Soo.... Now that we've heard from all sides, what do you think of the controversy going on at Nintendo of America?
| I'm just gonna state the facts. *Alison Rapp worked as a PR manager marketing specialist for Nintendo (I made a boo boo) *Alison Rapp is an advocate of child pornography *Alison Rapp holds a second job that involves modeling (lingerie, nude, etc) *When certain people found out Rapp was an advocate of child porn, they asked Nintendo to remove her, because they don't believe someone who supports child pornography should be working as a Public Relations manager for a company that is generally known as family-friendly. (I can't think of a label for this group of people so I'm just going to call them ShadowCocks for the sake of simplicity.) *Eventually Nintendo fired Alison Rapp. *When Rapp was fired, she initially blamed ShadowCocks for messenging Nintendo about her position on child pornography. Even going so far as to call ShadowCocks' efforts a smear campaign. *Then gaming new sites got a hold of this information and stirred the melting pot even further. I don't know, at this point everything went chaotic. GG vs GG or some shit. Feminism and sexism or whatever. Yada yada, narratives everywhere. *Nintendo later released a statement saying that she was fired, not because of her advocacy of chlld pornography, but because she was moonlighting a job that's against company culture AKA her job as a 18+ model. And uh, here we are. What are your thoughts on this? |
PeenusWeenusCaimMar 31, 2016 6:07 PM
 |
| She was moonlighting which would be fine if she weren't a glamour model while working for a kid friendly company, this is not the manga or anime industry where sex workers are welcome as staff (and yes there are former sex workers working for them in Japan, there's an article on ANN about one), so she got fired for being a glamour model while working at Nintendo. Also, who even brought the story up in the first place was no a GGer but an aggro or anti-GGer. I've also seen some of the glamour pics about 20 minutes ago so yeah, it's definitely what got her fired |
 |
| Its a shame on Nintendo for lacking a spine and giving in into demands of what essentially is internet hatespeech group. Hopefully poor woman lands on her feet in a company actually willing to stand up for their employees. Hoppy said: She was moonlighting which would be fine if she weren't a glamour model while working for a kid friendly company, this is not the manga or anime industry where sex workers are welcome as staff (and yes there are former sex workers working for them in Japan, there's an article on ANN about one), Nice slutshaming there, m8 |
AhenshihaelMar 31, 2016 9:24 AM
 |
| ShadowCocks strike again. (We all know she was fired due to pressure from media. They just used her second job as a scapegoat) |
the40ftbadger said: i have palpable amounts of salt for FO4. It's like a clown put on my dead dad's clothes and is running around my house going "LOOK I'M YOUR DAD, ISN'T THIS FUN?!?!" |
Hoppy said: She was moonlighting which would be fine if she weren't a glamour model while working for a kid friendly company, this is not the manga or anime industry where sex workers are welcome as staff (and yes there are former sex workers working for them in Japan, there's an article on ANN about one), so she got fired for being a glamour model while working at Nintendo. Also, who even brought the story up in the first place was no a GGer but an aggro or anti-GGer. I've also seen some of the glamour pics about 20 minutes ago so yeah, it's definitely what got her fired This is basically my stance here. It was ultimately her fault. Although moonlighting in general is okay, she should have known that the subject of her work would directly conflict with her job at Nintendo. Such was the case that they did not simply ask her to quit her other job, and fired her, because the nature of her work couldn't simply be erased or forgotten. This isn't about censorship, but about the employee/employer relationship, and the employee doing their job to not harm the image of their company. Harming the image of their company includes things like, how do I say this... not a sex-positive attitude, but a sex-prevalent attitude? Especially as a PR Manager, dealing with the public, it's less of a big deal if someone who is not in the public eye is doing this unless they're going out advertising their Nintendo employment. Considering she said she's been against censorship I'm sad that she had to be fired, but again, it is her fault and I can't even say that Nintendo made a drastic choice. As far as who brought the story to their attention, I don't know. It would have been nice if Nintendo had given her a warning and some requirements for her to continue working, but for her to have worked 3 years is not enough to say "she was a valuable employee". I think I saw the glamour shots on her own twitter, and it's fairly obvious that it'd conflict with Nintendo's image. |
DateYutaka said: she free sto have her own views on thing even if i disagree with them would fight for her right to have them as any true leftist would say but the fact gg atacckted her i find delightfull whe they let a holocaust denier in to there inner circle at one time hah gg is precious There is no "inner circle". GG isn't a hivemind, a lot of people knew she was not an issue and suggested we ignore her. And ultimately it was her breaking the rules that led to her firing, not her opinions. |
 |
DateYutaka said: Narmy said: There is no "inner circle". GG isn't a hivemind, a lot of people knew she was not an issue and suggested we ignore her. And ultimately it was her breaking the rules that led to her firing, not her opinions. alot of GG'er help funed that movie that neve really got made by that same holocaust denier i agree she should have been fired over all but she would not have been so under Japanese law if she was unionized without huge court case fact Why do you keep bringing up that stupid movie. Most of us have never taken those guys seriously. |
|
UAC_DeltaCompany said: (We all know she was fired due to pressure from media. They just used her second job as a scapegoat)  Narmy said: There is no "inner circle". GG isn't a hivemind, a lot of people knew she was not an issue and suggested we ignore her. It wasn't at the start when there were actual people involved who cared about gaming journalism. And then the actual scum infiltrated it and most of people like Totalbiscuit jumped away from it in time when they realized what was happening(the fact that one of the most active GGers was a known harasser who was stalking youtuber Dodger tells all you need to know). It quickly devolved into "oh those evil women and sjws!" Now IT IS a harassment group with the leadership and the like. |
|
