Jump to content


Photo

the fappening


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
216 replies to this topic

#181 CarlosM

CarlosM

    Señor Joykill

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12344 posts

Posted 22 September 2014 - 07:32 PM

Well now I HAVE to look at the Hope Solo stuff

honestly, its not as beefy as people are claiming. I dig it. 



#182 badogg

badogg

    Comptroller of jokes about violence against women

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30750 posts

Posted 22 September 2014 - 07:41 PM

honestly, its not as beefy as people are claiming. I dig it.

It's not beefy, it's just OPEN

#183 Brian72

Brian72

    Peter Freer

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 40578 posts

Posted 22 September 2014 - 07:43 PM

It's not beefy, it's just OPEN

I'd still plant my face in that for as long as she'd let me....

#184 Seagis

Seagis

    Comptroller of Nothing Being Good Enough

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 18587 posts

Posted 22 September 2014 - 08:14 PM

I'm going to say something that I hope gets received in the spirit in which it is written. This isn't meant as a screed against anyone here. I realize that, on the surface, there are logical inconsistencies in what you're about to read (if you have the interest to read to the end) that I need to think through, but I can't help but think this.

 

I'm going to admit that I haven't yet seen any of these pictures and have no plans to look at them. Were these women risking their privacy by doing what they did? I'd say they were. I don't know how many of them knew of the automatic cloud backup thing. Maybe you could argue that they shouldn't have done this if for no other reasons than that of prudence. That's a minor point. I'm not about to blame them for this. Most of them are likely as technologically astute as your average American and didn't realize that the auto-backup was even functioning or that it could (or should) be turned off.

 

What really, really gets me, though, is this: We get media coverage of these women virtually 24/7/365. Every little detail of their lives is covered, examined, scrutinized and babbled about for days on end by a 24-hours-a-day news industry that plays to the lowest common denominator within their viewing audience. If their audience didn't ask for this garbage then they wouldn't provide it. They do it without a shred of guilt or second thought because RATINGS!!

 

When the individuals within 4chan threw this in the public's eye the media's tune changed and it changed drastically. There was so much self-righteous chest-thumping it was almost comical. Now *I* understand the huge chasm of difference between what the media does and what 4chan did. One is perfectly legal (if rather slimy) and the other is provided through illicit, if not outright illegal, means. So don't think for one second that I'm equating the two in terms of innocence, guilt, or meaning.

 

However, what I've heard the media carping about is not so much the illegality of 4chan's actions as it is the fact that they invaded the privacy that these women have (or had.) They act self-righteous and high and mighty about the fact that 4chan did the same thing that they do on a regular basis. Again, I understand that the methods in which the end result is achieved is vastly different, but that specific point is not what I'm hearing the media prattling on about.

 

All I hear is them babbling about the fact that someone else is playing their game and took 10 seconds to rewrite the rules.

 

I'm not excusing what 4chan did - not by any means. I think it's reprehensible no matter how much responsibility the women had to shield themselves from this. It's just that I also find it disgusting that the news media can get so high and mighty about someone else doing virtually the same thing they do, but only with less scruples. If that were at all possible.



#185 SchwanzBrewer

SchwanzBrewer

    Grand Duke of Inappropriate Announcements

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 34293 posts

Posted 22 September 2014 - 08:30 PM

I'm going to say something that I hope gets received in the spirit in which it is written. This isn't meant as a screed against anyone here. I realize that, on the surface, there are logical inconsistencies in what you're about to read (if you have the interest to read to the end) that I need to think through, but I can't help but think this.

 

I'm going to admit that I haven't yet seen any of these pictures and have no plans to look at them. Were these women risking their privacy by doing what they did? I'd say they were. I don't know how many of them knew of the automatic cloud backup thing. Maybe you could argue that they shouldn't have done this if for no other reasons than that of prudence. That's a minor point. I'm not about to blame them for this. Most of them are likely as technologically astute as your average American and didn't realize that the auto-backup was even functioning or that it could (or should) be turned off.

 

What really, really gets me, though, is this: We get media coverage of these women virtually 24/7/365. Every little detail of their lives is covered, examined, scrutinized and babbled about for days on end by a 24-hours-a-day news industry that plays to the lowest common denominator within their viewing audience. If their audience didn't ask for this garbage then they wouldn't provide it. They do it without a shred of guilt or second thought because RATINGS!!

 

When the individuals within 4chan threw this in the public's eye the media's tune changed and it changed drastically. There was so much self-righteous chest-thumping it was almost comical. Now *I* understand the huge chasm of difference between what the media does and what 4chan did. One is perfectly legal (if rather slimy) and the other is provided through illicit, if not outright illegal, means. So don't think for one second that I'm equating the two in terms of innocence, guilt, or meaning.

 

However, what I've heard the media carping about is not so much the illegality of 4chan's actions as it is the fact that they invaded the privacy that these women have (or had.) They act self-righteous and high and mighty about the fact that 4chan did the same thing that they do on a regular basis. Again, I understand that the methods in which the end result is achieved is vastly different, but that specific point is not what I'm hearing the media prattling on about.

