Larry Flynt has died(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Larry Flynt has died
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56019589
153 comments
>Not because he was a pornographer, but simply because he did what he pleased and fought like hell to protect that right.
That's what's wrong with the "free" world. If something's legal doesn't mean it's moral.
He did what he pleased for sure, but at what expense. Many would argue he contributed to objectifying women. There's always a flip side.
That's what's wrong with the "free" world. If something's legal doesn't mean it's moral.
He did what he pleased for sure, but at what expense. Many would argue he contributed to objectifying women. There's always a flip side.
Sure, and that's a legitimate subject for debate as to where legality and morality should intersect. I think it's also reasonable to say that one group imposing their opinions on others without sufficient justification is immoral. So then we go to the merits of the justification.
Moral arguments are in the west almost always made from a puritanical standpoint, of which this post is a good example. To anyone who isn't puritanical, it's not very interesting to say that because they've already decided they don't think like that. To someone who is, you're posting something they essentially already agree with.
Both of those sides won't really produce interesting discourse, unless you're very invested in making people more (or less) puritanical.
Both of those sides won't really produce interesting discourse, unless you're very invested in making people more (or less) puritanical.
> Moral arguments are in the west almost always made from a puritanical standpoint,
In my experience there is significantly more variety.
In my experience there is significantly more variety.
I understand what you feel, there are 2 sides with strong views preachings to the choir so to speak.
But ;)
There are people without a militant views and people seeking to form views and people with weakly held options on the topic. I don’t know if we should shutdown conversations where there are 2 existing opposing camps with strong views
Not to turn this into that conversation elections are an example yet the winning party changes (except for Germany ;))
There are people without a militant views and people seeking to form views and people with weakly held options on the topic. I don’t know if we should shutdown conversations where there are 2 existing opposing camps with strong views
Not to turn this into that conversation elections are an example yet the winning party changes (except for Germany ;))
Believing that hardcore pornographers "objectify women" makes you "puritanical" now?
OP's criticism was quite civil and reasonable compared to some anti-pornography people I've seen before.
And it's absolutely true magazines like Hustler objectified women! Have you ever seen one? The entire point is to objectify women and sex!
That's entirely different than claiming you're evil or bad for producing porn...
OP's criticism was quite civil and reasonable compared to some anti-pornography people I've seen before.
And it's absolutely true magazines like Hustler objectified women! Have you ever seen one? The entire point is to objectify women and sex!
That's entirely different than claiming you're evil or bad for producing porn...
Something of a facile distinction, given that the construction "objectify women" has a strong negative valence, and implies you're doing something wrong. I won't say "immoral," since the modern moral majority doesn't use that term. It marginalizes the voices of those with woman-aligned identities, I guess.
You can say the point of Hustler is to objectify women, or you can say the point of Hustler is to let people get their rocks off. These are both true, as far as they go, but there are assumptions in each statement that you need to unpack a little. "Getting your rocks off" acknowledges and tacitly approves of a certain framing of the magazine. "Objectifying women" acknowledges a different framing and includes a tacit disapproval. To say that a criticism of the magazine as objectifying women is reasonable because it is true is weak, because you're not acknowledging the framing. The rocks-off framing is equally true, and in the same way, but you might still disagree with it because of the framing.
Hustler is a magazine that pays women for provocative pictures, and it packages and publishes them for the sexual gratification of men. I think it's fair to say that it objectifies women, in the sense that the men looking at the pictures are treating them as objects of sexual gratification. To say, sans other context or sentiment, that the magazine objectifies women, does, however, suggest a puritanical goal or objective. Out of a large bag of potential framings, or combination of framings—libertarian, sex-positive, live-and-let-live, religious, enlightenmentarian, humorous remove, indifference—you're selecting the framing that suggests you want this thing to be attached to a strong negative valence. It's also done in the epistemically cowardly way in which many social criticisms are now made. If you said it was immoral, that would at least tip your hand a bit, and show a little conviction.
You can say the point of Hustler is to objectify women, or you can say the point of Hustler is to let people get their rocks off. These are both true, as far as they go, but there are assumptions in each statement that you need to unpack a little. "Getting your rocks off" acknowledges and tacitly approves of a certain framing of the magazine. "Objectifying women" acknowledges a different framing and includes a tacit disapproval. To say that a criticism of the magazine as objectifying women is reasonable because it is true is weak, because you're not acknowledging the framing. The rocks-off framing is equally true, and in the same way, but you might still disagree with it because of the framing.
Hustler is a magazine that pays women for provocative pictures, and it packages and publishes them for the sexual gratification of men. I think it's fair to say that it objectifies women, in the sense that the men looking at the pictures are treating them as objects of sexual gratification. To say, sans other context or sentiment, that the magazine objectifies women, does, however, suggest a puritanical goal or objective. Out of a large bag of potential framings, or combination of framings—libertarian, sex-positive, live-and-let-live, religious, enlightenmentarian, humorous remove, indifference—you're selecting the framing that suggests you want this thing to be attached to a strong negative valence. It's also done in the epistemically cowardly way in which many social criticisms are now made. If you said it was immoral, that would at least tip your hand a bit, and show a little conviction.
> Moral arguments are in the west almost always made from a puritanical standpoint
More than just the west lol.
More than just the west lol.
Seems to be far fetched statement. Women (and men and everybody else) were objectified since the beginning of the history. But during 20th century this objectification took different forms because of general improvement of women rights and freedoms (basically, woman can be now “objectified” without high risks of being thrown to the streets by the family: women are much more independent now).
Agreed, and we all have different values. I've always found morals, like religion and politics to be a slippery slope. I try to not judge others on theirs as long as they are not effecting me too much.
Had he not existed would women have been less objectified in that era? Do you know what their circulation/sales were compared to say Playboy at that time? Or other mass media that was running objectifying ads? What he added, was a rain drop in a lake, IMHO. Gotta pick your battles.
Had he not existed would women have been less objectified in that era? Do you know what their circulation/sales were compared to say Playboy at that time? Or other mass media that was running objectifying ads? What he added, was a rain drop in a lake, IMHO. Gotta pick your battles.
If you think you are too small to make difference, try sleeping with a mosquito.
Larry has an interesting take, especially given the current environment.
"You know, a free press is not freedom for the thought you love, but rather for the thought you hate the most. People need to tolerate the Larry Flynts of the world so they can be free." -Larry Flynt
"You know, a free press is not freedom for the thought you love, but rather for the thought you hate the most. People need to tolerate the Larry Flynts of the world so they can be free." -Larry Flynt
I'm afraid people now see it as an antiquated and outmoded perspective on free speech. His attitude was embraced by progressive people of the late 20th century.
