Excellent. Well done.

A campaign with no purpose then. How wonderful.

The first sentence of your link

No More Page 3 was a campaign to stop The Sun from including pictures of topless glamour models on its Page 3; it ended when the topless feature was discontinued

So, self censorship then.

I can see the ‘next’ thread coming soon….just needs the ‘right’ STW article to spark off debate;

‘STW article …. E-Bikes, a feminist’s view of electric empowerment to help drive gender equality on the trails of Surrey’

it ended when the topless feature was discontinued

It hasn’t been though -lots of the right on got excited and then the Sun whapped some baps back on page 3

Take a bow. You’re behind Kelvin Mackenzie on the evolutionary curve 😀

So, self censorship then.

Indeed, that was the point of the campaign, rather than ‘ban’ anything the whole exercise was geared towards getting the the Sun to stop voluntarily.

No bans needed, d’you see?

The sun is free to print as many boobies it wants, and yet…

Does the sun still run page 3 or not, I thought they started again.

But you still don’t want them to do it? And you don’t think it should be illegal? And you don’t think possession of such depraved images should be a crime?

To get it straight then, you don’t want them to post pictures of tits, but you want them to be able to post pictures of tits so that they can demonstrate their worthiness by not posting pictures of tits?

Whats the point exactly? And in what way is it different to censorship?

And you don’t think possession of such depraved images should be a crime

thankfully or I’d be in jail with my photography back up disc lol

‘Slow down ginger or you’ll end up like binners! Have a look at molgrips last one.’

So I post my third post out of the 27 pages and I am told to ‘slow down’. I wasn’t referring to Molgrips but answering another post, as indicated.

You might want to re-read what you are writing and consider how aggressive your posting is before you hit the post button. It is certainly coming across so to me.

…and we’re onto page bloody three. Ah well. Again, it’s about what’s appropriate in a given context.

Whats the point exactly? And in what way is it different to censorship?

Do you really not understand the difference between “can’t” and “shouldn’t”? Oh, wait, what am I saying, you demonstrably don’t, you’ve been banging on about banning / not banning things for half the thread.

Censorship is, simplistically, forcing people not to say something. Whereas a petition or campaign can raise awareness that there’s a group of people who don’t like what you’re saying. In the latter case you’re still free to say those things if you like.

The calendar is the same situation. No-one’s saying Maxxis can’t create such calendars, but some folk are saying that they’d prefer it if they didn’t. Is this really such a difficult concept to grasp?

On the back of this, Maxxis might well turn round and go “gosh, we had no idea, we’ll not do it again” and sack all their models; or they might go “well, too bad, a lot of people do like them so we’re going to carry on.” Either way, they’re empowered to make an informed decision rather than soldiering on obliviously.

The issue isn’t just that they made the calendar. It’s that they thought that they calendar was a good idea.

Self censorship is a completely different thing to censorship. Because self censorship acknowledges that there is something bad about whatever it is.

But you still don’t want them to do it?

I would prefer if Maxxis and papers like the Sun didn’t print those sorts of images, yes.

And you don’t think it should be illegal?

I’d rather not to have to go the trouble of having to identify pictures that are objectifying nakedness, over ones that have nakedness within context. Most folk can recognise the difference without having the law get in the way

And you don’t think possession of such depraved images should be a crime?

Depraved?

Dan, you recognise the problem. That’s real progress, and to be honest, takes the wind right out of Binners’ sails. No one is suggesting banning a calendar. People here are despairing that there is still a market for it, and are dissapointed that a large firm with access to professional marketing and the like would think tha it’s a good idea. For reasons that you have pointed out, it probably is a good idea, from a fiscal perspective, because there are plenty of unreconstructed, mysoginistic men who have there belief system validated by this sort of dross. It is a spectrum though; there of plenty of mouth breathers (I don’t for a second believe you are one) there are the chaos that are in the middle who don’t give it much thought because it doesn’t affect them or theirs (this is where you are probably I think, and I certainly was in the past) and there are those who are hypersensitised to sexism, like Mol Binners and probably myself, because they are empathic with women in their life, or just because they’ve done great deal of analysis, both internally and of the world around them.

You’re not so far apart in your thinking, everyone.

Agreed.

But I’d also add – don’t under-estimate the subliminal effect of peer validation.