Fai said: UAC_DeltaCompany said: (We all know she was fired due to pressure from media. They just used her second job as a scapegoat) Am I reading this wrong? She says Moonlighting is acceptable in policy, but Nintendo didn't like it? Was it just the job then? |
the40ftbadger said: i have palpable amounts of salt for FO4. It's like a clown put on my dead dad's clothes and is running around my house going "LOOK I'M YOUR DAD, ISN'T THIS FUN?!?!" |
UAC_DeltaCompany said: Am I reading this wrong? She says Moonlighting is acceptable in policy, but Nintendo didn't like it? Was it just the job then? It was basically excuse to fire her because they did not want to deal with GG bullshit. If not for that shit and all the harassment, they would not have given a shit even if she was moonlighting as a pornstar(which she was not) as long as it is legal. |
AhenshihaelMar 31, 2016 12:15 PM
|
Fai said: UAC_DeltaCompany said: Am I reading this wrong? She says Moonlighting is acceptable in policy, but Nintendo didn't like it? Was it just the job then? It was basically excuse to fire her because they did not want to deal with GG bullshit. If not for that shit and all the harassment, they would not have given a shit even if she was moonlighting as a pornstar(which she was not) as long as it is legal. Ah, ok. Thanks for clearing that up. |
the40ftbadger said: i have palpable amounts of salt for FO4. It's like a clown put on my dead dad's clothes and is running around my house going "LOOK I'M YOUR DAD, ISN'T THIS FUN?!?!" |
UAC_DeltaCompany said: Moonlighting is okay but her job wasn't according to Nintendo. She's an 18+ model apparently, and that's against company culture.Am I reading this wrong? She says Moonlighting is acceptable in policy, but Nintendo didn't like it? Was it just the job then? |
|
| So basically a lot of stupid drama most people wouldn't give a shit about. |
DateYutaka said: Narmy said: Why do you keep bringing up that stupid movie. Most of us have never taken those guys seriously. speak softly and carry a big stick the movie is my big stick and i spek with very liite passion in GG its not middle east or stuff like that You're being disingenuous by saying that GG supports those guys though. Make a thread about them on one of the GG discussion hubs and I guarantee you they will get more hate than support. |
|
| I read her twitter, she sounds obnoxious. "I want the industry to lead others in progressiveness" what the fuck. Not justifying the harassment tho, just saying. |
| Glad she's fired. |
| PSN:ShadowStrike002 2x national and 2x all-American wrestler  |
| This topic seems like an excuse for conflict. The real question is whether or not the 18+ modeling was against NoA's code of conduct and whether they enforced it in the same way in similar cases not prominent in the media. It doesn't seem like the kind of information that would be readily available in a conclusive form. Lacking conclusive evidence is just going to lead to pointless bickering. |
NeoVolt said: This topic seems like an excuse for conflict. Pretty much. No matter what side of the fence you're on, it's not a good result. |
|
Narmy said: NeoVolt said: This topic seems like an excuse for conflict. Pretty much. No matter what side of the fence you're on, it's not a good result. It's a good result for the next PR manager of Nintendo. |
What is this based on? Making this statement as "fact", I'm assuming you've read her 2011 article? I'm not trying to attack you here. I'm just tired of pointless arguing. I'm 10 pages into her article. If you aren't using this as a basis, is there some other evidence that she supports child pornography? EDIT: The paper she wrote in 2011 is titled "Speech We Hate: An Argument for the Cessation of International Pressure on Japan to Strengthen Its Anti-Child Pornography Laws." From what I can see as her thesis so far, the statement that she is an "advocate of child pornography" is grossly inaccurate. |
NeoVoltMar 31, 2016 6:03 PM
NeoVolt said: Other than her academic article?What is this based on? Making this statement as "fact", I'm assuming you've read her 2011 article? I'm not trying to attack you here. I'm just tired of pointless arguing. I'm 10 pages into her article. If you aren't using this as a basis, is there some other evidence that she supports child pornography? http://archive.is/3340s http://archive.is/IEVz4 http://archive.is/Kt0PJ |
|
TR-8RCaim said: OK. Have you read the article? It's unreasonable to try to put these statements in context without doing so.NeoVolt said: Other than her academic article?What is this based on? Making this statement as "fact", I'm assuming you've read her 2011 article? I'm not trying to attack you here. I'm just tired of pointless arguing. I'm 10 pages into her article. If you aren't using this as a basis, is there some other evidence that she supports child pornography? http://archive.is/3340s http://archive.is/IEVz4 http://archive.is/Kt0PJ EDIT: Article is clearly not in support of child pornography. Not sure why she was even targeted. She was in marketing. Not involved in translation or removing content from the game. In fact the article in question would appear to be opposed to this type of content removal. |
NeoVoltMar 31, 2016 6:38 PM
NeoVolt said: If I was exclusively basing my statement around her paper, I would need to clarify her stance (since she specifically argues for fictional child pornography); however, because I'm also basing it on her social media statements, we can infer that she's not only an advocate of fictional child pornography, but of the real kind as well. So I don't think I really need context at this point. She advocates child pornography. She opposed the arrest of a man possessing child pornography. She supports sexualization of minors under the age of 18. Etc etcTR-8RCaim said: OK. Have you read the article? It's unreasonable to try to put these statements in context without doing so.Other than her academic article? http://archive.is/3340s http://archive.is/IEVz4 http://archive.is/Kt0PJ |
|