That said, he too had to own his own platform in order to exercise his rights.
That said, he too had to own his own platform in order to exercise his rights.
Given how much porn there is on the internet I don't think that many people have an issue with the Larry Flynts of the world.
Not anymore, but it was a huge deal a few decades ago. Not that porn was ever lacking an audience, but openly accepting it as okay for polite society was a much less popular opinion in the 80s than it is now.
Today the thought people can't bear is no longer porn, it's anything remotely not woke. It's any opinion that even slightly diverges from their own.
This is demonstrably not true - have you been on Twitter? You'll find every extreme represented there. Including accounts/messages not globally removed but marked "illegal in Germany".
We don't have any issue with pornography though, just with people that pretend the holocaust are a pile of lies that never happened.
[deleted]
I don’t think Trump is a racist.
A nice experiment:)
Not really. Downvotes are specifically intended for comments that don't contribute to the discussion, so downvoting these wouldn't indicate disagreement or censorship.
Doesn't matter what they are intended for. What matters is reality.
Based on my observations, quite a few people on this web site use downvotes to indicate disagreement or dislike. Many of them appear to hate Trump.
Based on my observations, quite a few people on this web site use downvotes to indicate disagreement or dislike. Many of them appear to hate Trump.
I felt like it contributed as it demonstrated the intended thought in a self-referential way.
You know there's a difference between Larry flint not being legally allowed to peddle smut, do satire etc. and people telling you they don't like your opinion and not giving you a platform, organising boycotts etc?
Also, I assume you are completely offended by fox news,OANN etc. lack of progressive voices? I agree, conservative media should open themselves up to platform more leftwing ideas in order to ensure diversity of thought. Similarly to the conservative subreddit, which is enforcing its groupthink the same way the literal communist subreddit is.
Also, I assume you are completely offended by fox news,OANN etc. lack of progressive voices? I agree, conservative media should open themselves up to platform more leftwing ideas in order to ensure diversity of thought. Similarly to the conservative subreddit, which is enforcing its groupthink the same way the literal communist subreddit is.
Larry Flynt was someone pushing the boundaries of his day, even in the world of pornography (Hustler was more explicit than Playboy, for example). Today's random pornographer is not a "Larry Flynt".
Flynt is more akin to Snowden or Assange, or even Parler, in boldness. (not comparing content, just free speech boldness)
Flynt is more akin to Snowden or Assange, or even Parler, in boldness. (not comparing content, just free speech boldness)
To say Larry Flynt was politically correct by today's standards is completely false.
Just look at Wikipedia. He called Sandra Day O'Connor "a token cunt". He wore the American flag as a diaper. Hustler regularly published Chester the Molester, a comic strip, even after the author was convicted of molestation (which later got overturned).
Just look at Wikipedia. He called Sandra Day O'Connor "a token cunt". He wore the American flag as a diaper. Hustler regularly published Chester the Molester, a comic strip, even after the author was convicted of molestation (which later got overturned).
Definitely - not sure if you're responding to me with intention of suggesting it, but I definitely didn't say he was politically correct.
My father had a collection of Hustler from the 70s and 80s that as a teen in the early 90s I sneakily perused; this was definitely the golden age of the magazine's anti-PC speech, with all you mentioned, as well as unveiled racism.
My father had a collection of Hustler from the 70s and 80s that as a teen in the early 90s I sneakily perused; this was definitely the golden age of the magazine's anti-PC speech, with all you mentioned, as well as unveiled racism.
I guess I was reading too much into the "in his day" part. My point was that the world hasn't gotten less sensitive to his attitude and speech. It might have even gotten more sensitive.
Yes, I was responding to a comment implying his pornography would be considered tame by today's standards (which it would, but you must consider the context of the time).
I agree that his non-pornographic content would be viewed with a very sensitive eye today.
I agree that his non-pornographic content would be viewed with a very sensitive eye today.
I don’t understand what’s wrong with owning your platform to exercise your speech rights. You still have a public square. It’s as free as it’s been since Flynt was a prominent figure. (I’m happy to talk about how unfree it can be from experience, but it hasn’t gotten worse especially for the people most up in arms about platform access.)
Instead of being constantly on the defense here... Why do you think you have a right to someone else’s resources for your speech? What entitles you to be published by anyone else at all?
Instead of being constantly on the defense here... Why do you think you have a right to someone else’s resources for your speech? What entitles you to be published by anyone else at all?
> "I don’t understand what’s wrong with owning your platform to exercise your speech rights."
MLK and the civil rights movement didn't own their own platform.
The LGBT rights movement didn't own their own platform.
The women's rights movement didn't own their own platform.
Would you have been okay with them being swept under the rug? It's not as if people in power didn't want to.
MLK and the civil rights movement didn't own their own platform.
The LGBT rights movement didn't own their own platform.
The women's rights movement didn't own their own platform.
Would you have been okay with them being swept under the rug? It's not as if people in power didn't want to.
The bigger problem is "define platform"
Don't like twitter censorship, make your own twitter.
Ergo, Parler.
Oh, but, that's not "your" platform, that's built on AWS's platform. So AWS can deplatform you.
What's next, if Parler sets up in a datacenter with their own physical servers are people going to attack their colocation/transit/peers or their DNS provider or their domain registrar or their SSL certificate issuer? Is LetsEncrypt a platform?
The biggest issue IMO is that with this you're centralizing all the idiotic and dangerous opinions and putting them in a huge echo chamber where they only ever see (mostly stupid) opinions of people they agree with. It's accomplishing the some of the goal the de-platformers want (they don't want to see the dumb content) but the content is still there, just more fringe and more radical and now they can rightfully complain about suppression of their opinions.
Don't like twitter censorship, make your own twitter.
Ergo, Parler.
Oh, but, that's not "your" platform, that's built on AWS's platform. So AWS can deplatform you.
What's next, if Parler sets up in a datacenter with their own physical servers are people going to attack their colocation/transit/peers or their DNS provider or their domain registrar or their SSL certificate issuer? Is LetsEncrypt a platform?
The biggest issue IMO is that with this you're centralizing all the idiotic and dangerous opinions and putting them in a huge echo chamber where they only ever see (mostly stupid) opinions of people they agree with. It's accomplishing the some of the goal the de-platformers want (they don't want to see the dumb content) but the content is still there, just more fringe and more radical and now they can rightfully complain about suppression of their opinions.
Oh, your phone app is banned? Just make your own phone, hardware and software.
Phone apps are more complex.
My concern is less apple banning things and far more when apple and google operate in lockstep.
there is a fundamental misunderstanding in the app store review world, it was highlighted when google banned element(??) the matrix client. will apple ban IRC clients because they can connect to bad servers with universally objectionable content? will they ban SSH clients because they can be used to hack?
