Comments by "RiC David" (@RiC_David) on "Photo Of Olivia Wilde’s Naked Toddler Creates Uproar Online" video.

+Luis M. Rodriguez-R I think you're absolutely right here. So often you'll hear about so called outrage yet so rarely will people like yourself ask the question "How many people were outraged? And how many people were not?". If 2% of people who voiced their opinion were outraged then how does it make any sense to characterise the response as "people were outraged"? When you hear "Muslims were offended" ask how many were compared to how many were not - if it's a tiny minority then why do we insist on presenting it as though that was the defining reaction? Also, Ana's comments about "Why are you constantly upset over things" is irritatingly common but again, out of touch with reality. Who is she talking to? "People". She's talking like the same individuals are commenting on every issue she observes and this is how our dumb mind seems to process things by default - "I saw people on Twitter, I saw people on Twitter a year later on a different issue. Who did I see in both cases? 'People on Twitter' - those same 'Twitter people'" We are observing a revolving door of different individuals. It's not hard to figure out! That's why "People are always offended" - because so long as ten people are offended, you'll probably hear about it if you go looking on social media. It doesn't mean it's the same ten individuals each time!
1
+Luis M. Rodriguez-R I'd respond to your reply but your comment isn't showing up here, only in my inbox which cuts off after a point. I was interested in what you were about to say about Islamophobia there! I will say that I haven't seen this change in TYT that many are referencing; I've been watching for 7 years and some times they're heavier on the gossip/entertainment/light stories, sometimes US politics, sometimes world news etc. and Ana has always been of the 'Sky is falling in!' tendency - you'll think she's figured out that things only seem like "Everyone's [dramatic thing] everyone! What's happening to society?!" because she works on a news show and seeks out all instances of [dramatic thing happening. I think it goes well beyond TYT and into the ungoverned human brain. We're TERRIBLE at accurately perceiving anything to do with people we can't see or hear - we put every individual we encounter into the same group ('people'/'the internet'/'you guys'/liberals/Muslims/etc) and stupidly believe that we're seeing the same people each time ('they won't stop complaining!' 'they're always offended about everything') as well as the aforementioned inclination to represent situations by the scandalous actions of the 3% rather than the normal reactions of the 97. Also, we convince ourselves epidemics exist and then see them where they don't. I commented that Cenk's slo-mo voice sounds like cerebral palsy and makes me cringe every time, I capped it off with a "I've been cringing for 7 years now so now you know!" to show I wasn't gravely serious. What happened? Immediately one person told me I was filled with guilt and projecting it onto Cenk as part of my moral crusade and another said the usual "WAA WAA I'M A CRYBABY". Another day on youtube, I know, but these two really believe that they've caught themselves another social justice warrior on some grand crusade. This is why TYT can say "This hasn't gone to trial yet so nothing's proven" and still have idiots saying "TYT don't believe in innocent until proven guilty", y'know, when it's a man on trial for assaulting or raping a woman. The actual content seems completely irrelevant sometimes.
1
Commander Don You're absolutely right about the 100 comments = everyone hates you problem. The vast vast majority of people simply don't express their feelings on any given video or blog post etc. The majority just watch, a much smaller portion of them give a thumbs up/down rating, a smaller portion of them leave a comment. We're seeing that tiny slice of the most passionate viewers. Also, those who are most likely to express themselves are the people who disliked or disagreed with it because there's a lower threshold for expressing yourself: If you were fine with something, you have little reason to declare that; if you enjoyed something then you have some reason but enjoying things is the expected/preferred result so most won't stop to comment; if you loved something then depending on convenience, you may well take the time to tell people - it takes a lot to push people into the 'tell a friend' zone However, if you disliked something then you're immediately quite likely to tell people. If it's too inconvenient then most still won't bother but I've been compelled to register for some comments section just to voice my rebuttal. Also, if you're the kind of person who expresses their complaints a lot then you're more likely to have these accounts and be frequently use them. There are so many ways in which our perception of public reactions is skewed. It doesn't help when you have people (like Ana) phrasing things as "The gay community was outraged at..." when, again, probably 16% were "outraged". We're already prone to thinking/talking in absolutes and jumping people together into groups and imagining them all acting in lockstep, terms like "the [-] community" make it impossible not to. Well that's my daily rant.
1
What is the thing that's being feared here when they talk about sickos? Presumably it's the minority of individuals who find toddlers sexually attractive and have no problem deciding to masturbate to the photo. I get why it would disgust them to think about it but then why think about it? Like Ana suggests, if it's on the internet then it's been/being masturbated to. What I want to know is whether there's also the implication that the child will be put in danger because some of these people might want to hunt down the child to rape them. That I don't buy. If those people are out there then the child's already in danger if they're in the public eye - being clothed or naked isn't going to suddenly make the difference. If you're going to call people with "questionable sexual fetishes" sickos then don't criticise the homophobes who call gay people sickos and creeps. If they're abusing children then yes they deserve judgement and spiteful labels but if they through no choice of their own find young children attractive then everybody reading this is every bit to blame as they are. That is to say they're equally blameless because they chose to not find children attractive as much as these people chose to. It doesn't matter what your emotional feelings are, this is the unequivocal and self evident reality. Judge them for choosing to masturbate over the images if you wish but if you put yourself in their shoes, they have to release their sex drive like everybody else and I'd much rather it was in harmless masturbation. Depends if you want to be Republican War on Drugs about it or if you want to be objective and realistic.
1
+Michael Johns People who are into photos of naked children have absolutely no difficulty finding them and people who are obsessed with celebrity's children to the extent that they'd hunt them down and kidnap them are not hinging on whether or not they see a nude beach photo or just clothed photos. Obviously I can't say that absolutely zero such people exist and I get the mentality of "If there's even a chance then it's not worth it" but I certainly think the fears are overblown and reflect a poor understanding of both child attracted adults and child molesters alike.
1