TR-8RCaim said: I'm sorry, but that is a gross misrepresentation of her thesis. And reading her paper puts her twitter statements into context. She is clearly opposed to real child pornography in the paper for the basis of protecting the children involved. What she is opposed to is the attempts to generalize and target Japanese fictional media (anime/manga/VN's).NeoVolt said: If I was exclusively basing my statement around her paper, I would need to clarify her stance (since she specifically argues for fictional child pornography); however, because I'm also basing it on her social media statements, we can infer that she's not only an advocate of fictional child pornography, but of the real kind as well. So I don't think I really need context at this point. She advocates child pornography. She opposed the arrest of a man possessing child pornography. She supports sexualization of minors under the age of 18. Etc etcOK. Have you read the article? It's unreasonable to try to put these statements in context without doing so. "Cultural Imperialism" -> US are self-righteous dicks in regards to giving Japan shit about it's stance on child pornography not being strict enough. But to Japan it isn't an issue of child pornography, it is an issue of free speech AND they have a much lower incident rate of child rape/abuse than the US. That's the basics of her thesis. She states this is her thesis and that this is what she is attempting to prove. Taking her arguments out of the context of what she actually states she is trying to prove is unreasonable. Also, you appear to be in self-contradiction with your statements in this thread : "Petting confirmed removed from the English localized version of Fire Emblem: Fates" The article argues against the type of ignorance that would label the Japanese version of Bravely Default as child pornography. EDIT: Also, the premise that she opposed the arrest of a man possessing child pornography does not support the conclusion that she advocates child pornography. This is affirmative conclusion from a negative premise. She is AGAINST treating possession as creation/dissemination. She is AGAINST the US criticizing Japan's laws. The whole conclusion that this equates advocacy of child pornography is fallacious. |
NeoVoltMar 31, 2016 7:07 PM
NeoVolt said: Did you read her conclusion? It's literally right there.TR-8RCaim said: I'm sorry, but that is a gross misrepresentation of her thesis. And reading her paper puts her twitter statements into context. She is clearly opposed to real child pornography in the paper for the basis of protecting the children involved. What she is opposed to is the attempts to generalize and target Japanese fictional media (anime/manga/VN's).If I was exclusively basing my statement around her paper, I would need to clarify her stance (since she specifically argues for fictional child pornography); however, because I'm also basing it on her social media statements, we can infer that she's not only an advocate of fictional child pornography, but of the real kind as well. So I don't think I really need context at this point. She advocates child pornography. She opposed the arrest of a man possessing child pornography. She supports sexualization of minors under the age of 18. Etc etc "Cultural Imperialism" -> US are self-righteous dicks in regards to giving Japan shit about it's stance on child pornography not being strict enough. But to Japan it isn't an issue of child pornography, it is an issue of free speech AND they have a much lower incident rate of child rape/abuse than the US. That's the basics of her thesis. She states this is her thesis and that this is what she is attempting to prove. Taking her arguments out of the context of what she actually states she is trying to prove is unreasonable. Also, you appear to be in self-contradiction with your statements in this thread : "Petting confirmed removed from the English localized version of Fire Emblem: Fates" The article argues against the type of ignorance that would label the Japanese version of Bravely Default as child pornography. EDIT: Also, the premise that she opposed the arrest of a man possessing child pornography does not support the conclusion that she advocates child pornography. This is affirmative conclusion from a negative premise. She is AGAINST treating possession as creation/dissemination. She is AGAINST the US criticizing Japan's laws. The whole conclusion that this equates advocacy of child pornography is fallacious. "I side with the camp that argues not only for less strict legislation against the simple possession of child pornography (the creation and dissemination of child pornography depicting real children is a whole other matter entirely), but also for an abatement of the pressure put on Japan for its "lax" and rarely enforced laws." If you think arguing for less strict legislation on simple possession of child pornography is not a statement in favor of child pornography, than we really have nothing to discuss at this point since it'll just be differences in thinking. And please, tell me how I'm contradicting myself in regards to my statements in previous threads. |
PeenusWeenusCaimMar 31, 2016 7:24 PM
|
TR-8RCaim said: Did you read her conclusion? It's literally right there. "I side with the camp that argues not only for less strict legislation against the simple possession of child pornography (the creation and dissemination of child pornography depicting real children is a whole other matter entirely), but also for an abatement of the pressure put on Japan for its "lax" and rarely enforced laws." Did you read what you just quoted? Maybe. Did you read where she expands on laws regarding possession vs creation/dissemination? Clearly you didn't. I'm not saying I even agree with her. But she just argues that possession should not carry the same legal penalty as creation/dissemination. As far as the pressure on Japan. Again not saying I agree with her. Her position is that it's pretentious for the US to criticize Japan under the justification of resolutions to protect minor's, when Japan has lower incidents of abuse of minors. TR-8RCaim said: You argued extensively against censorship of Bravely Default, FE:Fates etc... -> The cultural ignorance that drives this censorship is the same that drives the "Cultural Imperialism" she refers to. And please, tell me how I'm contradicting myself in regards to my statements in previous threads. If you actually read her article (all 90 pages of it), it's clear that she is saying things like the Japanese version of Bravely Default could be labeled as "fictionalized child pornography" based on some of the laws, resolutions, etc... that have been put in place. , and that she is opposed this labeling and the censorship of it. This is kind of a central point and the area where I'm seeing contradiction. You say that she supports "Fictionalized child pornography" but that is inaccurate. Even saying that she is opposed to censoring "fictionalized child pornography" is still inaccurate because the point she is making is much more general. The point she is making would include every high school ecchi anime, every manga, and every game that includes any character that is or appears to be under 18 and is involved in anything that could be considered explicit (specifically by US culture). Like the outfits in Bravely Default. She does extend this generalization in the other direction, but it is always in the context of an argument against censorship. She takes a VERY hardcore stance against censorship and I'm not sure I agree with it. But there is overlap in regards to how both you and I have stated we feel about Bravely Default, etc... Regardless, no matter how hardcore the anti-censorship stance, it LOGICALLY can't be equated with being pro child pornography (Affirmative Conclusion from a Negative Premise). |