With the last big ban controversy (fortnight) I was firmly in the pro walled garden camp, but, now i’m no longer seeing where the big duopoly draws the line and i don’t like it.
My concern is less apple banning things and far more when apple and google operate in lockstep.
there is a fundamental misunderstanding in the app store review world, it was highlighted when google banned element(??) the matrix client. will apple ban IRC clients because they can connect to bad servers with universally objectionable content? will they ban SSH clients because they can be used to hack?
With the last big ban controversy (fortnight) I was firmly in the pro walled garden camp, but, now i’m no longer seeing where the big duopoly draws the line and i don’t like it.
I think part of the problem is that much of our laws and intuitions are built for a time when there were competitors or they are designed for local marketplaces rather than internet scale businesses.
If my grocer is a jerk, I can go to a different grocery store. If this mechanic is always giving me dubious advice I can find a different one. Modern businesses, at internet scale, really aren't that way though. They are much more "winner take all". Maybe there are one or two winners, but when they win they really do take almost all the market share. And for most of the developed world simultaneously.
I can kind of get my own phone. Someone else in this thread mentions Purism. I could also get a rooted Android phone and install a version of Android that takes out Google. What I can't do, effectively, is make my own app, if the duopoly would prefer I not. I could put my app in a private app store or offer it to the kinds of people who use Librem phones, but the market there is too small to run a successful business. Google (via Android) and Apple are effectively both a monopoly, they sell/control almost all of the phones, and a monopsony, they control almost all of the supply of phone users.
If my grocer is a jerk, I can go to a different grocery store. If this mechanic is always giving me dubious advice I can find a different one. Modern businesses, at internet scale, really aren't that way though. They are much more "winner take all". Maybe there are one or two winners, but when they win they really do take almost all the market share. And for most of the developed world simultaneously.
I can kind of get my own phone. Someone else in this thread mentions Purism. I could also get a rooted Android phone and install a version of Android that takes out Google. What I can't do, effectively, is make my own app, if the duopoly would prefer I not. I could put my app in a private app store or offer it to the kinds of people who use Librem phones, but the market there is too small to run a successful business. Google (via Android) and Apple are effectively both a monopoly, they sell/control almost all of the phones, and a monopsony, they control almost all of the supply of phone users.
Check out: https://puri.sm/products/
I don’t feel like purism is a viable alternative. it’s very expensive for what you’re getting and in all respects that i’ve heard the software is not up to par and the ecosystem is effectively non-existent.
I have yet to try one personally and might soon in spite of the price tag, i would love to be wrong but i don’t think i am.
I have yet to try one personally and might soon in spite of the price tag, i would love to be wrong but i don’t think i am.
> I don’t feel like purism is a viable alternative. it’s very expensive for what you’re getting and in all respects that i’ve heard the software is not up to par and the ecosystem is effectively non-existent.
Let's go through these.
It's basically brand new so there aren't a lot of third party apps. If you're the sort of person who loves installing the app for your Smart Toaster on your phone, you may not like this. But you get 95-99% of the value out of a phone if it can make phone calls, message people and has a web browser. Most apps are crap. They also have plans to support Android apps in the not too distant future.
The hardware is slower than similarly priced hardware. But again, does this really matter? You're not mining Bitcoin or rendering feature length motion pictures on your phone, are you?
Which leaves the price. It's high because they're still not making them in huge volumes. It means the early adopters will be people with money. But that's good; people with money attract developers etc. And once the volumes are higher the price will come down.
But this is all kind of chicken and egg. It's not impossible but it's hard and they may or may not succeed. If your point is that isn't already viable for everyone, that's certainly true.
Let's go through these.
It's basically brand new so there aren't a lot of third party apps. If you're the sort of person who loves installing the app for your Smart Toaster on your phone, you may not like this. But you get 95-99% of the value out of a phone if it can make phone calls, message people and has a web browser. Most apps are crap. They also have plans to support Android apps in the not too distant future.
The hardware is slower than similarly priced hardware. But again, does this really matter? You're not mining Bitcoin or rendering feature length motion pictures on your phone, are you?
Which leaves the price. It's high because they're still not making them in huge volumes. It means the early adopters will be people with money. But that's good; people with money attract developers etc. And once the volumes are higher the price will come down.
But this is all kind of chicken and egg. It's not impossible but it's hard and they may or may not succeed. If your point is that isn't already viable for everyone, that's certainly true.
Well... Yes, that's one very valid cause of action. It might not be the only way forward, it depends on a lot of things.
There's absolutely nothing standing in the way of PornHub introducing a phone, because they want to adult apps to be allowed.
Want to sell adult content on Instagram, but you're not allowed? Go build onlyfans.com.
There's absolutely nothing standing in the way of PornHub introducing a phone, because they want to adult apps to be allowed.
Want to sell adult content on Instagram, but you're not allowed? Go build onlyfans.com.
>they don't want to see the dumb content
I don't think that's the point. They want to feel the warm satisfaction of righteous fury and enemy defeated.
I don't think that's the point. They want to feel the warm satisfaction of righteous fury and enemy defeated.
I'm not sure that's really true. They did not have unfettered access to the media "platforms" of the day. And they did create their own platforms. Lookup the long history of black newspapers and radio stations.
In your last line you almost prove the opposite of your point. Yes, people in power didn't want to, and yet - despite not having unfettered access to the platforms of the day - they were not swept under the rug. My view is that's because they had a critical mass of people that cared enough that they literally couldn't be swept under any rug.
In your last line you almost prove the opposite of your point. Yes, people in power didn't want to, and yet - despite not having unfettered access to the platforms of the day - they were not swept under the rug. My view is that's because they had a critical mass of people that cared enough that they literally couldn't be swept under any rug.
I am not sure you are making the point you intended to. These movements were opposed by powerful elements, they did not own the largest platforms, and yet they prevailed. Any movement that depends on the most powerful elements of society to secure it a platform is at grave risk of becoming dependent on them.
> MLK and the civil rights movement didn't own their own platform.
Yes, they largely either did or relied on convincing platform owners, not relying on platform entitlement. Now, they and the allies they convinced didn't own a single centralized platform, it was a decentralized network with big nodes like Rev. Dr. King’s Ebenezer Baptist Church, and small nodes like the individual members of the movement, which relied substantially on person-to-person face-to-face grassroots mobilization.
Yes, they largely either did or relied on convincing platform owners, not relying on platform entitlement. Now, they and the allies they convinced didn't own a single centralized platform, it was a decentralized network with big nodes like Rev. Dr. King’s Ebenezer Baptist Church, and small nodes like the individual members of the movement, which relied substantially on person-to-person face-to-face grassroots mobilization.