Whereas a petition or campaign can raise awareness that there’s a group of people who don’t like what you’re saying

– with the intention of making them stop saying/printing whatever ‘it’ is.

That is de facto censorship and preventing a perfectly legal minority opinion to be expressed. I don’t like the connotations of that line of thinking.

Ginger – my posts may sound aggressive, sorry for that, but thats what happens when you’re constantly being attacked! My comment was meant tongue in cheek not seriously.

v8ninety – I’d broadly agree with that post though i would use probably use different language in places and we’d most likely disagree about the proportions in each category

My argument, as before, is that the calendar or similar, doesn’t validate anyones opinions and is innocent. It is the other unreconstructed, mysoginistic mouth breathers, to use your terms, who do the validating.

It needs tackling but I think articles like this, and the stop page 3 stuff, can actually make it worse as it gives them something to rail against.

with the intention of making them stop saying/printing whatever ‘it’ is.

Making them realise that it has bad effects on people they might not’ve considered, so that they’ll stop of their own accord.

Still a big difference.

Its a bit of a difference, maybe, but the main reason the sun stopped was because they lost money, no moral epiphany.

The end result and aim is still censorship, self or otherwise.

Easily avoided by you simply using words as they are defined

Self censorship seems to be the correct term which in practice would be exactly the same as an enforced ban i.e. censorship.

Yes not doing something is exactly the same as not being allowed to do something

It needs tackling but I think articles like this, and the stop page 3 stuff, can actually make it worse as it gives them something to rail against.

So what would you do about it Dan? Because I think raising awareness, making people actually think and take a look at themselves is a good thing. You list the ‘no more page 3’ campaign as a bad thing, whereas I see it as a small step forward. See people, rightly or wrongly, see print media as an authority. (See also, the daily mail effect). The calendar is a a much smaller, but similar sort of thing. In someone’s brain, somewhere, a little neuron connects to another neuron, saying ‘well they’re allowed to print it, so it’s not illegal, and Dave down the road has it on the wall and he’s a decent bloke so it’s all good to objectify women’. In a very small, but significant way.

Not being permitted to go about your lawful business because of one group who shout louder than the others is different yes.

The end point is the same though i.e. censorship (which you might call a ban).

In fact, your version, where the loudest bunch rule, can be worse than ‘real; censorship as it lends credibility to bad situations. Maybe you should speak to a shias and sunnis about this type of thing.

In fact, your version, where the loudest bunch rule, can be worse

except it’s not the ‘loudest’ group, is it? It’s the group with the most reasonable and persuasive argument. Because we’ve decided in recent years that sexism and objectification of women is, y’know, bad and all.

Yay !

Merry Christmas, one and all !!

Well I’d disagree there.

Not this bit

Because we’ve decided in recent years that sexism and objectification of women is, y’know, bad and all.

because that does seem to be a civilised viewpoint.

This bit I don’t agree with.

except it’s not the ‘loudest’ group, is it? It’s the group with the most reasonable and persuasive argument.

In some cases that will be true in others it wont. My point is made for me if page 3 is back in the Sun, I don’t read that rag though so I couldn’t tell you.

Not being permitted to go about your lawful business because of one group who shout louder than the others is different yes.

Straw man is strawy.

The end point is the same though i.e. censorship (which you might call a ban).

Yes we just have to ignore the fact there is no ban and no censorship and call it what it is not.
You can can incorrectly describe it as you please but it wont make it true.

It isn’t, (well, there’s technically a page 3, but without bare boobs) according to Wikipedia. Last bare breasts were in that rag on 22 Jan 2015. Ain’t google great?

Not being permitted to go about your lawful business because of one group who shout louder than the others is different yes.

Are you really trying to suggest that feminists having an opinion about how women are objectified in print media is unfair censorship?

Not being permitted to go about your lawful business because of one group who shout louder than the others is different yes.

Now that’s just silly.

Maxxis aren’t bad people. What we want to do is show them that what they have done can be damaging. If they were to realise that I’m sure they wouldn’t want to do it (see Pirelli). That’s a totally different thing to what you’re suggesting.

So stop the page 3 campaign successfully made the sun see the error of their ways.
After which did they just pack and go home.
As apparently the daily star still features topless models on page 3.
So why not then switch there campaign to this similar red top? Or was there problem only with the sun.