NeoVoltMar 31, 2016 7:58 PM
| Caim, I think this kid's got you beat. |
 |
TR-8RCaim said: - "I am happy that my Twitter friends understand me. Except when I defend child porn non-censorship. LOL RUN AWAY"http://archive.is/IEVz4 I'd say this is the most "controversial" of the tweets you pulled. I'd like to evaluate this statement without prejudice. She doesn't say she is anti-censorship. She says she is in defense of non-censorship. This is important because if she actually meant it like she said it, it requires a subject. What non-censorship is she defending? In context, it would be the Japanese laws (or lack thereof) on child pornography. So unless you are arguing that the Japanese laws themselves advocate child pornography (which she does a good job of proving that they don't), then you can't say that she advocates child pornography by being in defense of those laws. Also, I'm one of the older (age-wise) guys here. Anyway, moral of the story is don't believe everything you read on the internet. I can see why some people came to the conclusions based on out-of-context quotes. But unless there is some information that I'm missing, Alison Rapp does not appear to be advocate of Child Pornography. Whether or not it was valid that she was fired for showing her boobies is another matter. |
NeoVoltMar 31, 2016 8:30 PM
Major123 said: It ain't over till the fat lady singsCaim, I think this kid's got you beat. NeoVolt said: I already knew Rapp is against censorship. You seem to misunderstand my position on the matter. Also, give me a link to the paper you're reading, because the one I'm reading is only 16 pages excluding references and works cited, not 90.TR-8RCaim said: Did you read her conclusion? It's literally right there. "I side with the camp that argues not only for less strict legislation against the simple possession of child pornography (the creation and dissemination of child pornography depicting real children is a whole other matter entirely), but also for an abatement of the pressure put on Japan for its "lax" and rarely enforced laws." Did you read what you just quoted? Maybe. Did you read where she expands on laws regarding possession vs creation/dissemination? Clearly you didn't. I'm not saying I even agree with her. But she just argues that possession should not carry the same legal penalty as creation/dissemination. As far as the pressure on Japan. Again not saying I agree with her. Her position is that it's pretentious for the US to criticize Japan under the justification of resolutions to protect minor's, when Japan has lower incidents of abuse of minors. TR-8RCaim said: You argued extensively against censorship of Bravely Default, FE:Fates etc... -> The cultural ignorance that drives this censorship is the same that drives the "Cultural Imperialism" she refers to. And please, tell me how I'm contradicting myself in regards to my statements in previous threads. If you actually read her article (all 90 pages of it), it's clear that she is saying things like the Japanese version of Bravely Default could be labeled as "fictionalized child pornography" based on some of the laws, resolutions, etc... that have been put in place. , and that she is opposed this labeling and the censorship of it. This is kind of a central point and the area where I'm seeing contradiction. You say that she supports "Fictionalized child pornography" but that is inaccurate. Even saying that she is opposed to censoring "fictionalized child pornography" is still inaccurate because the point she is making is much more general. The point she is making would include every high school ecchi anime, every manga, and every game that includes any character that is or appears to be under 18 and is involved in anything that could be considered explicit (specifically by US culture). Like the outfits in Bravely Default. She does extend this generalization in the other direction, but it is always in the context of an argument against censorship. She takes a VERY hardcore stance against censorship and I'm not sure I agree with it. But there is overlap in regards to how both you and I have stated we feel about Bravely Default, etc... Regardless, no matter how hardcore the anti-censorship stance, it LOGICALLY can't be equated with being pro child pornography (Affirmative Conclusion from a Negative Premise). https://issuu.com/honorsreview/docs/volumeiv/33 1) I don't support Alison Rapp being fired, but I don't praise her job as a marketing specialist at Nintendo either. I'm apathetic on the matter. While I support Rapp's views on censorship, I also got pissed at her for meming Fatal Frame's game trailer; but that has nothing to do with censorship and is more about the lack of professionalism she displayed when she marketed Fatal Frame V. 2) I don't care about her arbitrary views on the labeling of fictional child pornography. Child pornography by the most technical definition is the depiction of children exhibiting erotic or sexual behavior made to excite or please an intended audience. Regardless of whether the material is fake or real, minors being depicted sexually is child pornography. The morality and differences between possessing fictional and real child pornography; however, is in a completely different ball park. 3) I'm not arguing for or against child pornography nor am I chastising Rapp for her personal views on child pornography. I'm only stating that Rapp advocates child pornography and that there's a group supporting the termination of her employment because of Rapp's views on child pornography, so saying I'm contradicting myself from the statements made in other threads about censorship is a stretch of the imagination. 4) Supporting a reduction in legal penalties against the possession of child pornography is still a statement in support of child pornography because the intended audience of child pornography directly benefits from this (albeit a little). Also, can you elaborate further on the difference between anti-censorship and non-censorship because your point seems to be falling flat on me, those words seem completely synonymous and a matter of unnecessary semantics. |
PeenusWeenusCaimMar 31, 2016 9:33 PM
|
