Outing rears its ugly head again?

joG · Sep 5, 2016

Infinite Chaos said:
Like I said, all we will gain then is attention seekers and attention whores. Is that really what you think public life should be about?

The Clintons only serve to show how wrong you are then. Clinton had his blowjobs in the whitehouse - a publicly funded building while he was probably on duty. Same could be said for Lewinsky - though unpaid, she was at work while engaged in sexual activity. Hilary Clinton (I'm assuming you're talking about her emails) did what she did while on duty and in the publicly funded buildings.

The two cases I posted in the OP were private life events. The Bishop does not bring his partner to the church, there has been no record of activity while on church grounds and Keith Vaz was at his own flat. He did not bring the male prostitutes to Parliament nor did he do what he did on public time.

Religious partisanship into a thread about outing? Shame on you.

It depends on what you refer to. If it is the person asking for power, then the answer can only be that they must accept being watched day and night. I do not see how the Clintons disprove that.

But in the case of persons that grab the limelight without personal power, I am not as committed, because it is not as important. But I would tend to believe that if they do get out into the light, they know they will be interesting. As far as I am concerned the media have all the right to watch them.

Gaztopian · Sep 5, 2016

SmokeAndMirrors said:
People are not meant to live like that.

Indeed people aren't meant to live like this, yet they swarm and mire themselves in every available medium. This is exactly why I abstain from social media. Stay connected? why would I want that?

SmokeAndMirrors · Sep 5, 2016

Gaztopian said:
Indeed people aren't meant to live like this, yet they swarm and mire themselves in every available medium. This is exactly why I abstain from social media. Stay connected? why would I want that?

It's a weird sort of emotional bait-and-switch.

There's something tempting about it. It reduces all the risks of more personal, face-to-face interaction. Rejection stings less. You get to plan your words more. You even get to pick what you look like. That draws people in.

But that total lack of authenticity means they get no genuine social fulfilment from it. They don't feel close to people. They don't feel seen. So they just do more of it, hoping if they put in the hours they'll get that feeling.

They never do. But after a few years, they're so afraid of the risks of personal interaction that it's hard to go back. The idea of having to deal with rejection or a stutter in conversation in real time is terrifying to a lot of people of the social media generation.

I checked out of social media years ago. If I want someone to know my life, I do it with them in the same room. Unsurprisingly, a lot of my friends and my partner are a bit older than me. I seem to be one of the few under-30's who doesn't have a single personal social media profile anywhere.

I "stay connected" in the sense of using the internet to gain knowledge, and the resources that exist to help you find your people IN the real world (I moved overseas a couple years ago, and MeetUp was great after such a huge move). But I have no interest in having the internet be my relationship go-between.

Infinite Chaos · Sep 5, 2016

joG said:
It depends on what you refer to. If it is the person asking for power, then the answer can only be that they must accept being watched day and night. I do not see how the Clintons disprove that.

But in the case of persons that grab the limelight without personal power, I am not as committed, because it is not as important. But I would tend to believe that if they do get out into the light, they know they will be interesting. As far as I am concerned the media have all the right to watch them.

You can't have different approaches; you either allow all in the public eye some privacy or none. I wants them to have some for reasons stated. You haven't made a convincing case for an absolute position.

Chagos · Sep 5, 2016

Infinite Chaos said:
You can't have different approaches; you either allow all in the public eye some privacy or none. I wants them to have some for reasons stated. You haven't made a convincing case for an absolute position.

seconded!!!

joG · Sep 6, 2016

Infinite Chaos said:
You can't have different approaches; you either allow all in the public eye some privacy or none. I wants them to have some for reasons stated. You haven't made a convincing case for an absolute position.

But you are talking two quite different groups. Which do you mean?

Gaztopian · Sep 7, 2016

SmokeAndMirrors said:
It's a weird sort of emotional bait-and-switch.

There's something tempting about it. It reduces all the risks of more personal, face-to-face interaction. Rejection stings less. You get to plan your words more. You even get to pick what you look like. That draws people in.