These entities didn't own their own platforms? Really?
Maybe they weren't handed a platform on a plate, like we are today, but that is entirely the point: I think they did have their own publications and financed their own media. That's how they became a movement in the first place. You can't get mass acceptance at scale from your target demographic without building a platform.
I think the examples you gave are of people who struck out to build their own platforms, and did so successfully. This is why we even know about them in the first place, thankfully.
Maybe they weren't handed a platform on a plate, like we are today, but that is entirely the point: I think they did have their own publications and financed their own media. That's how they became a movement in the first place. You can't get mass acceptance at scale from your target demographic without building a platform.
I think the examples you gave are of people who struck out to build their own platforms, and did so successfully. This is why we even know about them in the first place, thankfully.
> MLK and the civil rights movement didn't own their own platform. [... etc ...]
And they didn’t demand publication by others’ platforms either. They demonstrated in public spaces, often at great personal risk because they didn’t have equal access to public spaces.
Edit: sibling comment said even better, yes they did own their own platforms.
> Would you have been okay with them being swept under the rug? It's not as if people in power didn't want to.
Maybe you should stop “they”ing me. I’m not other than the groups that you’re using for your point. I’m directly a part of all of the movements you mention, either directly affected or in solidarity. And while you’re at it stop with the past tense.
In none of these cases did any movement demand to be published by someone else’s platform. All have tried to gain recognition sometimes seeking publication. But none have such entitlement to expect to be in someone else’s mouth against their will.
And they didn’t demand publication by others’ platforms either. They demonstrated in public spaces, often at great personal risk because they didn’t have equal access to public spaces.
Edit: sibling comment said even better, yes they did own their own platforms.
> Would you have been okay with them being swept under the rug? It's not as if people in power didn't want to.
Maybe you should stop “they”ing me. I’m not other than the groups that you’re using for your point. I’m directly a part of all of the movements you mention, either directly affected or in solidarity. And while you’re at it stop with the past tense.
In none of these cases did any movement demand to be published by someone else’s platform. All have tried to gain recognition sometimes seeking publication. But none have such entitlement to expect to be in someone else’s mouth against their will.
So, public square, but bring your own soapbox/megaphone.
I don’t see why that’s so controversial. That’s what me and mine been doing for decades. I consider myself lucky to have access to a comment box on a forum someone else operates.
Your comment is confusing. Flynt fought the government, people who are complaining about cancel culture are complaining about people not liking their spicy takes.
> people who are complaining about cancel culture are complaining about people not liking their spicy takes
This is oversimplification.
There’s quite a difference between “not liking” and ruining career, denial of access to services etc.
Part of the problem is that only small group of people really “don’t like it” but capable of cancelling, and vast majority of people are happy to just ban that person in their feed and go on with their life (and large number of people are actually open to opposing views).
This is oversimplification.
There’s quite a difference between “not liking” and ruining career, denial of access to services etc.
Part of the problem is that only small group of people really “don’t like it” but capable of cancelling, and vast majority of people are happy to just ban that person in their feed and go on with their life (and large number of people are actually open to opposing views).
How cute and simplistic.
Indeed. It’s now been reframed as “freedom from government prosecution”, not from organized canceling.
It's always been "freedom from government prosecution."
Flynt faced "organized canceling" from many groups. They just couldn't (continue to) use their influence in the government to punish him. He's in a wheelchair because of a failed "permanent cancellation" attempt.
Also, Democrats of the era didn't much liked him either. Could you imagine 90s-era Hillary Clinton ranting against language in rap music while simultaneously supporting this guy?
Flynt faced "organized canceling" from many groups. They just couldn't (continue to) use their influence in the government to punish him. He's in a wheelchair because of a failed "permanent cancellation" attempt.
Also, Democrats of the era didn't much liked him either. Could you imagine 90s-era Hillary Clinton ranting against language in rap music while simultaneously supporting this guy?
Guess Congress is going to have to start buying their own Hustlers. No way the company's going to continue that crusade.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/17/hustler-has...
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/17/hustler-has...
> Hustler spokesman Arthur Sando told the Journal, “We assume, at this point, that staff members are either reading it or tossing it.”
Hah, safe to assume Mr. Sando is not British ( https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tossing )
Hah, safe to assume Mr. Sando is not British ( https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tossing )
The PR person who made the statement and the journalist are both "professional languagers" so to speak. He almost certainly chose the words on purpose for the double meaning and the journalist almost certainly chose to quote it directly because he saw the double meaning.
He did an unknown amount of sketchy and questionable stuff, but when it came to defending our right to say things the government disapproves of, Flynt was an absolute hero.
Thanks for everything you did for us, Larry. You’ve done good.
Thanks for everything you did for us, Larry. You’ve done good.
"If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, it will protect all of you."
-- Larry Flynt
Time to watch The People vs. Larry Flint. It's been in my list to watch for a long time but never watched it.
It's a great movie, I can highly recommend. Especially seeing Falwell getting put in his place (fictionally of course).
Second that. When I watched it as a young adult back in the time when it came out, I was thinking "great, a film about porn". However, it was actually thought provoking and ended up shaping my views about censorship in general.
This is good too. It's a PBS Frontline episode from 2002.
If you look at the part starting at 41 minutes in, you see Larry Flynt functioning as the voice of reason and restraint.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/showsporn/
If you look at the part starting at 41 minutes in, you see Larry Flynt functioning as the voice of reason and restraint.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/showsporn/
It's a fine film. It made people recognize Woody Harrelson as a serious actor and also featured a great performance from Courtney Love.
I have a friend who interviewed to be CTO of Larry Flynt Publications. She said that when she went in to interview, the first thing they did was sit her in a small office filled with examples of Hustler products and publications. They said, "We'll leave you here for a few minutes to look at what we do. If you decide you're not interested in working with us, you can just leave without checking in with anyone and we'll understand."
Second half of story missing, what did she decide?
...and then they all clapped?
Free-speech activist. That's what I love. Here's raging into the night.
Maybe a leftist free speech activist. He would never publish right wing free speech material.
So?
Implicit to free speech is the freedom to choose what speech to publish, and what not. Just as freedom of religion also includes the freedom to be an atheist or agnostic, and freedom of association is also freedom of disassociation.
Implicit to free speech is the freedom to choose what speech to publish, and what not. Just as freedom of religion also includes the freedom to be an atheist or agnostic, and freedom of association is also freedom of disassociation.
Would you call David Duke a free speech activist then? The word free speech activist kind of breaks down when its only one sided.