TR-8RCaim said: 2) I don't care about her arbitrary views on the labeling of fictional child pornography. Child pornography by the most technical definition is the depiction of children exhibiting erotic or sexual behavior made to excite or please an intended audience. Regardless of whether the material is fake or real, minors being depicted sexually is child pornography. The morality and differences between possessing fictional and real child pornography; however, is in a completely different ball park. 3) I'm not arguing for or against child pornography nor am I chastising Rapp for her personal views on child pornography. I'm only stating that Rapp advocates child pornography and that there's a group supporting the termination of her employment because of Rapp's views on child pornography, so saying I'm contradicting myself from the statements made in other threads about censorship is a stretch of the imagination. 4) Supporting a reduction in legal penalties against the possession of child pornography is still a statement in support of child pornography because the intended audience of child pornography directly benefits from this (albeit a little). Also, can you elaborate further on the difference between anti-censorship and non-censorship because your point seems to be falling flat on me, those words seem completely synonymous and a matter of unnecessary semantics. To be clear, the only point I'm arguing is the claim that she advocates child pornography. 1 is irrelevant to this. In resp. to 2 - You seem to be completely missing the point. Arbitrary views (in regards to laws an regulations) on what constitutes child pornography is something she is against. Arbitrary views that would definitely include Bravely Default, Rakudai Kishi no Cavalry, and maybe even the uncensored version of FE:Fates, for example. You do realize that when she talks about "Graphic Novels" that she is referring to manga? And that Highschool DXD for example, would fall under the "fictional child pornography" that she is defending the non-censorship of. 3 - She does not advocate child pornography in her paper. So if this is the justification for this "group"; it, by definition, would be a smear campaign. 4 - This is clearly wrong. And a misleading over-simplification. It's not that she supports reduction of penalties for possession of child pornography. She just is against possession having the same penalty as creation or dissemination (distribution) of child pornography. And it is wrong because your premises don't prove the conclusion. She is arguing for fair punishment under the law so that a worse crime (creation of child pornography) has a worse penalty. By saying this is wrong because of the consequence of benefiting possessors your committing the Appeal to Consequences fallacy. She is anti-censorship in general. But in the case of the twitter quote she said she was in defense of non-censorship of child pornography. The important distinction here is that she isn't referring to her personal stance in this quote. She is in defense of a subject. In context this is in defense of the non-censorship stance of the Japanese government. She defends this stance by showing that it correlates to reduced incidents of sexual abuse of children. The point I'm arguing against is the statement that she "advocates child pornography." I'm against it because it is grossly inaccurate. It implies, by definition, that she supports and recommends child pornography. This is simply not true. The only arguments she is making is that 1) possessors shouldn't be punished as much as creators and 2) Japan's non-censorship approach should not be criticized by the US. The position that she is pro-child porn is epistemically bankrupt. The entire justification seems to be out-of-context quotation, fallacious conclusions, and over-simplifications. There doesn't appear to be any attempt to treat her academic paper....academically. Also, this isn't a competition. I'm not anti-GG or pro SJW or any of that garbage. I came into this without an opinion and I read her paper without bias one way or another. And I came to an unbiased conclusion. Whatever allegiance or preconception is driving your opinion on this is clouding your judgement. EDIT: To clarify, child pornography is bad. Highschool DXD does not constitute Child Pornography. Nor does Bravely Default. And they shouldn't be censored. After reading Alison Rapp's article, I believe she would agree with this. EDIT2: Also, why did the group (GG or not) go after her in the first place? Are they GG affiliated? Was she just an easy target of the rage against Treehouse? |
NeoVoltMar 31, 2016 11:21 PM
| I still can't believe that people are attacking someone over an academic freaking article. Its not an opinion piece. Its a freaking thesis. And I guess for some people modelling equals being a prostitute. I guess that just shows what kind of people went after her. EDIT2: Also, why did the group (GG or not) go after her in the first place? Are they GG affiliated? Was she just an easy target of the rage against Treehouse? Pretty much. She was a treehouse member the hatespeech group could dig up dirt on, no matter how minuscule. They then proceeded to harass her and NOA over it and continue digging into her personal information, to find a way to ruin her life and job. Sadly NOA did not have the balls to stand by their employee. Now it seems to have escalated to sending her death threats and urging her to suicide. AKA the most common tactics of the group. |
AhenshihaelMar 31, 2016 11:56 PM
|
NeoVolt said: Then why bring up my stances in previous threads when they were wholly irrelevant to the conversation in the first place? You seem to think I started this thread because of a bias or preconceived notion, except I'm not at all. As I said, I'm apathetic to Rapp's situation, and more curious about what other people think of the issue.To be clear, the only point I'm arguing is the claim that she advocates child pornography. 1 is irrelevant to this. NeoVolt said: And? In resp. to 2 - You seem to be completely missing the point. Arbitrary views (in regards to laws an regulations) on what constitutes child pornography is something she is against. Arbitrary views that would definitely include Bravely Default, Rakudai Kishi no Cavalry, and maybe even the uncensored version of FE:Fates, for example. You do realize that when she talks about "Graphic Novels" that she is referring to manga? And that Highschool DXD for example, would fall under the "fictional child pornography" that she is defending the non-censorship of. Like I said, I don't care about her arbitrary views on what and what doesn't constitute child pornography. We are talking about whether Rapp advocates child pornography or not, not about what Rapp thinks is child pornography. NeoVolt said: What? Supporting the reduction of legislative penalties for possessing child pornography is literally synonymous with supporting the idea that possession of child pornography should not carry the same legal weight as dissemination or distribution of pornography. The only difference is that the latter is more specific. Also no, that's wrong, appeal to consequences is a moral fallacy that uses appeals to emotions as a premise to support the conclusion's truth value. 