4 ms·

> Mott and Bailey. This image is not pornography. It's a tasteful head shot. You're introducing any discussion of pornography. Mott and Bailey. I can also name

> Mott and Bailey. This image is not pornography. It's a tasteful head shot. You're introducing any discussion of pornography. Mott and Bailey. I can also name drop logical fallacies to no purpose. This image, though cropped, is from Playboy and the full image features a clearly nude women shot from the back and exposing her buttocks. Your quibble over a specific categorization again misses the forest for the trees. Women are saying that this image makes them feel uncomfortable due to its origins, and there is no technical reason that it needs to remain in the test set or the curricula. There are many suitable alternatives that would not have this problem. >>[minor point - if you are a legal stickler, use of the Lena image was also done in infringement of copyright. > > If you are a legal stickler, or even just support basic rights, fair use is integral to the research process. [1] Honestly the smart thing to do here is to not engage with your point, as again, it is minor and not actually relevant to the thrust of the conversation. If you want to treat my decision to not push further into this as a moral win, enjoy it.

chillingeffect 4y ago
You are obviously quite wrapped around the axle here. Though you may not like it, the logical fallacy applies here as you're the one introducing criteria that make people feel bad. The full image is not something here in the room with us. It's something in your mind that you're transmitting to everyone else to help you come with the world. If you and everyone would else would stop running around traumatizing people, "HEY this picture makes me feel bad and it should make you feel bad, too," we'd all feel a lot better. But just a suggestion: perhaps you would feel a lot better if you examined why this picture triggers you so badly? What is it inside you that makes you react so strongly? Did your family have moral issues about women getting money from men for showing their bodies off? > it is minor and not actually relevant to the thrust of the conversation. You brought it up, "Doc"! Another perfect example of a Mott and Bailey. Again, look into your personal psychology and family system. Narcissistic projection like this is a typical symptom of a crummy upbringing. In short, learn what things you can change (yourself) and what things you can not change (A woman's decision 50 years ago to get money for images of her body). Taking care of your "stuff" will make you a lot less reactive and more persuasive.
- drabbiticus 4y ago
  > You are obviously quite wrapped around the axle here I have a viewpoint and I am expressing it, in accordance with free speech. I'm sorry that my viewpoint make you "feel bad". I'm sorry that you had such a strong reaction to this image of the author, published in their own expression of free speech. Everyone could use a bit of self-examination, and I would suggest that some examination of why this article has led to such an emotional response in yourself is similarly worthwhile. Your personal attacks on my "narcissistic projection", "crummy upbringing" and being "wrapped around the axle" only serve to heighten the emotional stakes of the argument and are not a discussion of the relative merits of the issue. I have no qualms about sex work and find stigmatization of such work distasteful. Nonetheless, a society in which women are being policed for their wardrobe in a professional settings and also confronted with images sourced from erotica in a professional setting is hypocritical. Many women are saying that this image is unwelcoming and that they feel it is exclusionary. Playboy is exclusionary and explicitly stated in its first issue that it was not for women, and it's very hard to argue that the Playboy centerfolds were not intended in large part to cater to a male fantasy. They are saying that an action can be taken which does no technical harm to the merits of JPEG compression technology and would have appreciable gains from an inclusionary standpoint. Again, I'm sorry that them expressing their viewpoint is so distasteful to you and has evoked this response in you.
  - chillingeffect 4y ago
    ah, "I know you are but what am I" ...Whatever! > I would suggest that some examination of why this article has led to such an emotional response in yourself is similarly worthwhile. Honestly I care so little I literally passed out, but I did inquire into myself as to why I even bothered writing back to you. And you know what came up? I feel bad for the people in your life who have to put up with you. And then I realized you're not hiding behind your keyboard when you talk to them, using an obvious troll account on HN like you are, just look at your post history.
    - drabbiticus 4y ago
      Time and time again, you resort to name-calling and insults rather than focus on issues. You call into question my character and integrity rather than grapple with the issue or argument. You use logical fallacy terminology with limited understanding of their actual structure and misapply them in argumentation. You may be a kind and intellectually considered person in other aspects of your life, but this is not an example. May kindness find you, may people give you grace, and may you be a source of warmth to others.

chillingeffect 4y ago

You are obviously quite wrapped around the axle here. Though you may not like it, the logical fallacy applies here as you're the one introducing criteria that make people feel bad. The full image is not something here in the room with us. It's something in your mind that you're transmitting to everyone else to help you come with the world. If you and everyone would else would stop running around traumatizing people, "HEY this picture makes me feel bad and it should make you feel bad, too," we'd all feel a lot better. But just a suggestion: perhaps you would feel a lot better if you examined why this picture triggers you so badly? What is it inside you that makes you react so strongly? Did your family have moral issues about women getting money from men for showing their bodies off? > it is minor and not actually relevant to the thrust of the conversation. You brought it up, "Doc"! Another perfect example of a Mott and Bailey. Again, look into your personal psychology and family system. Narcissistic projection like this is a typical symptom of a crummy upbringing. In short, learn what things you can change (yourself) and what things you can not change (A woman's decision 50 years ago to get money for images of her body). Taking care of your "stuff" will make you a lot less reactive and more persuasive.

drabbiticus 4y ago
> You are obviously quite wrapped around the axle here I have a viewpoint and I am expressing it, in accordance with free speech. I'm sorry that my viewpoint make you "feel bad". I'm sorry that you had such a strong reaction to this image of the author, published in their own expression of free speech. Everyone could use a bit of self-examination, and I would suggest that some examination of why this article has led to such an emotional response in yourself is similarly worthwhile. Your personal attacks on my "narcissistic projection", "crummy upbringing" and being "wrapped around the axle" only serve to heighten the emotional stakes of the argument and are not a discussion of the relative merits of the issue. I have no qualms about sex work and find stigmatization of such work distasteful. Nonetheless, a society in which women are being policed for their wardrobe in a professional settings and also confronted with images sourced from erotica in a professional setting is hypocritical. Many women are saying that this image is unwelcoming and that they feel it is exclusionary. Playboy is exclusionary and explicitly stated in its first issue that it was not for women, and it's very hard to argue that the Playboy centerfolds were not intended in large part to cater to a male fantasy. They are saying that an action can be taken which does no technical harm to the merits of JPEG compression technology and would have appreciable gains from an inclusionary standpoint. Again, I'm sorry that them expressing their viewpoint is so distasteful to you and has evoked this response in you.
- chillingeffect 4y ago
  ah, "I know you are but what am I" ...Whatever! > I would suggest that some examination of why this article has led to such an emotional response in yourself is similarly worthwhile. Honestly I care so little I literally passed out, but I did inquire into myself as to why I even bothered writing back to you. And you know what came up? I feel bad for the people in your life who have to put up with you. And then I realized you're not hiding behind your keyboard when you talk to them, using an obvious troll account on HN like you are, just look at your post history.
  - drabbiticus 4y ago
    Time and time again, you resort to name-calling and insults rather than focus on issues. You call into question my character and integrity rather than grapple with the issue or argument. You use logical fallacy terminology with limited understanding of their actual structure and misapply them in argumentation. You may be a kind and intellectually considered person in other aspects of your life, but this is not an example. May kindness find you, may people give you grace, and may you be a source of warmth to others.