4 ms·

You're missing the point entirely. It's not that this image or porn is bad (or not), but that an image from a soft-porn magazine is used in a professional setti

You're missing the point entirely. It's not that this image or porn is bad (or not), but that an image from a soft-porn magazine is used in a professional setting when you're not explicitly wanting to go down that road. What others do on their own is fine. But this image gives porn-connotations to people just wanting to do their job. It's equivalent to having a poster of a woman in the office bathroom. Have it in your own home, it's fine, but don't push it on others.

Fnoord 3y ago
It is cancel culture 101. I'm not for or against cancel culture, btw. I understand pros, but also cons. A poster of a woman, would depend on what that entails. If it is a poster with a function, with the face of a woman, it'd be OK. No matter the source. The source ought to be OK with it (with regards to copyright) but other than that, I don't find it relevant. Because people don't see the source; they see the derivative. As an analogy, would you run code by a convicted murderer? As in, would you be opposed to run code programmed by Hans Reiser? Ie. would you use Btrfs? Would you run code by a company who are morally bankrupt?
- matsemann 3y ago
  No, it's not cancel culture. You're just making things up to fit your outrage. Your last whataboutisms aren't relevant. If people don't like having to work with an image whose origin is from a porn magazine and which the woman has asked people to stop using it, that's a perfectly valid feeling.
  - Fnoord 3y ago
    Oh it absolutely is cancel culture 101. It just that in this case the person isn't cancelled but society moral values have changed, and this is somehow an important hill to die on (I think not). Ie. there were 2 artists: the model and the person shooting the picture. If they're not fine with it they can pick an alternative. One was posted in this very thread. The woman in question and the author of the picture were also OK with it in past, right? Not like it was a case of copyright infringement? I'm sure there are also people who deeply care about not using programs written by a convicted criminal. Most people don't realize that when they use Linux because it is hidden in plain sight. Just like the fact that this photograph is from a pornography magazine, and that the woman in question was naked (softcore still), is obscure as well. Obscure in this context also means harmless. Ie. I can show this portrait picture of this woman to my pre-puberty daughter, and it'd be completely OK. Just like running Linux kernel with code by a convicted murderer is also OK. OK, as in harmless. My pre-puberty daughter is a great case of where I draw the line between NSFW, ie. with regards to recent terrorism in Russia and torture of suspects. Would I feel ashamed if she saw this picture of Lena? Not at all. If needed, I could tell her the context of it being a picture from a different time in our past with different society moral values (though they're still very much alive in some areas in the world). There is also a huge difference between hardcore intercourse and a (half-)naked, posing woman. And of the former, with women who are exploited, is much more rampant on the internet. That seems to be a valid hill to die on.
    - matsemann 3y ago
      > Obscure in this context also means harmless It's not obscure for the scientists working in this field, so what you deem moral or not for your teenager is irrelevant. Especially so when the scientists in this field have voiced their opinion which should count far more. Why should they not be heard? Why are you the one trying to cancel the opinions of these female scientists?
  - low_tech_love 3y ago
    Except "people" didn't make this ban, IEEE did. If people don't want to work with this image, then they might as well not work with it? Look, the point here is not whether using the image is a good idea or not; it's about whether an organization such as IEEE should ban it. The fact that using this image is technically a disaster (for all the technical reasons presented by so many people) only makes it easier for the ban to be instated and convince people like you that it's ok to do that. But the fact is that the technical reasons were not what supported the ban, and when you keep defending it using other arguments which are not the ones that led to the ban, you're just feeding a monster.
    - matsemann 3y ago
      > Except "people" didn't make this ban, IEEE did. Isn't IEEE made up of people? > If people don't want to work with this image, then they might as well not work with it? Lucky for you that you're oblivious to these kind of issues, but it's not as easy as you portray it to be. Most people will shut up and "just accept it" to not stir the pot. People aren't writing a paper in isolation using this, so can't easily just switch if the rest of the community uses it to benchmark, the co-authors want to use it etc. > and convince people like you that it's ok to do that. Please define "people like me". Tread carefully. > and when you keep defending it using other arguments which are not the ones that led to the ban, you're just feeding a monster. Don't lie. I've only used the arguments put forward by IEEE in the article.