3 - She does not advocate child pornography in her paper. So if this is the justification for this "group"; it, by definition, would be a smear campaign. 4 - This is clearly wrong. And a misleading over-simplification. It's not that she supports reduction of penalties for possession of child pornography. She just is against possession having the same penalty as creation or dissemination (distribution) of child pornography. And it is wrong because your premises don't prove the conclusion. She is arguing for fair punishment under the law so that a worse crime (creation of child pornography) has a worse penalty. By saying this is wrong because of the consequence of benefiting possessors your committing the Appeal to Consequences fallacy. She is anti-censorship in general. But in the case of the twitter quote she said she was in defense of non-censorship of child pornography. The important distinction here is that she isn't referring to her personal stance in this quote. She is in defense of a subject. In context this is in defense of the non-censorship stance of the Japanese government. She defends this stance by showing that it correlates to reduced incidents of sexual abuse of children. The point I'm arguing against is the statement that she "advocates child pornography." I'm against it because it is grossly inaccurate. It implies, by definition, that she supports and recommends child pornography. This is simply not true. The only arguments she is making is that 1) possessors shouldn't be punished as much as creators and 2) Japan's non-censorship approach should not be criticized by the US. The position that she is pro-child porn is epistemically bankrupt. The entire justification seems to be out-of-context quotation, fallacious conclusions, and over-simplifications. There doesn't appear to be any attempt to treat her academic paper....academically. An Appeal to Consequences fallacy would be like this: Believing in God will send me to heaven. I want to go to heaven. Therefore, God is real. Or this: "I don't believe in fate because I want to believe that I have control over my life". Or this: "I believe in aliens because I would be miserable without believing in their existence. This is not the same case at all. I'm not using a moral argument to prove my point. Alison states that she is against the idea of possession of child pornography carrying the same legal weight as dissemination and creation of child pornography. She believes that child pornography is not dangerous nor should be censored or removed from legality. And she frequently cites Japan as having less societal ills when it comes to children despite having child pornography in circulation. From this we can infer that she advocates child pornography. Also, you do know advocate/support have different definitions right? a (1) : to promote the interests or cause of (2) : to uphold or defend as valid or right : advocate <supports fair play> (3) : to argue or vote for <supported the motion to lower taxes> NeoVolt said: I don't have an allegiance or preconception dude. Like I said in a post before, I'm completely apathetic to the issue, I just want to see other people's opinions on the matter.Also, this isn't a competition. I'm not anti-GG or pro SJW or any of that garbage. I came into this without an opinion and I read her paper without bias one way or another. And I came to an unbiased conclusion. Whatever allegiance or preconception is driving your opinion on this is clouding your judgement. NeoVolt said: I have no idea. I'm out of the loop when it comes to GG vs anti-GG because it's all just a chaotic mess. If what @Fai said in previous threads is true, then GG really shouldn't be aiming for Rapp at all, since Rapp is against censorship.EDIT2: Also, why did the group (GG or not) go after her in the first place? Are they GG affiliated? Was she just an easy target of the rage against Treehouse? |
|
| I'm too lazy to read all replies in the thread, but from what I gathered, people were so buttmad at Nintendo of America that they ended up having a GOOD guy (or girl in this case) fired? Honestly, internet and twitter were a mistake. It's one thing when people sling shit at each other, but having someone fired isn't cool no matter what side they're on. It's not like she was a school teacher that was a stripper at night. |
 "Your sight, my delight. Will you marry me?" |
TR-8RCaim said: then GG really shouldn't be aiming for Rapp at all, since Rapp is against censorship. This is TB talking about one of GG's leaders and spokepersons. At that point it was clear that that group would never be about "games j000rnal1zm" or "fight against injustice" and exactly when TB started wisely backing away from it. http://www.twitlonger.com/show/nh2uij ZetaZaku said: I'm too lazy to read all replies in the thread, but from what I gathered, people were so buttmad at Nintendo of America that they ended up having a GOOD guy (or girl in this case) fired? Not that there are good or bad guys. But mainly yes. They got a person fired by spaming anti-childtrafficking organizations about her and stuff, as well as violating her privacy and digging out her personal info, etc. Hilariously going by the tweet replies she got most people are delusional enough to believe they were right. ITs full of shit like "Serves you right for censoring my games!", "serves you right for bringing your politics into my games" , slutshaming, etc. The main people to blame for what happened is Nintendo tho, since they chickened out from standing by their employee and instead got rid of her. Which incidentally would not stop the harassment anyway.  Honestly, internet and twitter were a mistake. It's one thing when people sling shit at each other, but having someone fired isn't cool no matter what side they're on. It's not like she was a school teacher that was a stripper at night. The difference is anonimity. In the real world you are constrained by society's morals due to...well...physicality of the real world. If you do something stupid or bad or harass people you most likely either get punched in the face or go to jail. In the internet, that limitation is not there. So people who are abusive assholes on inside get to BE that. That's the price of freedom. And yeah. She was not even using her real identity for that. Nobody would have cared and public would never know that(or shame her for that) if not for INSANE amounts of digging done in order to ruin her. As she herself very aptly puts it:  |
AhenshihaelApr 1, 2016 2:18 AM
|
