Tumblr says nudes are back on the menu – within reason Tumblr has reversed course on its 2018 nudity ban, welcoming some – but not all – adult content creators back to the platform after a four-year hiatus. Staff announced the change earlier this week, which the company said is the next step in welcoming a broader range of expression and art back to the platform "that includes the …
If they had it their way... NO!
Thankfully this little thing called the Second Amendment, can go tell these Credit Card Corporations to go fourth and, multiply" With that asinine attitude. Also these Credit Card Corporations shouldn't get the last say on the arbitration of what constitutes "Good Taste", that is clearly NOT their job, their job is to handle Money from Point "A" to point "B" while taking upwards of 33% for Point "C".
I might be wrong, but as far as I'm aware the US Second Amendment covers the right to bear arms. I'm assuming, however, that it doesn't contain anything that would require a *private* business (i.e. the credit card companies) to process payment for weapons against its will.
Much like how the First Amendment protects Americans from *government* interference in free speech, but doesn't require a *private* entity to allow you free access to use *their* platform, premises, etc. to say what you like.
(There might or might not be other US legislation covering such cases; that's not what I'm referring to, however).
Of course, it might be argued that, given the US revolves around and is reliant upon private businesses for such things, this, in effect, lets *them* block your freedom of speech/to buy guns/whatever anyway.
Well, exactly.
But that's the choice of the people of the US who have fought for decades for private businesses to run themselves how they like without government interference. So that's what they've got.
Of course, it's notable that (e.g.) Texas, the supposed epitome of this position- when it was notably supported by and most beneficial to the right wing mentality there- has suddenly switched in favour of laws censoring private social media businesses because they wouldn't let them say what *they* wanted to say.
Almost as if they're hypocrites who only care about that "freedom" shite they bloviate about endlessly when it suits *them*.
'The right to bear arms', OK fine I'm not an American but a resident of the UK, but really I want to know what does this mean? You are allowed to own a sword and that's it?
Or more specifically what do, citizens of the United Sates (and yes that's awkward but technically 'Americans' includes people, living in Canada - OK stop; you all know what I mean) - think that the 2nd Amendment covers.
Hypothetically, if I were a US citizen, living in, oh, say Houston, could I buy a handgun, (sorry but I'm not overly familiar with the terminology) without giving a reasonably good reason for needing one. Could I buy a shotgun, how about a M16 assault rifle? If yes then why? Why on Earth do you think that having such a weapon helps me in any way?
Taking the argument to the extreme, could I purchase and deploy a tactical nuclear weapon? If not then why not? Is that not a violation of my 2nd Amendment rights? Where exactly is the line?
Now before the inevitable downvotes start, let me say that I am not anti-American, I genuinely just want to understand how others see the issue and the arguments for and against.
Best wishes. John
Let's tackle "why?" first. Even in the UK owning a shotgun is hardly unusual, though it's nowhere near the level of ownership in the USA (more on which later).
Shotguns are useful for vermin control, sport shooting, some hunting, and 'home defence'. Rifles are primarily useful for sport shooting and hunting. Handguns are useful for some hunting, target shooting, and as a side-arm ("To fight your way to where your rifle is").
There is a saying here: "When seconds count, the police are just minutes away." Bottom line, the USA is not the UK. It's much larger, and though its population is about six times larger too, even in the cities population density is lower than the UK. In rural areas, even ignoring Alaska, it's very low. Self-defence is not all about "shooting the bad man", there remains dangerous wildlife close enough to settlements to be a regular, sometimes weekly for some people, nuisance. Go off the beaten track a little, or live on a ranch or similar situation and it's arguably negligent *not* to have fast access to a firearm for defence from dangerous animals, in many places.
Now the cultural stuff - It's enshrined law from a principle it inherited from the UK, specifically English law. It's actually the UK which has shifted hard in the other direction, not the USA that has suddenly gone "gun mad", though there was always more of a "gun culture" here, given the historical realities. That law is an amendment precisely because the original 'framers' of the constitution felt it was so blindingly obvious a right it did not need to be spelt out, but some states attempted to restrict access and ownership, resulting in the second amendment. A similar story exists with regard to the first.
In Houston, you could buy a shotgun or handgun, after being checked by the FBI against their database (the 'background check' you hear about a lot) to confirm that you are not prohibited from possessing or purchasing a firearm at that time. There are many ways to be so prohibited, from the essentially permanent prohibition for violent felons, to temporary ones for people facing certain criminal charges, etc. No "pass" from the FBI, no sale (and likely a visit to your home address from said FBI).