 

All I hear is them babbling about the fact that someone else is playing their game and took 10 seconds to rewrite the rules.

 

I'm not excusing what 4chan did - not by any means. I think it's reprehensible no matter how much responsibility the women had to shield themselves from this. It's just that I also find it disgusting that the news media can get so high and mighty about someone else doing virtually the same thing they do, but only with less scruples. If that were at all possible.

 

At least the people on 4 chan are up front about their intentions. You are 100% correct about the "normal" media. Bunch of slimy good for nothing shit heels.



#186 Beejus McReejus

Beejus McReejus

    Comptroller of Flying Ducks

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12328 posts

Posted 23 September 2014 - 05:00 AM

Sounds like it may have been a phishing scheme that got them to share their password.

#187 Sidney Porter

Sidney Porter

    Comptroller of the Banninated

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 27398 posts

Posted 23 September 2014 - 05:17 AM

Sounds like it may have been a phishing scheme that got them to share their password.

My understanding is it wasn't that complicated. They used the forgot password feature and were able to figure out the answers to the questions pretty easy. It isn't hard to figure out the city, school, mother's name etc for a celebrity.



#188 CarlosM

CarlosM

    Señor Joykill

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12344 posts

Posted 23 September 2014 - 05:27 AM

My understanding is it wasn't that complicated. They used the forgot password feature and were able to figure out the answers to the questions pretty easy. It isn't hard to figure out the city, school, mother's name etc for a celebrity.

pretty much this, just exploiting the generic information that celebrities forego for being under the everwatching eyes of media. 



#189 Mexas Joe

Mexas Joe

    Obama Thanker

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22502 posts

Posted 12 February 2015 - 11:56 AM

Another dump of pics today. You kids would have known this is had you not all been engrossed in the yard bird threads. :nono:



#190 armagh

armagh

    Grumpy Frost Giant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6698 posts

Posted 12 February 2015 - 12:00 PM

Another dump of pics today. You kids would have known this is had you not all been engrossed in the yard bird threads.

Not into voyeurism.



#191 BrewerGeorge

BrewerGeorge

    His Royal Misinformed

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 45199 posts

Posted 12 February 2015 - 12:00 PM

Another dump of pics today. You kids would have known this is had you not all been engrossed in the yard bird threads. :nono:

Drop some names, maybe?



#192 SchwanzBrewer

SchwanzBrewer

    Grand Duke of Inappropriate Announcements

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 34293 posts

Posted 12 February 2015 - 12:02 PM

I don't see anything on the news sites...



#193 TonyBrown

TonyBrown

    Comptroller of C-Blocking and Wet Streak Marks

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 81907 posts

Posted 12 February 2015 - 12:03 PM

Another dump of pics today. You kids would have known this is had you not all been engrossed in the yard bird threads. :nono:

show your work.



#194 texred1

texred1

    Permanent Comptroller & Pyromaniac

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3644 posts

Posted 12 February 2015 - 12:07 PM

Drop some names, maybe?

 

I looked down the list and didn't recognize any names.

 

~dustin



#195 Mexas Joe

Mexas Joe

    Obama Thanker

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22502 posts

Posted 12 February 2015 - 12:11 PM

Drop some names, maybe?

 

New Jennifer Lawrence pics.

 

I just thought she was a freak from the last dump.



#196 SchwanzBrewer

SchwanzBrewer

    Grand Duke of Inappropriate Announcements

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 34293 posts

Posted 12 February 2015 - 12:15 PM

New Jennifer Lawrence pics.

 

I just thought she was a freak from the last dump.

 

Where are you finding this?



#197 SnowMan

SnowMan

    Advanced Snowman

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13024 posts

Posted 12 February 2015 - 12:23 PM

I looked down the list and didn't recognize any names.~dustin

This.

New Jennifer Lawrence pics.I just thought she was a freak from the last dump.

The ones I saw today are from a magazine or something. I saw them published a couple of weeks ago. She managed to get pretty much all of the ones from last time suppressed. But she sure is a wild one...

Where are you finding this?

Google the fappening

#198 SchwanzBrewer

SchwanzBrewer

    Grand Duke of Inappropriate Announcements

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 34293 posts

Posted 12 February 2015 - 12:23 PM

I did, but I didn't see any articles or links that weren't from August of last year.



#199 Buzz Buzzard

Buzz Buzzard

    Comptroller of Fanatical Political Expressionism

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12316 posts

Posted 12 February 2015 - 12:25 PM

Still, not a bad revisit. :ttiuwp: :ttiuwp: :ttiuwp: :ttiuwp:



#200 BIG POPPA

BIG POPPA

    Duke of Errrrl

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 25965 posts

Posted 12 February 2015 - 12:27 PM

I did, but I didn't see any articles or links that weren't from August of last year.

 

If it were a political thread there would be a linkapaloza