Someone can believe in free speech while choosing to censor their own platform - free speech doesn't mean every venue, platform and publisher must proliferate all speech. And as far as advocacy goes, I didn't see any mention of it on David Duke's Wikipedia page. Although nowadays every racist and anti-semite is a self-taught Constitutional scholar and friend of Voltaire. But advocacy is orthogonal to political belief, and plenty of people advocate free speech as a proxy for their own unspoken views.
Ben Franklin certainly believed in free speech, but he also wouldn't publish content he considered libelous and slanderous in his newspaper, rather he would tell people to take such stories elsewhere.
Ben Franklin certainly believed in free speech, but he also wouldn't publish content he considered libelous and slanderous in his newspaper, rather he would tell people to take such stories elsewhere.
> Someone can believe in free speech while choosing to censor their own platform
No, someone can __CLAIM__ to believe in free speech, but if they're not allowing it on their own platform then they really don't. There's a reason why the adage "actions speak louder than words" exists.
No, someone can __CLAIM__ to believe in free speech, but if they're not allowing it on their own platform then they really don't. There's a reason why the adage "actions speak louder than words" exists.
That's odd, given that literally every platform I've seen proclaimed as pro free-speech moderates content to some degree or another, which implies no platform owner believes in free speech. And given that some editorial decisions must have been made WRT Hustler at some point (they didn't publish literally everything and anything,) I guess Larry Flynt never really believed in free speech either.
Non central fallacy
I guess you didn’t read it for the articles!
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/11/20/246297720...
TIL interracial porn got Larry shot.
TIL interracial porn got Larry shot.
So you mean the southern "bastions of Free Speech" are not happy with some free speech they disagree with?
> the southern "bastions of Free Speech"
Historically, southern states were bastions of democratic party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Party_System
Historically, southern states were bastions of democratic party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Party_System
Yes. Most of the south flipped to the Republican party after the Democratic Party embraced the civil rights movement.
I find this rather interesting.
People are always touting how Lincoln was a republican, but when I read a bit about history it seemed that the parties switched sides after the war in terms of left/right alignment.
People are always touting how Lincoln was a republican, but when I read a bit about history it seemed that the parties switched sides after the war in terms of left/right alignment.
Maybe read more about history. Lincoln’s Republican Party was a coalition of religious fundamentalists (abolitionists) and big business. That’s still basically the modern Republican Party. Meanwhile, FDR’s Democratic Party was recognizably the modern Democratic Party. It was a coalition of labor, immigrants, northern progressives, Black people, and agricultural southern whites. George Wallace was a committed New Dealer. During FDR’s time, the whole south was relatively poorer than Mississippi was today. They had half the GDP per capita of the Midwest. These poor southerners were democrats because they wanted New Deal government programs (so long as Black people were denied access), and were opposed to big business, who supported things like tariffs that were bad for southern farmers but good for northern industry. The New Deal coalition persisted into the 1990s with Bill Clinton, even though Democrats had dropped their opposition to civil rights in 1965.
There was a realignment that happened due to economic development in the south in the 1970s and 1980. Industrial development in the south created the prosperous suburbs similar to the ones that politicians like Reagan relied on to win traditionally Republican states like Arizona. The economies of places like Georgia became reliant on low taxes and low regulation to get business to move there. You can see this even in the Democratic Party. Southern Democrats like Mark Warner and Keisha Lance Bottom are the most pro-business in the party. Lance-Bottoms (the Democratic mayor of Atlanta) and Brian Kemp (the Republican governor of Georgia) have more in common on economic issues than either do with anti-business northern Democrats like Jenny Durkin.
Nixon and Reagan’s appeal to the south is always denounced by democrats as being akin to adopting the pre-1965 Democratic support for segregation. Of course that’s ridiculous. In Congress and as Vice President Nixon had been a leading civil rights advocate, helping get through the 1957 civil rights act. (He was a racist, but he was strongly opposed to de jure discrimination.) By the time of Reagan and Nixon, the issue landscape had changed. People weren’t arguing about segregation, they were arguing about affirmative action and racial quotas. The natural conservative position on those is going to be different than on Jim Crow.
There was a realignment that happened due to economic development in the south in the 1970s and 1980. Industrial development in the south created the prosperous suburbs similar to the ones that politicians like Reagan relied on to win traditionally Republican states like Arizona. The economies of places like Georgia became reliant on low taxes and low regulation to get business to move there. You can see this even in the Democratic Party. Southern Democrats like Mark Warner and Keisha Lance Bottom are the most pro-business in the party. Lance-Bottoms (the Democratic mayor of Atlanta) and Brian Kemp (the Republican governor of Georgia) have more in common on economic issues than either do with anti-business northern Democrats like Jenny Durkin.
Nixon and Reagan’s appeal to the south is always denounced by democrats as being akin to adopting the pre-1965 Democratic support for segregation. Of course that’s ridiculous. In Congress and as Vice President Nixon had been a leading civil rights advocate, helping get through the 1957 civil rights act. (He was a racist, but he was strongly opposed to de jure discrimination.) By the time of Reagan and Nixon, the issue landscape had changed. People weren’t arguing about segregation, they were arguing about affirmative action and racial quotas. The natural conservative position on those is going to be different than on Jim Crow.
There's some historical truth in here but the overall thrust of your comment is wrong. The realignment between the Democrats and Republicans was not primarily economic, and was in fact driven by civil rights: opponents of civil rights legislation switched from the Democratic to Republican parties, leaders in the Republican party capitalized on that to realign the Solid South, which as a side effect canted the GOP more rural and the Democratic party more urban, which reinforced the Democratic racial coalition and also further shifted more conservative rural voters into the GOP.
The process was already in motion in the early 1960s, and was a key part of Goldwater's strategy in '64. Perlstein's "Before The Storm" is a good book on this.
The notion that Nixon was an advocate for anti-segregation reform in the south is especially risible. Nixon did, in fact, appeal to the pre-'64 anti-civil-rights agenda of the southern states. Last time we talked about this, I put the Nixon campaign on the record, in a contemporaneous source pursuing this strategy:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25742135
You responded with a revisionist Claremont Review article, which is approximately the same thing as me responding to one of your comments with a Robin DiAngelo article. Amusingly, one of the Claremont article's sources is... Kevin Phillips, the subject of the contemporaneous news story I cited to you.
I can make it simpler for you. Here, from the article I posted, is a direct quote from Phillips, a primary source of your Claremont article on the "Myth of the Racist Republican":
All the talk of the Republicans making inroads into the Negro vote is persiflage. Even ‘Jake the Snake’ [Senator Jacob k. Javits] only gets 20 percent. From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 precent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that . . . but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.