Fai said: Not that there are good or bad guys. Unrelated to her, but there are. People that actually do push their agenda when localizing works, and butchering content. Not saying that it's a good idea to get either of them fired through these methods. Fai said: But mainly yes. They got a person fired by spaming anti-childtrafficking organizations about her and stuff, as well as violating her privacy and digging out her personal info, etc. Hilariously going by the tweet replies she got most people are delusional enough to believe they were right. ITs full of shit like "Serves you right for censoring my games!", "serves you right for bringing your politics into my games" , slutshaming, etc. Yeah, it's pretty ironic, since the whole child porn thing was related to the very content that was censored in the first place. Maybe she was one of those memesters, but at least she was against any censorship of sexual content.[/quote] Fai said: And yeah. She was not even using her real identity for that. Nobody would have cared and public would never know that(or shame her for that) if not for INSANE amounts of digging done in order to ruin her. Actually, I saw some images of her tweets, and she kind of tweeted some of the images from her photoshoots. Which just proves that her second job wasn't an issue here at all. Honestly people just need to chill. If the localization got butchered, just don't support that shit. No need to have people fired for autistic reasons like video games. It's not like every single employee has a say in what gets censored and what doesn't. |
"Your sight, my delight. Will you marry me?" |
TR-8RCaim said: Yes. This is what she believes, but if the additional specificity were unimportant she wouldn't have written an entire paper on the subject. Sorry but creating child pornography or distributing child pornography are not the same things as possessing. That's like saying that possessing heroin is the same thing as making or selling it and should carry the same legal punishment. They are different things, and she argues they should have different consequences. The concept is hardly unreasonable. In my example it certainly wouldn't mean that you advocate heroin use. What? Supporting the reduction of legislative penalties for possessing child pornography is literally synonymous with supporting the idea that possession of child pornography should not carry the same legal weight as dissemination or distribution of pornography. The only difference is that the latter is more specific. TR-8RCaim said: No. What you did was an appeal to negative consequence:Also no, that's wrong, appeal to consequences is a moral fallacy that uses appeals to emotions as a premise to support the conclusion's truth value. If A, then B will occur. B is undesirable. Therefore, A is false. And it was based on an appeal to emotion regarding the undesirability of any kind of benefit to possessors of child pornography. Specifically in this case it's fallacious because proving that possession should not have the same punishment as creation or dissemination does not require consideration of the consequences. Her whole argument is framed in the context of the relativity of possession vs. creation. It is (again...) out of context and misleading to just state that she supports the reduction penalties of possessing child pornography. TR-8RCaim said: This is inaccurate and misleading (again). For expediency we can say you mean "fictional child pornography" Alison states that she is against the idea of possession of child pornography carrying the same legal weight as dissemination and creation of child pornography. She believes that child pornography is not dangerous nor should be censored or removed from legality. TR-8RCaim said: No we can't. Your premises don't support the conclusion. In no way does she say that child pornography or fictional child pornography should exist and is good for Japan. And she frequently cites Japan as having less societal ills when it comes to children despite having child pornography in circulation. From this we can infer that she advocates child pornography. Did you read the paper? If you did, it was with definite bias. You don't appear to have any understanding of the structure or purpose of her argument. Again (I'm really getting tired of repeating myself) this is an academic article. Not some post on Kotaku or Reddit. It's not an editorial in the opinion section of a newspaper. An academic article should not be treated as a statement of opinion. She is making an argument with premises and a conclusion. The only criticism valid would be whether or not her premises support her conclusion. Jesus, the freaking title is: "An Argument for the Cessation of International Pressure on Japan to Strengthen Its Anti-Child Pornography Laws" This is what she is arguing for. This is not "Advocation of child pornography." The only way this conclusion is remotely possible is if you take everything she says completely out of the context of the argument she is making. Whatever. I've exhausted myself. I get too wrapped up in arguments. The conclusion that she advocates child pornography just isn't there. It's a misinterpretation of what she is saying. |
NeoVoltApr 1, 2016 7:29 AM
| ShadowCocks is taken?!?! I guess I'll have to think of another team name for club soccer... OT: I've seen this series of events before somewhere... I think she was probably fired for many reasons, including those listed above. I don't think it was just her alleged stance on CP or her gig as a cam girl or the FE: Fates localization. Maybe Nintendo just decided it was time to bring in fresh people... My opinion is more important now since I'm a site moderator and your no...oh, goddammit! |
NeoVolt said: I already knew that though. My original point was that she supports the reduction of simple possession of child pornography. I didn't specify creation and distribution of child pornography because I already inherently acknowledged that it is different from possession of child pornography through presupposition. You're driving an incredibly obvious point in this discussion when it's not needed.Yes. This is what she believes, but if the additional specificity were unimportant she wouldn't have written an entire paper on the subject. Sorry but creating child pornography or distributing child pornography are not the same things as possessing. That's like saying that possessing heroin is the same thing as making or selling it and should carry the same legal punishment. They are different things, and she argues they should have different consequences. The concept is hardly unreasonable. In my example it certainly wouldn't mean that you advocate heroin use. No. What you did was an appeal to negative consequence: Except I'm not presenting it as undesirable at all. I was only stating that supporting a reduction in legal penalties for the possession of child pornography is still a statement in support of child pornography. I'm not even trying to prove that the "A" statement is false anyways so that isn't a negative appeal to consequences either.If A, then B will occur. B is undesirable. Therefore, A is false. And it was based on an appeal to emotion regarding the undesirability of any kind of benefit to possessors of child pornography. Specifically in this case it's fallacious because proving that possession should not have the same punishment as creation or dissemination does not require consideration of the consequences. Her whole argument is framed in the context of the relativity of possession vs. creation. It is (again...) out of context and misleading to just state that she supports the reduction penalties of possessing child pornography. This is inaccurate and misleading (again). For expediency we can say you mean "fictional child pornography" Once again, you're calling my statements inaccurate and misleading when they really aren't. Now I'm starting to question whether you read her paper or not.