Nope. But I would hope no one would send them money. This is America, and SCOTUS has ruled that even the KKK has 1st Ad rights.
In fact, instead of banning them, I’d MUCH prefer to see them listed and fail.
How exactly does this thread have anything to do with the First Amendment. Is Kickstarter a government funded institution?
No, who said they were? 
It’s a moral issue, and morally we need to consider the fact that everyone should have the right to make a fool or themselves and everyone has the right to NOT buy a product.
Censorship even by private companies has been derided. For example, eBay has banned swastika regalia. This led to taking off from sale a copy of the rather silly game “Dad’s Army” which does indeed show swastikas on the box cover art. eBay was excoriated for this censorship.
You know, freedom of association is also a first amendment right. Kickstarter has the right to not associate with rapists.
Why do you want to deny Kickstarter their first amendment rights?
That arguement is so bad it’s best to counter with “Why do you hate America?”:rolleyes:
But Kickstarter doesn’t have the right not to help fund the product? Again, no one is stopping whats-his-face from selling his book.
You said they (or at least, the KKK) were protected by the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment only applies to actions by the gov’t. Kickstarter isn’t an organ of the gov’t.
Just because you can find examples of companies refusing to sell things for silly reasons doesn’t mean that companies shouldn’t be able to regulate what they sell.
So, you can’t refute it? Seriously, Kickstarter has the right to associate themselves with anyone they want. They (apparently) do not want to be associated with rapists who write rape manuals. Why does Mr. Rapist’s right to have his stuff published* exceed Kickstarter’s right to freedom of association?
*a right which does not actually exist, by the way, but I’ll roll with it
I did. “Why do you hate America?” is a full refutation of your argument.
But here are the two points:
-
Should we try to ban something from sale if we think it’s evil? Do we try to ban Mein Kamph from sale on Amazon? I mean, that book caused the deaths of maybe 100 million plus untold suffering. But we don’t ban it. Are you really trying to tell me this stupid ass project by this idiot is worse that MK?
-
Next- banning it failed in a spectacular way. That dickwad has gotten more publicity from the banning that ever would have occured if he was deservedly ignored. So, in other words, by starting this controversy you made him a success. He won, you lost. If you had simply ignored him, he would have lost.
Not only did he get tons of publicity, but there was a last minute surge of donations/investments, and he walked off with $16K rather than the $2K he wanted but was failing to get. The blogger who started this outrage made him wildly sucessful. And now he’s getting lots of attention.
Wow, so the outrage really worked. *For the dickwad. *
That’s why this sort of thing is bad. Not only have you “wrestled with the pig” but *the pig won. *
Congrats.
Whose we? Obviously those things shouldn’t be banned by the gov’t, but I don’t have any problem with Amazon deciding not to sell them.
But your analogy is poor in anycase (as analogies almost always are). The person here isn’t asking for his book to be sold, he’s asking Kickstart to help fund it’s creation. If a Neo-Nazi wanted to fund a sequel to Mein Kampf through Kickstart, I’d hope Kickstart would ask him to get bent.
Again, your trying to equate “not helping someone” with a project to “banning” that project.
Hm. Even after spelling it out, you still don’t understand my argument, or The Bill of Rights. It’s funny you accuse me of hating America, when you are happy to strip citizens of their rights to free assembly, but I doubt you’ll understand why that’s funny, so nevermind.
Your other points are more interesting, and certainly more worthy of debate than your false accusations of censorship. You should have led with them.
Well, Mein Kampf has historical value, so I think you can better justify selling it. But overall, yes, I encourage (with my dollars and my voice) companies to stop selling things I think are evil. I’ve even boycotted places because I think the company’s owners have evil beliefs. Why shouldn’t I? I also have freedom of speech and of association, and I can use them to avoid being around that which I feel is harmful to society. I realize we all draw the line in different places, and that’s ok. As long as everyone is free to petition, and the government isn’t stepping in and making certain speech illegal, no one is being forced to do anything. Similar to above, why are my rights to free speech (complaining to shop owners) less important than the rights of the person who wants to sell their goods?