Here I pause to request that you "wait for it", and note that if we weren't buried deep in a random thread that the good play here would have been to stop before the ellipsis, wait for someone to point out the VRA thing, and then unveil the rest of the quote, Simpsons "How To Cook Forty Humans" style, but, anyways:
The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide in their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.
Persiflage, this revisionist history of ideological sorting. Persiflage, I say.
The process was already in motion in the early 1960s, and was a key part of Goldwater's strategy in '64. Perlstein's "Before The Storm" is a good book on this.
The notion that Nixon was an advocate for anti-segregation reform in the south is especially risible. Nixon did, in fact, appeal to the pre-'64 anti-civil-rights agenda of the southern states. Last time we talked about this, I put the Nixon campaign on the record, in a contemporaneous source pursuing this strategy:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25742135
You responded with a revisionist Claremont Review article, which is approximately the same thing as me responding to one of your comments with a Robin DiAngelo article. Amusingly, one of the Claremont article's sources is... Kevin Phillips, the subject of the contemporaneous news story I cited to you.
I can make it simpler for you. Here, from the article I posted, is a direct quote from Phillips, a primary source of your Claremont article on the "Myth of the Racist Republican":
All the talk of the Republicans making inroads into the Negro vote is persiflage. Even ‘Jake the Snake’ [Senator Jacob k. Javits] only gets 20 percent. From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 precent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that . . . but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.
Here I pause to request that you "wait for it", and note that if we weren't buried deep in a random thread that the good play here would have been to stop before the ellipsis, wait for someone to point out the VRA thing, and then unveil the rest of the quote, Simpsons "How To Cook Forty Humans" style, but, anyways:
The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide in their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.
Persiflage, this revisionist history of ideological sorting. Persiflage, I say.
Yeah, I find the reductionist "He wears the same label as me, therefore I can claim him as part of my tribe, and that he has the same views as I/my tribe does" annoying.
Lincoln wouldn't get far in today's GOP primaries...
Lincoln wouldn't get far in today's GOP primaries...
Your wording suggests that the "flip" was caused by the civil rights issues. Yet in reality the "flip" was a gradual realignment over 30-40 years. 80% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act and remained the worst enemies of white supremacists. Jim Crow Democrats did not flip Republican. They had nowhere to go, so they stayed Democrat for decades. There are still Blue Dog Democrats to this day. The South eventually became more Republican as the older voters died out and a new generation with different views came of age.
A good example is Robert Byrd. A former KKK leader, he is also the longest-serving US Senator in history, from 1959-2010. He remained a Democrat the entire time, and was particularly skilled at outmaneuvering Republicans. He doesn't seem to have had a real change of heart. He was just a political opportunist who didn't mind compromising his principles to gain power. He called himself "Big Daddy" due to how good he was at getting pork.
A good example is Robert Byrd. A former KKK leader, he is also the longest-serving US Senator in history, from 1959-2010. He remained a Democrat the entire time, and was particularly skilled at outmaneuvering Republicans. He doesn't seem to have had a real change of heart. He was just a political opportunist who didn't mind compromising his principles to gain power. He called himself "Big Daddy" due to how good he was at getting pork.
It's a lot more complex than that.
A good solid reputation runs for 10-20yr even after you stop doing whatever it was that got you the reputation.
Look how long it took the midwest to realize that the neoliberals they voted for were shipping their jobs to china. They were running on the good will of supporting unions in decades prior.
The south flipped because republicans figured out that adding a bunch of religious rhetoric to their platform got them easy votes. If it was just civil rights the south would have been voting blue well into the 1980s.
A good solid reputation runs for 10-20yr even after you stop doing whatever it was that got you the reputation.
Look how long it took the midwest to realize that the neoliberals they voted for were shipping their jobs to china. They were running on the good will of supporting unions in decades prior.
The south flipped because republicans figured out that adding a bunch of religious rhetoric to their platform got them easy votes. If it was just civil rights the south would have been voting blue well into the 1980s.
> The south flipped because republicans figured out that adding a bunch of religious rhetoric to their platform got them easy votes.
That’s kind of true, but also oversimplified. Republicans have always been the party of religious evangelicals. In the time of Lincoln, abolition was in large part an evangelical Christian movement. After 1965, when both parties had embraced the civil rights acts, social and religious issues took on more importance.
Apart from that, you’re overlooking the economy. Southern states were poor and agrarian during the New Deal era. The wanted government support, they opposed tariffs, they supported a weak currency. All that places them at odds with big business, which was the other leg of the Republican Party. In 1930, the median income in the south was just half of that in the Midwest. After 1960, that changed dramatically due to southern industrialization. Newly minted middle class suburbanites started voting for low taxes and low regulation, just like in the rest of the country.
That’s kind of true, but also oversimplified. Republicans have always been the party of religious evangelicals. In the time of Lincoln, abolition was in large part an evangelical Christian movement. After 1965, when both parties had embraced the civil rights acts, social and religious issues took on more importance.
Apart from that, you’re overlooking the economy. Southern states were poor and agrarian during the New Deal era. The wanted government support, they opposed tariffs, they supported a weak currency. All that places them at odds with big business, which was the other leg of the Republican Party. In 1930, the median income in the south was just half of that in the Midwest. After 1960, that changed dramatically due to southern industrialization. Newly minted middle class suburbanites started voting for low taxes and low regulation, just like in the rest of the country.
Then why Trump supporters walk with the Confederate flag in hand?
I hope freedom of speech and expression does not die with him. He and many others were important in standing up against the fundies and various groups that wanted to the limit the rights that we take for granted today. If you have not seen it yet, I recommend watching “The People Vs. Larry Flynt”.
[deleted]
I had a mandela moment where I thought he was already dead, then realized I was thinking of Hugh Hefner who died in 2017.
The word Hustler being the first word of the sentence is unfortunate.
Do we really have to censor or edit titles to suite a bunch of potentially "offended" people? Oh the irony.
We all know what Hustler is. And if you're a gormless startup founder picking that as a name for your app or product, well that's your fault, learn you some history and watch "The People vs Larry Flint"[0]. Flint's case in the Supreme Court was hugely important, despite being a "purveyor of filth", and strengthened free speech rights in the US, in particular Hustler Magazine vs Jerry Falwell[1].
[0]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117318/
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Flynt#Legal_battles
We all know what Hustler is. And if you're a gormless startup founder picking that as a name for your app or product, well that's your fault, learn you some history and watch "The People vs Larry Flint"[0]. Flint's case in the Supreme Court was hugely important, despite being a "purveyor of filth", and strengthened free speech rights in the US, in particular Hustler Magazine vs Jerry Falwell[1].
