption as well. Lacking any solution coming out of the US, they developed their own encryption, including the terrorists.

Tankard

Lies, misinformation, and conspiracies will never have consequences as long as religion is tolerated by society. period.

Tankard

Also, Tom, regarding SIO, in the future try not to go on shows and have opinions about interviews you didn't listen to and have no familiarity with. I mean, I expect that kind of sloppy work from Thomas but I had higher opinions of you. Eli's entire point was "Look, Pornhub does bad shit. But mainstream reporters spreading misinformation from religious groups that want to punish sex workers and their work are contributing to the stigmatization that allows pornhub to operate on the fringes and takes away power from the sex workers to protect themselves and make improvements." and you come tromping through with "ELI SAY PORNHUB GOOD! ME SAY NOT GOOD! BIG ARTICLE!" Your entire rebuttle was attacking something that Eli was never defending. You missed this boat by so much that you ended up in the desert. At this point I'm not convinced that this whole exchange isn't just an elaborate prank war of Eli's to make you look like a deranged boomer.

Laughton Melmop

That process you describe of bringing the red hats back to reality has been done before. It was named denazification.

Cognitive Dissonance Podcast
>>52025993

Perhaps my position was clumsily articulated. I, of course, did listen to Eli's episode, and I think he missed the point of the article. The article had one bad source among many. That one bad source does not invalidate the larger point of the article, a point which is backed up by many similar corroborating articles, that pornhub has no system to ensure that the material it offered was produced or offered consensually. We know with certainty that there are videos on offer in that ecosystem which are videos of sexual assault, and there are videos which, because they are shared without the consent of the parties in those videos, are themselves a form of assault. Tube sites, because they do not produce their own content or meaningfully vet the content on their site, cannot by structure, guard against this. As consumers of sex work, we have a responsibility to consume sex work ethically. The point of the article, which I think Eli glossed over, is that PornHub has intentionally shirked its responsibility to provide sexually ethical content to consumers. We should know that, and as consumers, we should avoid services which are not interested in providing ethical sex work. Eli focused on one bad source. I granted that source, but that one bad source does not invalidate the point of the article.

Power-Mad
>>52025993

I really can't tell if you listened to the episode if you keep calling it "one bad source" after everything Eli brought up. It wasn't just one mention, it was subsidiaries of that group throughout it and the follow up and they got a large donation boost that immediately played their hand of how corrupt they were thanks to that article so prominently featuring them. More importantly, I really can't bring myself to agree with you just constantly going back to "One is too much". It was the entire stopping point of all discussion for you was "If this happens once, it's too much, burn it all down". Someone else put it well that Eli went on there with a focus as the anti religious man to talk about the issue of a religious group directing people with a bad goal. When you went on, it really came off boomer-ish. A lot of questions about what is your expertise and research here and what are you presenting that's not just knee jerk reactionary. I suppose it depends on who volunteers to come on, but I would've rather heard from a sex worker actually in the business, someone who works with the internet and might've known what options exist when it comes to a discussion of how the porn market should be handled. Instead you seemed confused as the basic concept of how they make a living from this.

Cognitive Dissonance Podcast
>>52025993

Did you read the article that Eli's episode was based on? Eli focus was on one example, that of the Exodus Cry link, which was linked to only one of many examples of non-consensual content on PornHub. That example is not central to the article. The issue with PornHub is not whethjer sex workers have a space to make a living, nor if Kristoff used one bad source among many sources. The issues with non-consensual material being on PornHub are, as I noted above corroborated in many places. I'll drop a few links here for you. My point was and is, that as consumers, we don't have to consume porn this way and we shouldn't it. This is an ethical issue. Pornhub, by intent and structure, has no meaningful mechanism to guarantee that the material you view was produced consensually or shared consensually. As consumers of sex work, it seems reasonable to say that this is not the standard. Perhaps your standard doesn't need to be as high as 100%, but I would think it should be higher than what PornHub offers. This isn';t me not understanding technology. This is a relatively simple argument that the value that porn offers in our lives should be weighed against the sources that offer it. If those sources are unethical, we should seek other options. https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/when-can-a-woman-who-kills-her-abuser-claim-self-defense https://nypost.com/2019/10/24/mom-finds-missing-teen-girl-by-spotting-her-on-pornhub/ https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-51391981 https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/mar/09/pornhub-needs-to-change-or-shut-down There's still not been a refutation of the basic facts here, that PornHub has no meaningful system in place to verify that they offer content produced or distributed consensually. What is offered instead is a lot of hand waving that that standard is too high and unrealistic. Perhaps it is for some, but I will say that for myself, porn just isn't that important in my life that I'm willing to support a company which cannot meet this standard. Your mileage may vary, but this is not some fringe view.