3 ms·

He championed civil and gay rights.

by cowmix 9y ago

adamnemecek 9y ago
I guess nice of him to meet the lowest bar.
- slededit 9y ago
  It wasn't the lowest bar in the 50s and 60s.
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  I'm sure if you were alive in the 1700s you'd be championing anti slavery, women's right to vote, etc right?
  - adamnemecek 9y ago
    Depends where I would have been born. In which countries in 1700s did anyone have right to vote.
    - slededit 9y ago
      Republics included: France, Dutch, Northern Italy, Venice, Genoa, Poland, and of course the USA. England had its mix of monarchy and democracy.
- ehnto 9y ago
  The only thing that could be construed as sleazy are that the women were naked and he didn't settle down with one woman. He conducted business with respect and used his eventual notoriety for the greater good. If perhaps you don't want to be as hedonistic as he was, that's okay, but so far as I can tell he was not exploitive, manipulative or untruthful, which is what I would consider sleazy behavior.
  - logicallee 9y ago
    If Arianna Huffington had nude chippendales style pictures separating the Huffington Post's stories or an entourage like this one every time she was photographed: http://www.gettyimages.com/event/vegas-magazine-launch-party-75190823 http://www.gettyimages.com/event/vegas-magazine-launch-party... (obviously that's not Huffington, I'm using that as an example) - would you think any less of her as a writer and editor? Would you think it's "sleazy"? I don't know the history of it well, but the idea that it's hard to see what's "sleazy" about a magazine like Playboy is hard to buy.
    - adamnemecek 9y ago
      Well said.
    - ehnto 9y ago
      We clearly have different views on what sleaze is. Sleaze has nothing to do with sex or nudity in my mind. I could concede it could be tacky or distasteful, but even that is subjective. If Huffington had claimed to be the elegant and foremost professional news source and subsequently used nudity to sell papers then that would be sleazy. If they sold out their position of high viewership to sell advertising for cheap psuedolegal pharmaceuticals or fad diets and spin sites that would be far more sleazy. Huh. They do that. In fact when I tried to confirm the crappy advertising practices of the Huff, it popped a new tab and an alert box as I tried to leave with another advert. I know that's normally the ad providers problem but how pertinent the timing. Before it's said, yes I do realise most other news sites use similar advertising and I yet I still find the practice far more detestable than a magazine open about its love for nudity. Nobody was ever under the illusion that Playboy was anything other than what it was.
Nothorized 9y ago
I think that some people in the recent years only sees him as a some porno-king, while, as Larry Flint, he was a leader on a lot of conflictual subjects. Some of the interviews in Playboy are also legendary (I am thinking about the one with Larry Page & Sergey Brin, and the one with Steve Jobs).

He championed civil and gay rights.

by cowmix 9y ago

He championed civil and gay rights.

adamnemecek 9y ago

I guess nice of him to meet the lowest bar.

slededit 9y ago
It wasn't the lowest bar in the 50s and 60s.
oh_sigh 9y ago
I'm sure if you were alive in the 1700s you'd be championing anti slavery, women's right to vote, etc right?
- adamnemecek 9y ago
  Depends where I would have been born. In which countries in 1700s did anyone have right to vote.
  - slededit 9y ago
    Republics included: France, Dutch, Northern Italy, Venice, Genoa, Poland, and of course the USA. England had its mix of monarchy and democracy.
ehnto 9y ago
The only thing that could be construed as sleazy are that the women were naked and he didn't settle down with one woman. He conducted business with respect and used his eventual notoriety for the greater good. If perhaps you don't want to be as hedonistic as he was, that's okay, but so far as I can tell he was not exploitive, manipulative or untruthful, which is what I would consider sleazy behavior.
- logicallee 9y ago
  If Arianna Huffington had nude chippendales style pictures separating the Huffington Post's stories or an entourage like this one every time she was photographed: http://www.gettyimages.com/event/vegas-magazine-launch-party-75190823 http://www.gettyimages.com/event/vegas-magazine-launch-party... (obviously that's not Huffington, I'm using that as an example) - would you think any less of her as a writer and editor? Would you think it's "sleazy"? I don't know the history of it well, but the idea that it's hard to see what's "sleazy" about a magazine like Playboy is hard to buy.
  - adamnemecek 9y ago
    Well said.
  - ehnto 9y ago
    We clearly have different views on what sleaze is. Sleaze has nothing to do with sex or nudity in my mind. I could concede it could be tacky or distasteful, but even that is subjective. If Huffington had claimed to be the elegant and foremost professional news source and subsequently used nudity to sell papers then that would be sleazy. If they sold out their position of high viewership to sell advertising for cheap psuedolegal pharmaceuticals or fad diets and spin sites that would be far more sleazy. Huh. They do that. In fact when I tried to confirm the crappy advertising practices of the Huff, it popped a new tab and an alert box as I tried to leave with another advert. I know that's normally the ad providers problem but how pertinent the timing. Before it's said, yes I do realise most other news sites use similar advertising and I yet I still find the practice far more detestable than a magazine open about its love for nudity. Nobody was ever under the illusion that Playboy was anything other than what it was.

Nothorized 9y ago

I think that some people in the recent years only sees him as a some porno-king, while, as Larry Flint, he was a leader on a lot of conflictual subjects. Some of the interviews in Playboy are also legendary (I am thinking about the one with Larry Page & Sergey Brin, and the one with Steve Jobs).