Fnoord 3y ago

It is cancel culture 101. I'm not for or against cancel culture, btw. I understand pros, but also cons. A poster of a woman, would depend on what that entails. If it is a poster with a function, with the face of a woman, it'd be OK. No matter the source. The source ought to be OK with it (with regards to copyright) but other than that, I don't find it relevant. Because people don't see the source; they see the derivative. As an analogy, would you run code by a convicted murderer? As in, would you be opposed to run code programmed by Hans Reiser? Ie. would you use Btrfs? Would you run code by a company who are morally bankrupt?

matsemann 3y ago
No, it's not cancel culture. You're just making things up to fit your outrage. Your last whataboutisms aren't relevant. If people don't like having to work with an image whose origin is from a porn magazine and which the woman has asked people to stop using it, that's a perfectly valid feeling.
- Fnoord 3y ago
  Oh it absolutely is cancel culture 101. It just that in this case the person isn't cancelled but society moral values have changed, and this is somehow an important hill to die on (I think not). Ie. there were 2 artists: the model and the person shooting the picture. If they're not fine with it they can pick an alternative. One was posted in this very thread. The woman in question and the author of the picture were also OK with it in past, right? Not like it was a case of copyright infringement? I'm sure there are also people who deeply care about not using programs written by a convicted criminal. Most people don't realize that when they use Linux because it is hidden in plain sight. Just like the fact that this photograph is from a pornography magazine, and that the woman in question was naked (softcore still), is obscure as well. Obscure in this context also means harmless. Ie. I can show this portrait picture of this woman to my pre-puberty daughter, and it'd be completely OK. Just like running Linux kernel with code by a convicted murderer is also OK. OK, as in harmless. My pre-puberty daughter is a great case of where I draw the line between NSFW, ie. with regards to recent terrorism in Russia and torture of suspects. Would I feel ashamed if she saw this picture of Lena? Not at all. If needed, I could tell her the context of it being a picture from a different time in our past with different society moral values (though they're still very much alive in some areas in the world). There is also a huge difference between hardcore intercourse and a (half-)naked, posing woman. And of the former, with women who are exploited, is much more rampant on the internet. That seems to be a valid hill to die on.
  - matsemann 3y ago
    > Obscure in this context also means harmless It's not obscure for the scientists working in this field, so what you deem moral or not for your teenager is irrelevant. Especially so when the scientists in this field have voiced their opinion which should count far more. Why should they not be heard? Why are you the one trying to cancel the opinions of these female scientists?
- low_tech_love 3y ago
  Except "people" didn't make this ban, IEEE did. If people don't want to work with this image, then they might as well not work with it? Look, the point here is not whether using the image is a good idea or not; it's about whether an organization such as IEEE should ban it. The fact that using this image is technically a disaster (for all the technical reasons presented by so many people) only makes it easier for the ban to be instated and convince people like you that it's ok to do that. But the fact is that the technical reasons were not what supported the ban, and when you keep defending it using other arguments which are not the ones that led to the ban, you're just feeding a monster.
  - matsemann 3y ago
    > Except "people" didn't make this ban, IEEE did. Isn't IEEE made up of people? > If people don't want to work with this image, then they might as well not work with it? Lucky for you that you're oblivious to these kind of issues, but it's not as easy as you portray it to be. Most people will shut up and "just accept it" to not stir the pot. People aren't writing a paper in isolation using this, so can't easily just switch if the rest of the community uses it to benchmark, the co-authors want to use it etc. > and convince people like you that it's ok to do that. Please define "people like me". Tread carefully. > and when you keep defending it using other arguments which are not the ones that led to the ban, you're just feeding a monster. Don't lie. I've only used the arguments put forward by IEEE in the article.