[0]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117318/
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Flynt#Legal_battles
No we don't. I was not objecting to Larry Flynt or the Hustler Magazine in any way, it was just a point of grammatical ambiguity, see my reply to another user complaining about the same thing as you are: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26097449
Looks like I've struck a chord among some HN users unintentionally.
Looks like I've struck a chord among some HN users unintentionally.
See my comment addressing the sibling comment to yours. If instead the title was "Stripe founder...." I highly doubt anyone would blink an eye.
Of course they wouldn't, because "Stripe" is not a word commonly used to describe people in the tech world.
If the title was "Spectator founder....", re-evaluate your argument. Also I'm pretty sure "Hustler" is a noun, not an adjective. And adjective is a modifier to a noun, e.g. he was a serious hustler.
This is the weirdest thing to be so aggressively confrontational about...
I don't know how to respond to someone telling me I'm lying about having difficulty parsing a sentence, and being this wound up about it. This is bizarre.
Also I stopped calling it a noun, better?
Also I stopped calling it a noun, better?
I apologise and have removed that part of the comment, but sometimes HN exasperates me, and the flush of a few glasses of wine probably tipped me over the edge a bit.
I don't think this person is complaining about the title being offensive, just grammatically confusing.
If you don't recognize who he is it's hard to tell whether the title is saying that he's "a hustler and a founder" or "the founder of Hustler".
If you don't recognize who he is it's hard to tell whether the title is saying that he's "a hustler and a founder" or "the founder of Hustler".
> just grammatically confusing.
I disagree, it says "Hustler founder". Replace "Hustler" with <anycompany> and you have many a title on HN any day of the week that is "<anycompany> founder...." with no confusion.
The parent to my post said "The word Hustler being the first word of the sentence is unfortunate.". I'm guessing this is because of the nature and business of the company, i.e. hardcore porn, not due to a grammatical misunderstanding.
I disagree, it says "Hustler founder". Replace "Hustler" with <anycompany> and you have many a title on HN any day of the week that is "<anycompany> founder...." with no confusion.
The parent to my post said "The word Hustler being the first word of the sentence is unfortunate.". I'm guessing this is because of the nature and business of the company, i.e. hardcore porn, not due to a grammatical misunderstanding.
No you guess wrong, my issue was with the ambiguity, not sure why you insist that is not what I was thinking even though I've already replied below multiple times.
Of course replacing "hustler" with the name of another company wouldn't produce the same confusion, because most other companies names are not also adjectives commonly used to describe people in the tech world.
You're so intent on being offended by imagined offence taken by someone else that you're ignoring them telling you first hand that you've misunderstood them. The irony is astounding...
You're so intent on being offended by imagined offence taken by someone else that you're ignoring them telling you first hand that you've misunderstood them. The irony is astounding...
> You're so intent on being offended by imagined offence taken by someone else that you're ignoring them telling you first hand that you've misunderstood them. The irony is astounding...
Oh jesus, the classic "no you're offended" weak defence. I am in a round-about-way pointing out how historically illiterate (younger) people are these days. Especially when, particularly on HN, free software, free speech etc is the de rigueur cause, yet somehow they don't even know the major recent Supreme Court cases that enforce and uphold the right to such things as satire. Hustler was a major case up there with Roe vs Wade. Now if I'm slightly annoyed by that, then so be it.
Oh jesus, the classic "no you're offended" weak defence. I am in a round-about-way pointing out how historically illiterate (younger) people are these days. Especially when, particularly on HN, free software, free speech etc is the de rigueur cause, yet somehow they don't even know the major recent Supreme Court cases that enforce and uphold the right to such things as satire. Hustler was a major case up there with Roe vs Wade. Now if I'm slightly annoyed by that, then so be it.
You're preaching to the choir, I'm all for free speech, fighting hard battles, etc. but why are you lashing out on me for a simple grammatical issue I took with the title of this post? If you believe the avg HN user should know more about "major recent SC cases" rather than startup founders and them being "hustlers", I think you may be hanging around the wrong community.
Because it's both unnecessary and distracting.
When I misunderstand titles and then realize my mistake I don't start complaining about it.
Can it be read either way? Yes. Does it really matter? No. Language is often ambiguous without context.
But even with that, it really isn't confusing. The ones who don't know who Larry Flint are may choose not to click on it whether they take the word Hustler as a verb or a noun. And the ones who do click will be disabused of their potential confusion almost immediately.
IOW, it's a huge nothingburger.
When I misunderstand titles and then realize my mistake I don't start complaining about it.
Can it be read either way? Yes. Does it really matter? No. Language is often ambiguous without context.
But even with that, it really isn't confusing. The ones who don't know who Larry Flint are may choose not to click on it whether they take the word Hustler as a verb or a noun. And the ones who do click will be disabused of their potential confusion almost immediately.
IOW, it's a huge nothingburger.
Have you seen the Uber ad, "Everyone should have a side hustle?".
I'm amazed Hustler is still published as a printed magazine. Penthouse went through several bankruptcies and sales in the last two decades. Even Playboy gave up on the print issues last year.
I'm amazed Hustler is still published as a printed magazine. Penthouse went through several bankruptcies and sales in the last two decades. Even Playboy gave up on the print issues last year.
Edit on top because I don’t want to improperly malign the parent commenter or get undue upvotes. I misunderstood the intent of parent comment and my response was to a criticism of sex work/publication of such, not to a criticism of the ways the title might be misread. Leaving my original comment below for posterity/accountability, and for anyone else who comes along and does think it’s inappropriate to discuss sex work.
No it’s not. Besides being a free speech advocate he helped normalize sex work. I doubt his properties have been especially safe and kind to sex workers, but the general population seeing sex work as “normal but maybe icky to some” has certainly made workers’ lives safer and their work overall less likely to be fraudulently exploited.
I’m not a particular champion of Hustler or Larry Flint, but I definitely think sex work generally deserves to be a part of the social contract and not a whisper and a wink.
No it’s not. Besides being a free speech advocate he helped normalize sex work. I doubt his properties have been especially safe and kind to sex workers, but the general population seeing sex work as “normal but maybe icky to some” has certainly made workers’ lives safer and their work overall less likely to be fraudulently exploited.
I’m not a particular champion of Hustler or Larry Flint, but I definitely think sex work generally deserves to be a part of the social contract and not a whisper and a wink.
I'm assuming OP meant it as a grammatical ambiguity for someone who doesn't know "Hustler" is a magazine (because as the first word it's capitalized regardless).
You have a more charitable assumption than I do. We shall see.
Edit: your interpretation was right! And I’m glad for that.
Edit: your interpretation was right! And I’m glad for that.
Not sure where you're going with this, but I was just referring to the ambiguity in the title since there are a lot of stories on HN about SV founders who are viewed as hustlers. Quotes or moving the word would work, not a big deal obviously.