But that total lack of authenticity means they get no genuine social fulfilment from it. They don't feel close to people. They don't feel seen. So they just do more of it, hoping if they put in the hours they'll get that feeling.

They never do. But after a few years, they're so afraid of the risks of personal interaction that it's hard to go back. The idea of having to deal with rejection or a stutter in conversation in real time is terrifying to a lot of people of the social media generation.

I checked out of social media years ago. If I want someone to know my life, I do it with them in the same room. Unsurprisingly, a lot of my friends and my partner are a bit older than me. I seem to be one of the few under-30's who doesn't have a single personal social media profile anywhere.

I "stay connected" in the sense of using the internet to gain knowledge, and the resources that exist to help you find your people IN the real world (I moved overseas a couple years ago, and MeetUp was great after such a huge move). But I have no interest in having the internet be my relationship go-between.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Infinite Chaos · Sep 7, 2016

joG said:
But you are talking two quite different groups. Which do you mean?

Maybe this is clearer, "people in the public eye should be allowed a private life when away from public duty, away from their offices and publicly funded homes. When on duty or in a publicly funded role then I am happy they are under greater scrutiny."

I don't want to see that people can be on holiday on the beach and your kind of rules are in place and there are film cameras and recording devices constantly watching them.

joG · Sep 8, 2016

Infinite Chaos said:
Maybe this is clearer, "people in the public eye should be allowed a private life when away from public duty, away from their offices and publicly funded homes. When on duty or in a publicly funded role then I am happy they are under greater scrutiny."

I don't want to see that people can be on holiday on the beach and your kind of rules are in place and there are film cameras and recording devices constantly watching them.

Why? It should certainly not be true for people holding power, though, one might want to think about how the data should be managed and to whom it should be open to see.
And as for people that push their ways into the spotlight and live by the interest the public has in them? Why should a reporter not take their picture on the beach? Why the demand for secretive intransparency? IT is a free life. If the people do not want publicity, they need not do things that attract it.

Infinite Chaos · Sep 8, 2016

joG said:
Why? It should certainly not be true for people holding power, though, one might want to think about how the data should be managed and to whom it should be open to see.
And as for people that push their ways into the spotlight and live by the interest the public has in them? Why should a reporter not take their picture on the beach? Why the demand for secretive intransparency? IT is a free life. If the people do not want publicity, they need not do things that attract it.

Sorry, that's just bollix.

If a public figure is receiving oral sex on their private beach in their own private time from his or her legal partner why should a reporter be allowed to photograph this with their long lens and sell it to a newspaper?

joG · Sep 8, 2016

Infinite Chaos said:
Sorry, that's just bollix.

If a public figure is receiving oral sex on their private beach in their own private time from his or her legal partner why should a reporter be allowed to photograph this with their long lens and sell it to a newspaper?

I disagree for both categories of "public figure" for different but overlapping reasons.

I do not really understand, as a matter of fact, how anyone could want to allow anyone to reduce the free flow of information for such frivolous reason as you seem to be proposing.

Infinite Chaos · Sep 8, 2016

joG said:
I disagree for both categories of "public figure" for different but overlapping reasons.

I do not really understand, as a matter of fact, how anyone could want to allow anyone to reduce the free flow of information for such frivolous reason as you seem to be proposing.

How is it frivolous? You stated clearly that you wanted people in the public to have every moment videoed and recorded and that will include the frivolous and personal as well as the public moments.

If you give licence to one media arm to record every waking moment of a public figure, 24 hours a day that will include any other broadcaster who wishes to capture salacious moments which have no business being in the public eye.

joG · Sep 8, 2016

Infinite Chaos said:
How is it frivolous? You stated clearly that you wanted people in the public to have every moment videoed and recorded and that will include the frivolous and personal as well as the public moments.

If you give licence to one media arm to record every waking moment of a public figure, 24 hours a day that will include any other broadcaster who wishes to capture salacious moments which have no business being in the public eye.