So, a few pictures of tits can be so penicious as to make a large number of men sexist. However, the concept of forcing someone to stop doing something legal through a vocal campaign has no effect and no unwanted impacts on society, however small?

Do you not see the failure in that logic?

Junkyard you really don’t know what a strawmen argument is.

Its a bit of a difference, maybe, but the main reason the sun stopped was because they lost money, no moral epiphany.

I would be very surprised if the main reason they stopped doing it was so that they could figured they could spin it into something that benefited them. They could quite easily relaunch later “bigger, better and boobier than ever!!1!” if their sales fell significantly, assuming they haven’t already.

The end point is the same though i.e. censorship (which you might call a ban).

No. No no no, you’re projecting your misrepresentations onto everyone else for validation now. The end result is something which you might call censorship or a ban. No-one else here. You might as well call it a cheese sandwich if we’re redefining words on the fly.

I can’t work out why you’re so absolutely fixated about bans. Either you really, really Just Don’t Get It or you’re trolling, surely.

the loudest bunch rule

The irony is that they’ve been the quietest bunch for centuries and that’s sort of the problem. Now that people who have spent their lives marginalised are suddenly finding voices on the Internet, a lot of the people who have (often obliviously) enjoyed positions of privilege for years (white cis heterosexual men, basically) are being forced to ask questions and maybe now feeling a little uncomfortable.

Now, we could just make our own minds up in isolation as to what words like “equality” means, or we could actually listen to those people who are feeling marginalised and attempt to find out why. Going “of course I see you as an equal, it’s all those other men who are the problem” whilst patting them on the head and telling them to run along and stop being so silly is so very easy to do. Hell, I’ve been guilty of it myself because for a while I didn’t get it either.

Apparently there problem was only with the sun.
no mote page 3

So it was more no more page 3 in the sun, than actual no more page 3

However, the concept of forcing someone to stop doing something legal through a vocal campaign has no effect and no unwanted impacts on society, however small?

Do you not see the failure in that logic?

Yes. It’s use of the word “forcing.”

Junkyard you really don’t know what a strawmen argument is.

He really does, I’m afraid.

46 to go! We going to smash this before the day is out at this rate.

I have not read this thread fully. Come on 28 pages?!

Max tyres made a rude calendar?

It’s only women?

Make a men’s version for women too then.

Or don’t buy either.

Where can I look at this calendar for evaluation?

cougar, I’ve explained enough times why what is being asked for is effectively a ban. The fact that you don’t understand the point being made makes me think its deliberate. Perhaps not but it does seem to be you who is ‘fixated on bans’.

Apparently you dont know what a strawman is either.

Junkyard you really don’t know what a strawmen argument is.

I just got lucky when I taught logic at uni then

Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:[4]
1.fail to recognize their own lack of skill
2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others
3.fail to recognize the extent of their inadequacy
4.recognize and acknowledge their own lack of skill, after they are exposed to training for that skill

So we have the first three every page but point four is going to be the real struggle
Here is one

So, a few pictures of tits can be so penicious as to make a large number of men sexist. However, the concept of forcing someone to stop doing something legal through a vocal campaign has no effect and no unwanted impacts on society, however small?

Do you not see the failure in that logic?

Has anyone said this? If not what does this make your point?

Just one more baby step…go on you are amongst friends

EDIT: honestly you are embarrassing yourself now and are so ignorant you dont even realise how daft this is making you look

Its not even debatable as your every post its to attack an argument not being made.

I’ve explained enough times why what is being asked for is effectively a ban. The fact that you don’t understand the point being made makes me think its deliberate. Perhaps not but it does seem to be you who is ‘fixated on bans’.

Are you just trolling now? Not followed this much of late but you are still saying ban which is at best a straw man and at worst an outright lie,

As for not understand your argument we do understand it BUT to suggest that not doing somethign through choice is the same as being forced to not do it by it being banned is so so stupid a point its not worth debating though some have actually tried

As for fixated on bans you have been saying it for about 10 pages and ignoring the fact no one has said it….you must be trolling as no one can be this dense.

What we want to do is show them that what they have done can be damaging

well hope you have better luck that you have had with this thread 😉