No private citizen can own an M16 - that is a military designation for a weapon based on the Armalite AR-15 rifle. It's also not an "assault rifle" (it's debatable if that term even has meaning), it is a ''battle rifle".
A nuclear weapon would be excluded by various laws, including the prohibition on owning "destructive devices". Basically, it is not considered a personal weapon, the law in question is about ownership and possession of personal weapons - "arms".
> but really I want to know what does this mean?
What it says in the text, accessible here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text
So, the whole reasoning given is that a country needs a militia for security reasons, and to do that citizens need to have arms.
Of course, this was written at a time when;
* the definition of the most dangerous arms a man could carrry, consisted of muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, with a cadence of about 1 shot every minute, with laughable range and precision.
* "have two armies shoot at each other in colorful uniforms at close/medium range" was still considered a great combat tactic
* security mostly meant "secure from outside attack"
* because of the above, armies regularly drafted people into service
How much of that applies in the 21st century, when outside attacks are rare, guns are far more potent, and the state-of-the-art soldier is a highly trained professions, is left as an exercise to the reader.
What part of... "Shall NOT be infringed...." are you having problems understanding?
Something tells me that these Credit Institutes would have no problems with you buying illicit Drugs, from the locally mandated Weed Shop? Which I find offensive? So why ain't these places trying to prevent these people from rotting their brains on then? How would they feel (if anything?), where some Dopehead, to get behind the wheel of a Car, and plow though a group of Children at the redlight?
I get the feeling that would somehow be alright, in their, and apparently your world view.
They'll also let you buy a truckload of fertilizer and fuel oil. Or a week's worth of crack/meth/whatever. Or send a sizeable campaign contribution to a Republican candidate. Heck, they'll even give you cash advances whereby you can hire an underage prostitute if that's your thing. Those naughty credit card companies are destroying our society.
As far as I'm aware, the only major bank that's still somewhat gun-friendly is Wells Fargo. The rest jumped on the anti-gun bandwagon years ago, and some, more actively than others, began making life more difficult for weapons dealers. It was just a few months ago that the industry added a new classification specifically for businesses that primarily sell firearms, and no longer classifies them as general "sporting goods" retailers.
Isn't that basically what defines a nude portrait from a non-nude one?
The woman has beautiful brown...oh look, boobies!
If the genital organs weren't the intended focus, then they wouldn't be necessary in the image regardless of whatever twaddle about purity, the human form, blah blah. There's plenty to look at in a person without oh look, boobies!
Isn’t that basically what defines a nude portrait from a non-nude one?
I’d’ve thought that a lack of clothing is the distinguishing feature of a nude portrait, since nude portraits can be created without showing any genitalia.
If the genital organs weren’t the intended focus, then they wouldn’t be necessary in the image regardless of whatever twaddle about purity, the human form, blah blah.
The same argument could be used about any other part of human anatomy — “If the shoulders weren’t the intended focus, then they wouldn’t be necessary in the image regardless of whatever twaddle about purity, the human form, blah blah.” — and would be equally nonsensical.
For some of these folks folks, their genitalia starts just above their collars. And, their name is usually Richard, even if they're female below the collar. Oddly enough, they find pictures of themselves to be offensive.
I'm firmly in the "not offensive" camp though. Well, not entirely. 200lbs of flab in a speedo will be offensive to me until the end of time, no matter what society wants to claim. It's why I don't wear speedos...
This post has been deleted by its author
Art is a universal catchall for anything a person or group of persons tag to the title of art within a singular or shared perspective.
So to say artful nudes are allowed , is to to empower the editors personal perspective as if to be fact.
Pretty sneaky manipulation they used there.
It's all just depictions skin and hair in various shapes.
Anger at one depiction versus another just comes down to dysfunctional cultural programming glitches towards avoidable unhealthy intolerance
After all the hoopla about Tumblr now allowing nudity to be posted, I ran an experiment. I posted a group of nude photos of myself and marked the post as 'mature'. As I do occasional work as a life model, I have a bunch of photos like these. They show poses as modelled in front of artists and art students. They are anything but sexual or pornographic in nature.
Tumblr immediately flagged the post as a violation of their community standards. They provided an appeal process which promised a review by a human. I tried that and very quickly received a notification that my post was now flagged as Adult and was viewable by nobody other than myself. An email telling me this also says that their decision could not be appealed.
So much for Tumblr's new attitude to nudity!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