You seem to be mixing some of the things I said, or wanted to, anyway. I do not want "people in the public" but people in political office with a modicum of power to have their activities recorded.
Private persons of public interest are a different case.

A third type of survey is vidio monitoring of public spaces and yet another would be data collection and mining by private interests and yet another by public entities.
All of these are related but should definitely be viewed separately as they each have differentiating characteristics.

Infinite Chaos · Sep 8, 2016

joG said:
You seem to be mixing some of the things I said, or wanted to, anyway. I do not want "people in the public" but people in political office with a modicum of power to have their activities recorded.
Private persons of public interest are a different case.

A third type of survey is vidio monitoring of public spaces and yet another would be data collection and mining by private interests and yet another by public entities.
All of these are related but should definitely be viewed separately as they each have differentiating characteristics.

Well, whether the person in public life is in politics or a priest or pop star - private should mean private.

joG · Sep 9, 2016

Infinite Chaos said:
Well, whether the person in public life is in politics or a priest or pop star - private should mean private.

Not at all. And I do not really understand thinking it should be.

joG · Sep 9, 2016

Infinite Chaos said:
Well, whether the person in public life is in politics or a priest or pop star - private should mean private.

Absolutely not.
1. The reporters must have a right to report anything. Allowing people to determine, what is reportable and what is not harms the democracy and damages the rights to free expression.
2. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you push into positions of power over people, you should be watched at all times. Nixon proved that to the T.
3.As to the people that want to live by the susceptibility of the public and push into the spotlight to snatch for the cash? I see no reason, why they should not be reported on. And I see no reason, why the reporters should not be able to report anything visible from a public place.

Infinite Chaos · Sep 9, 2016

joG said:
~ Allowing people to determine, what is reportable and what is not harms the democracy ~

How?

joG said:
~ damages the rights to free expression.

How?

joG said:
~ If you push into positions of power over people, you should be watched at all times. Nixon proved that to the T.

Clinton first now Nixon. Both did what they did while in their publicly funded buildings, not in their private homes. Can't you please find something that actually supports your case?

joG said:
~ As to the people that want to live by the susceptibility of the public and push into the spotlight to snatch for the cash? I see no reason, why they should not be reported on. And I see no reason, why the reporters should not be able to report anything visible from a public place.

Well we're going round the houses now. I've explained the need for privacy and why even public figures should have privacy when in their own private space and all you can return with are some specious reasons about the public good.

I think ending this is fine after you explain how privacy damages the right to free expression and harms democracy.

Chagos · Sep 9, 2016

This is clearly discernible now as a case where reasoned positions from one side are met with what shows to be of little substance, presented more for the sake of arguing than for the sake of making a counter claim showing any validity, let alone credibility.

All of it exacerbated by griping about what already is, not being what one thinks him- or herself qualified to judge what it should be.

Not much a fan of the slogan myself, yet "Yankee go home", supplemented by "if you're so peed off by how things are seen here" certainly seems applicable.

:mrgreen:

joG · Sep 10, 2016

Infinite Chaos said:
How?

How?

Clinton first now Nixon. Both did what they did while in their publicly funded buildings, not in their private homes. Can't you please find something that actually supports your case?

Well we're going round the houses now. I've explained the need for privacy and why even public figures should have privacy when in their own private space and all you can return with are some specious reasons about the public good.

I think ending this is fine after you explain how privacy damages the right to free expression and harms democracy.

The simple answer is that I cannot believe that you do not see that allowing a subgroup to determine, what is newsworthy restricts information flow, which is the advantage the democracy has over other means of government. I mean, how can you miss that? Of course, it harms democratic process to allow people to restrict public information flow.

Infinite Chaos · Sep 11, 2016

Chagos said:
This is clearly discernible now as a case where reasoned positions from one side are met with what shows to be of little substance, presented more for the sake of arguing than for the sake of making a counter claim showing any validity, let alone credibility.

Yer right, I'm moving on.