[…] No we can't. Your premises don't support the conclusion. In no way does she say that child pornography or fictional child pornography should exist and is good for Japan. Did you read the paper? If you did, it was with definite bias. You don't appear to have any understanding of the structure or purpose of her argument. Again (I'm really getting tired of repeating myself) this is an academic article. Not some post on Kotaku or Reddit. It's not an editorial in the opinion section of a newspaper. An academic article should not be treated as a statement of opinion. She is making an argument with premises and a conclusion. The only criticism valid would be whether or not her premises support her conclusion. Jesus, the freaking title is: "An Argument for the Cessation of International Pressure on Japan to Strengthen Its Anti-Child Pornography Laws" This is what she is arguing for. This is not "Advocation of child pornography." The only way this conclusion is remotely possible is if you take everything she says completely out of the context of the argument she is making. Whatever. I've exhausted myself. I get too wrapped up in arguments. The conclusion that she advocates child pornography just isn't there. It's a misinterpretation of what she is saying. In page 44 of the academic journal, Rapp suggests this: "The same idea can theoretically be applied to child pornography. Those who possess and view child pornography (of any kind-that involving real or fictional children) may not necesssarily become child abusers-though they may increasingly believe that the sexualization of children is a frequent occurence in the world, and possibly that others are likely to feel as positive as they do about child pornography. It could be argued that a correlative link is not grounds enough to ban even just the possession of a kind of media. If it was considered adequate grounds, then it would be socially acceptable for governments to censore movies, pieces of art or literature, or video games, because there's substantial evidence to suggest that movie, television, and video game violence correlates with violent acts against others, and that adult pornography correlatives with sexual behavioral deviancy and acts of sexual violence, abuse, and rape. Yet it is usually not socially nor societially acceptable to censor those media, because the general public, as well as most legislators, seem to understand that a correlative link is not the same thing as a casual link (or more people would be rapists and murderers). The same idea should apply to child pornography, especially in terms of allowing individual countries to legistlate (or not) as they wish)" Need I bring up the definition again? support a (1) : to promote the interests or cause of (2) : to uphold or defend as valid or right : advocate <supports fair play> (3) : to argue or vote for <supported the motion to lower taxes> And she does this in her argument. So I can say that she advocates child pornography. Also what the fuck? I’m not arguing for or against her at all. I never was to begin with. I was making an inference on her position on the subject of child pornography by examining her paper and social media statements. You are completely misunderstanding my position in this matter. |
|
Unknown- said: Ninentdo basically did what the WWE did to hulk hogan, they fired her to cover their asses but still, she's getting no sympathy from me. Now guys can't say "if he was a guy, he would of gotten away with it" Except Hulk Hogan is a horrible known racist and a terrible person. And there's a difference between: - having your sex tape with racist rant leaking and - modelling on anonymous identity and getting fired because your company fears combating harassment. So that comparison does not fly. |
|
| @TR-8RCaim OK. I guess I need to be way more concise because you are missing the forest for the trees. Nothing you've said shows that she advocates child pornography. She does not "uphold or defend" child pornography as "valid or right." This is a simple fact. She upholds and defends Japanese right to self-govern regarding child pornography. THESE 2 ARE NOT THE SAME THING. You could argue that she goes beyond and actually supports and defends the laws themselves. But even then, in order to make your point, you would first have to prove that the Japanese laws themselves "uphold or defend child pornography as valid or right." And then you could maybe say that she indirectly advocates child pornography. But this would be very difficult considering that Japan's refusal to litigate (negative premise), logically, can not be used to prove advocation (positive conclusion). "Alison Rapp advocates child pornography" is a false statement. I suggest re-reading what you quoted under the assumption that it is intended to prove what she actually said she was trying to prove. |
NeoVoltApr 2, 2016 5:34 PM
NeoVolt said: She upholds and defends Japanese right to self-govern regarding child pornography. So what's her problem then? According to an actual Japanese person, that's exactly what they were doing. https://twitter.com/mombot/status/716207147806117888 |
|
More topics from this board
» What was the very first video game you ever played? As well your first game console?Kazeninjaryu1 - May 5 |
44 |
by EpicSaxGuy
»»
4 hours ago |
|
» What gives you instant motivation to plat/100% a gameJoesaka - Yesterday |
13 |
by BookBirdie
»»
4 hours ago |
|
» Favorite strategy video gamesEarthHero - May 31 |
25 |
by Suntanned_Duck2
»»
6 hours ago |
|
» Do you still use ur disc drive to play games ?Thy-Veseveia - Jun 4 |
18 |
by Retro8bit
»»
10 hours ago |
|
» Rate The Last Game You Finished. ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Crzy_Minus - Apr 23, 2015 |
3745 |
by Retro8bit
»»
10 hours ago |