The previous poster misunderstood your comment because "hustler" is also used to refer to a male prostitute. Therefore your post was "insufficiently sex-work-positive"...or something
Now you’ve misinterpreted me. I was under the assumption that Hustler is a widely known pornographic publication/production house and Larry Flynt a widely known free speech advocate as a defender of said business empire.
I assumed (wrongly) that the objection to Hustler being in the title was a blanket rejection of sex work as a part of the general social contract worth discussing at all. But I assumed that based on very similar views widely expressed here, and a misunderstanding of very specific wording.
Believe me I don’t expect HN to ever be sufficiently pro sex worker. But I’ve seen enough anti that I’ve made a point to push back some when I can.
I assumed (wrongly) that the objection to Hustler being in the title was a blanket rejection of sex work as a part of the general social contract worth discussing at all. But I assumed that based on very similar views widely expressed here, and a misunderstanding of very specific wording.
Believe me I don’t expect HN to ever be sufficiently pro sex worker. But I’ve seen enough anti that I’ve made a point to push back some when I can.
You've made a point to read into anodyne comments to credulously fit your narrative of what HN users believe or don't believe?
Actually, eat a metaphorical detective. I obviously didn’t make a point to read anything into your comment. I mistook your meaning because I sincerely thought it was other than what you clarified. And not only apologized directly for the mistake but purposefully made an edit at the top of my comment to be clear I recognized my mistake and had no ill intent. You coming for a snipe after is unnecessary.
I wasn’t as charitable in my interpretation as I could have been, but honestly I had no idea Hustler isn’t such a common name that there would be any ambiguity. You could take a charitable interpretation in turn and recognize that I sincerely thought you were upset by the prominence of that publication/brand being in the title and see where the rest of my response follows from that.
I wasn’t as charitable in my interpretation as I could have been, but honestly I had no idea Hustler isn’t such a common name that there would be any ambiguity. You could take a charitable interpretation in turn and recognize that I sincerely thought you were upset by the prominence of that publication/brand being in the title and see where the rest of my response follows from that.
> about SV founders who are viewed as hustlers
Well this is likely an age thing. And to be honest, in my 10 years reading HN, the use of "hustler" to describe a Silicon Valley founder on the front page (and second) is pretty thin on the ground. There is no ambiguity unless you're a bit deficit in the history department (which is not our problem).
Well this is likely an age thing. And to be honest, in my 10 years reading HN, the use of "hustler" to describe a Silicon Valley founder on the front page (and second) is pretty thin on the ground. There is no ambiguity unless you're a bit deficit in the history department (which is not our problem).
I mean, to be fair, the use of “hustler” in the SV way predates the use in pornography. The latter adopted the former, not the other way around. Even still I agree that at least in the US if you have any kind of interest in speech law, you should be familiar with Hustler/Flynt.
Being unfamiliar with Hustler implies a deficit in the history department?
Or simply saying "Hustler magazine founder...."
I immediately got it, but I know who Larry Flynt was. The technical writer in me approves of your observation, though! "Hustler founder" would be a rather odd phrase to use to describe a founder who hustles -- you'd be more likely to say "hustler and founder" or "hustler-founder" or "hustling founder" -- but when there's any possibility for confusion, it's best to be (ahem) explicit.
I immediately got it, but I know who Larry Flynt was. The technical writer in me approves of your observation, though! "Hustler founder" would be a rather odd phrase to use to describe a founder who hustles -- you'd be more likely to say "hustler and founder" or "hustler-founder" or "hustling founder" -- but when there's any possibility for confusion, it's best to be (ahem) explicit.
The sibling comment to mine interpreted you correctly and I apologize for misunderstanding your intent.
For what it’s worth where I was going was all as explicit as I could make it, and based on a perception that you were reacting negatively to an article openly discussing a sex work publication. It’s been a predictable response to articles I’ve seen here lately on sex work topics and I misunderstood your comment as part of that general reaction.
Sorry again, and I appreciate your productive clarification.
For what it’s worth where I was going was all as explicit as I could make it, and based on a perception that you were reacting negatively to an article openly discussing a sex work publication. It’s been a predictable response to articles I’ve seen here lately on sex work topics and I misunderstood your comment as part of that general reaction.
Sorry again, and I appreciate your productive clarification.
Not sure why this light hearted comment seemed to be so upsetting to some. I understood the title but can grasp how some may misconstrue it as “a founder who is a hustler”. I saw this as at least a slightly humorous observation.
> how some may misconstrue
Only people who lived under a rock for the last 50 years. I'm afraid to say that in the context of the whole headline you'd have to be an actual idiot to not comprehend that Hustler is a company or product if you did not know that already.
Only people who lived under a rock for the last 50 years. I'm afraid to say that in the context of the whole headline you'd have to be an actual idiot to not comprehend that Hustler is a company or product if you did not know that already.
Only in that the lack of typographic options for HN titles prevents the clearer Hustler from being used in the title, which might suggest he's a mere “hustler founder”.
would "Hustler" (ie quoted) be better? What specifically about this did you dislike? The idea of a generalised hustler type, as a founder (somebody who founds, and hustles) or .. ?
It's just confusing if you don't know who he is. It's easy to misread it as "(Hustler), (founder) and (free-speech activist)" instead of "(Hustler founder) and (free-speech activist)".
Of course reading TFA alleviates that confusion pretty quickly.
Of course reading TFA alleviates that confusion pretty quickly.
"The founder of Hustler" would be less confusing.
That seems exceedingly nitpicky given the way headlines get meaningfully edited to say different things here all the time. The words are the same in a different order but grammatically identical.
I disagree. It might be confusing for someone who doesn't know Hustler (the magazine). It sounds unlikely but I'm not sure if younger generation know about those print magazines.
Believe it or not, Hustler has a bustling web presence.
Not trying to keep arguing but I wouldn't call it "bustling" with an Alexa rank of 261,156. I don't think anybody who doesn't know the print magazine would know about their web presence.
One might call it un-bustling, one imagines less clothes not more, but perhaps a bustle being underwear is more de rigeur
Hustler would be better; italics (or underlining) is conventional for periodical titles, quotations for article titles within the periodical.
not wishing to experiment in the commons, can we "do" markup tricks in the title?
I had the pleasure of working for Larry and can say that in some ways he was a hero of mine. Not because he was a pornographer, but simply because he did what he pleased and fought like hell to protect that right. He risked everything he had to prove his points because he knew if he failed he would have nothing. I didn't always agree with what we were publishing and producing, but I supported our right to do it. Larry on the other hand eternally supported others right to do the same without question.
America IS a more free place because of Larry. Say what you will about the man, he would not have cared less!