It’s true that he got more publicity than he would have if not for the campaign to end his Kickstarter. Where you and I differ is that I think this is a good thing. I think more people are aware of this guy’s views and how abhorrent they are. People are talking about how his concept of “seduction” is actually sexual assault, and opening up that dialog and increasing awareness is a good thing in my opinion as well. It’s true he got more supporter, but he also got more detractors. Personally, I think sunshine is the best disinfectant, and shining a light on this shit is a good way to stop it. From now until forever, whenever a future date googles the authors name, they will know he’s the rape manual guy. Hopefully he never has the opportunity again to hide his true intent and lure a woman into a place where she will be sexually assaulted. If that makes me a loser, it’s a label I can bear.
I don’t know for certain, but I’d place a large amount of money that those quotes are genuinely out of context. According to his release, part of the book says:
I mean, I get that the PUA movement is generally creepy. They treat having sex like a deal that needs to be closed, and use what are well honed sales practices to do so. It’s objectifying and manipulating, but I don’t see it as promoting sexual assault. From what I’ve read, and admittedly that’s not much, the PUA movement teaches that if you are turned down, it’s best to just move on to the next girl.
There is never a context where it’s ok to “Physically pick her up and sit her on your lap. Don’t ask for permission. Be dominant. Force her to rebuff your advances.” That’s just flat out not OK. It’s sexual assault.
eta: I get that he put up a CYA disclaimer about backing off when she says no, but clearly the content of the book encourages sexual assault
So if I’m making out with a girl and pick her up and put her on my lap, I’ve committed sexual assault?
If you’re “forcing her to rebuff your advances” I think it is.
But I’m pretty suspicious of people that claim they were taken out of context, and then instead of providing the actual context, just explain after the fact what the context was. Is the actual chapter he posted still online somewhere? Seems like that would be the easiest way to see if people really were disingenously quoting him or not, rather then taking his after-the-fact claims about what’s in the book.
If you don’t ask for permission, act dominant, and force her to rebuff your advances, then yes.
eta: I believe the author has pulled everything offline (sort of destroying the “all about context” defense; he doesn’t want anyone to see the context. Wonder why?) but some bloggers got screenshots. I’ll google around and see if I can find them.
I don’t see it at all. The message is simply don’t say no for her. In other words, she will say no when something happens that she wants to stop. Assuming she doesn’t want you to do something means you shoot yourself down, and asking shows indecisiveness. It’s creepy because the only object is getting laid, and there is no concern for making her uncomfortable. But it isn’t assault.
I’m pretty suspicious of people that hack single sentences out of a book to make a point.
Frankly, I’m suspicious of anyone who wants money to write a book. Writing has always been the province of people who either were so rich they could support themselves while writing, or poeple who did it while working other jobs, as I have. What does he need the $2000 for, living expenses? The people who gave him money were idiots.
I don’t have a high opinion of the people who gave Sarkeesian money, either. Gullible!
Eh, the quoted text really seems to hold up getting rebuffed as desirable in and of itself. “Force her to rebuff your advances”, “Even when a girl rejects your advances, she KNOWS that you desire her. That’s hot. It arouses her physically and psychologically.”, etc. I think its pretty clear there’s more to it then “she’ll tell you when to stop”.
None of the quotes given were a “single sentence”. But assuming your objecting to people taking a small section to prove their point, it’s pretty impossible (and usually against copyright law) to quote an entire chapter everytime you want to demonstrate what someone says.
If you want to demonstrate what someone said in a book or article, what do you do?
I’m pretty suspicious of people who change the original text to include “So if I’m making out with a girl…” and leave out the next directive “Force her to rebuff your advances.” in order to whitewash the author’s original rapey intent.
I don’t think the PUA finds being rebuffed as desirable. In fact, I think the entire purpose of the movement is to not get rebuffed. The point, from what I gather, is to push until she clearly says no. That’s creepy, but not assault.
A paragraph out of a book clearly falls under fair use. At worst, you should be linking or citing to where the text came from.