The Short-Sighted Campaign against Craigslist
blogs.forbes.com
blogs.forbes.com
In the U.S. it is *legal* to:
Have random, unprotected sex with anyone you want
Have sex with someone only if they take you out to dinner or give you a nice gift, as long as it's not a direct cash payment
Pay someone to have sex as long as its videotaped and records are kept (pornography)
Etc.
But it is illegal for one consenting adult to pay another consenting adult directly for sex?Why is this illegal? Especially since as the "services" get more expensive there is less and less actual sex happening. Multiple studies have shown that prostitution is less about the sex than about the john paying to have a responsibility and stress free relationship.
I may be missing something and be completely wrong but thats my $.02.
Don't try to find logic in this. Some things are even stranger: in Washington state it's legal to go to casino, but it's illegal to gamble online.
You are being played.
I'll skip the seriously-trolly war-on-terror thing, and go straight to the other one... really? No politician really cares about the Ground Zero Mosque? Millions of non-politicians care about it, but the political class is all too sophisticated and is only pretending to care? I think you overestimate the sophistication of the political class.
(Not wanting to discuss the mosque itself, merely the question of whether any politician really cares about it.)
Nevada's listings are gone, too. Amsterdam still has the listings, though. Didn't check any other European cities, though.
If witches existed, hunting them would be rational and sensible (let us assume, for the moment, all witches are evil).
It's only if witches don't exist that witch hunting is silly, so by calling it a witch hunt you're implying that the things of which craigslist is accused are analogous to witchcraft and don't really exist? Except they really do exist, so I'm really not sure what the point of the metaphor is.
"witch hunt" 1 : a searching out for persecution of persons accused of witchcraft 2 : the searching out and deliberate harassment of those (as political opponents) with unpopular views
Obviously this case has nothing to do with witches. In general, it is about using people's strong fear of something (is this something real or unreal - it doesn't matter, the fear itself is what only matters), like witchcraft or the threat of Finnish and Mexican immigrants taking away kernel hacking jobs, to energize and direct the crowd against one's enemies and advance the one's leadership position over the crowd.
So to understand why witch hunt actually makes sense as a term, you must first look at the real witch hunts that happened. These happened at a time and place where witchcraft was "known" to be real. Of course there weren't witches, but everyone then thought there were, so effectively hunting for witches was a valid thing to do.
At the time, they also didn't know lots of other things, so if a person falls sick, or a cow dies, or a house burns down, scientific evidence based explanations were not so easy to come by. However witches were "known" to curse people, and a curse causes misfortune.
So what would happen is a random person would decide to pay back a grudge, or look good to his fellow citizens or whatever, and accuse some 3rd party of witchcraft, for something like giving the evil eye, or dancing, or whatever. This would lead to a burning, and everyone would be happy again. Most of the time anyway. Sometimes, a series of unfortunate events would be construed as a major witch, or a whole coven of witches. Then everyone would go crazy, true beleivers would be terrified, ambitious social climbers would be accusing all their enemies of witchcraft, and so on. There would be attempts by authorities to get to the bottom of it, and many witches would be found. Mass burnings ensued, and eventually everyone would calm down and be happy again.
So, looking back, this whole course of events is ridiculous, the root assumption of witchcraft is just plain silly. The mass panic/hysteria over it downright dangerous, and those taking advantage of the situation were repugnant.
So, now, looking at the above situations, and refactoring a bit, so we can get a more generic algorithm, we see these key components:
1. A label that classifies someone as bad
2. A deep underlying fear of what the bad label stands for, but the fear must be non-specific.
3. A set of actions and vaguely sort-of correlated events (if you squint just right), that looks like: "bad things from #2 are happening to us!".
4. A set of people willing to manipulate the many for their own gain.
If those conditions are met, you have a prime candidate for a "witch hunt" (keeping the name because it describes the original stuff well, and everyone knows what happened in those cases). Just start sending authorities after anyone labeled as the bad thing.
There are of course some variations, and deeper nuances, but that is the gist of it.
Also, newspapers were hosting identical ads 10 years ago, and were charging for it. Isn't that worse?
Edit: After checking, they did charge for adult ads, after pressure. But my 2nd point still stands, how is it different from newspapers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Nevada
Here is some moral ambiguity... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_surrogate
The "sex surrogate" stuff is pseudo-scientific nonsense, and has no relation to what was being offered on craigslist anyway.
Craigslist has said it had donated all revenues from its "erotic services" listings to charity. When it switched to its "adult services" listings last year it said it would make no commitment to how those revenues would be used.