|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> The Cafe >> Cameras /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1738525131 Message started by blod on 02/02/25 at 11:38:51 |
|
Title: Cameras Post by blod on 02/02/25 at 11:38:51 I have started making a video documentary about my local town and have has some crazy reactions. Cameras are everywhere these days, yet as soon as people see me recording them with my camera they go mad. What is it about hand held cameras that wind people up ? This guy is funny.. https://www.bitchute.com/video/OkQQggPH6a9B/ |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by Serowbot on 02/02/25 at 14:58:47 So your hobby is annoying people and then posting it? Cool? :-? |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by blod on 02/02/25 at 17:49:58 2630273A22373A21550 wrote:
That was not my initial intention, but it has turned out that way. Why recording people with a hand held camera annoys people is beyond my comprehension. It does not bother me in the slightest. It's good to have discovered a new and legal hobby that will keep me occupied during the winter months, and I don't have to please anyone, in fact the more people dislike me the happier I become. :) |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by oldNslow on 02/02/25 at 18:59:19 "Why recording people with a hand held camera annoys people is beyond my comprehension... " If someone explains it to you with a good old fashioned a*s whuppin you'll comprehend. Good luck with your new hobby. :o |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by Ruttly on 02/02/25 at 21:06:48 Pay heed , the old wise one has spoken ! |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by blod on 02/03/25 at 04:55:48 7B4544485A4647290 wrote:
It's plain to see that you feel threatened by cameras ! My question to you is WHY ? |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by blod on 02/03/25 at 05:25:44 I'm going to attend a service at the Our Lady of Assumption Co-Cathedral next Sunday if the weather is OK. I intended to go yesterday but it was brass monkey weather and everyone stays at home when it's below -20. I have not been in a church for over 50 years, and I have not been in a catholic church ever. It should be an interesting experience. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by TheBabyDerp on 02/03/25 at 07:06:49 Attend the mass. Don't take communion though. Converting to Catholicism was the best decision I ever made. As for your hobby, I would be careful. Blur out brand names for sure. And if you are monetizing it, expect the possibility of being sued. If someone had a public recording of myself in a documentary that was monetized, I would demand payment or otherwise I would sue. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by blod on 02/03/25 at 07:25:09 667A777073706B76776062120 wrote:
It will not be monetized, it's just for fun :) Why did you convert to Catholicism , and what did you convert from ? |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by ThumperPaul on 02/03/25 at 10:28:52 303E3D36520 wrote:
That was not my initial intention, but it has turned out that way. Why recording people with a hand held camera annoys people is beyond my comprehension. It does not bother me in the slightest. It's good to have discovered a new and legal hobby that will keep me occupied during the winter months, and I don't have to please anyone, in fact the more people dislike me the happier I become. :)[/quote] That sounds like a person that is deep down really pathetically miserable and unhappy with themself. But I’m not a doctor. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by ThumperPaul on 02/03/25 at 12:15:06 6F6162690D0 wrote:
A) because you look and seem like an a-hole B) walking around filming and being a jerk is disturbing C) your intention and motivation is unknown D) All of the above. D is the best answer. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by blod on 02/03/25 at 12:22:25 487469716C796E4C7D69701C0 wrote:
If any of those things disturb you then you need help from a trick cyclist. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by oldNslow on 02/03/25 at 12:35:53 2A24272C480 wrote:
It's plain to see that you feel threatened by cameras ! My question to you is WHY ?[/quote] First. No, I'm not threatened by cameras. Second. My comment was meant as a gentle, and I hoped, amusing, warning to be careful whom you pointed your camera at. Perhaps I was mistaken. I don't think it's necessarily your camera that's going to get you in trouble, rather your attitude. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by ThumperPaul on 02/03/25 at 12:43:37 2F2122294D0 wrote:
If any of those things disturb you then you need help from a trick cyclist. [/quote] You asked the question. I simply gave you a few possible answers. You’re clearly a pathetic jerk. Funny for your disturbed self maybe, but the guy you find funny and attempt to mock by posting video on a public forum on the internet isn’t amused by your childish hobby. Hope you’re really enjoying yourself. I’ll just sit here and wait for karma to kick in. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by blod on 02/03/25 at 14:41:58 0836373B2935345A0 wrote:
It's plain to see that you feel threatened by cameras ! My question to you is WHY ?[/quote] First. No, I'm not threatened by cameras. Second. My comment was meant as a gentle, and I hoped, amusing, warning to be careful whom you pointed your camera at. Perhaps I was mistaken. I don't think it's necessarily your camera that's going to get you in trouble, rather your attitude. [/quote] Generally the threat of violence is because of a perceived threat. Be careful what you say to people unless you want your face smashed in................ That was an amusing and gentle warning right ? ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by blod on 02/03/25 at 14:56:34 477B667E6376614372667F130 wrote:
If any of those things disturb you then you need help from a trick cyclist. [/quote] You asked the question. I simply gave you a few possible answers. You’re clearly a pathetic jerk. Funny for your disturbed self maybe, but the guy you find funny and attempt to mock by posting video on a public forum on the internet isn’t amused by your childish hobby. Hope you’re really enjoying yourself. I’ll just sit here and wait for karma to kick in.[/quote] Your answers made no sense whatsoever, and they are still not making any sense. Cameras are everywhere and watching you constantly, one more makes no difference, but I doubt you will ever be able to realize that. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by blod on 02/04/25 at 06:59:30 I can't think of any hobby more peaceful than photography |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by TheBabyDerp on 02/04/25 at 07:00:43 27292A21450 wrote:
It will not be monetized, it's just for fun :) Why did you convert to Catholicism , and what did you convert from ? [/quote] This is the cafe section, so due to the rules, I can't really dive too deep and give a full answer, but a quick summary will suffice to answer your questions. I was raised Pentecostal, but parents didn't go to Church much at all. I was non-practicing and pretty much left Christianity. Identified as agnostic or no religion and lived a lifestyle that paid no heed to anything religious or spiritual. Years of research led to me accepting Jesus Christ's claim that He is God alongside the authority of the Roman Pontiff and here I am now. I haven't even been officially Catholic for a year. Sorry, I can't really give enough details on this thread/section. I would have to write a mini novel, and I wouldn't feel right doing so without listing my sources as well. As for your hobby, the fact that you are not monetizing it does prevent many legal issues down the road. I will say though. The governments do not decide what is morally right or wrong. Walking up to people with a camera in their face has the potential to be harassment from a moral perspective. People don't like to be harassed or antagonized. There is always the potential for you to be attacked. There's a few Youtubers that drive around to different towns showcasing the town in a documentary format, interviewing people with their permission, etc. There is a right way to do it, and a wrong way to do it. I would recommend learning from people who already do it. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by blod on 02/04/25 at 07:11:14 233F323536352E33322527570 wrote:
It will not be monetized, it's just for fun :) Why did you convert to Catholicism , and what did you convert from ? [/quote] This is the cafe section, so due to the rules, I can't really dive too deep and give a full answer, but a quick summary will suffice to answer your questions. I was raised Pentecostal, but parents didn't go to Church much at all. I was non-practicing and pretty much left Christianity. Identified as agnostic or no religion and lived a lifestyle that paid no heed to anything religious or spiritual. Years of research led to me accepting Jesus Christ's claim that He is God alongside the authority of the Roman Pontiff and here I am now. I haven't even been officially Catholic for a year. Sorry, I can't really give enough details on this thread/section. I would have to write a mini novel, and I wouldn't feel right doing so without listing my sources as well. As for your hobby, the fact that you are not monetizing it does prevent many legal issues down the road. I will say though. The governments do not decide what is morally right or wrong. Walking up to people with a camera in their face has the potential to be harassment from a moral perspective. People don't like to be harassed or antagonized. There is always the potential for you to be attacked. There's a few Youtubers that drive around to different towns showcasing the town in a documentary format, interviewing people with their permission, etc. There is a right way to do it, and a wrong way to do it. I would recommend learning from people who already do it.[/quote] From my experience the right way to do it is to remain silent at all times, it's impossible to get into an argument when you don't speak, ( though that seems to piss people off too ) and never stick a camera in someone's face. What is "in someone's face " exactly ? |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by Eegore on 02/04/25 at 07:42:43 I think when it comes down to filming in public, and specifically in public, the most defining parameter is general courtesy - which the filmmaker has no obligation to provide. So yeah the public can just deal with it. I find that humans that film others that do not want to be filmed as a "documentary" of their area are really only documenting the general aversion the average human can have to being suddenly filmed - which is pretty universal and not unique to that town/city/location etc. It becomes nothing more than a prank-style film and limits the ability for someone watching to see or learn anything about the area or people. Someone driving slow in the fast lane doesn't bother me at all, but I do not do the same using my lack of concern as an analogue for all humans. I noticed once while helping a friend move film equipment that a man seemed very distraught at a pizza place, like severely panicked. I assisted him in getting out a side door as he was literally panicked by all the camera equipment out front. Turns out, as he fought back tears and thanked me - that he was forced to commit sex-acts on film as a boy. So I guess we never know why someone doesn't want to be on camera - no matter how little it might bother us. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by TheBabyDerp on 02/04/25 at 07:53:18 0E2E2C24392E4B0 wrote:
You make pretty good points, and I agree. Regardless of legality, it is an not a very nice person move to randomly film people while walking around. Even if you don't care about being an not a very nice person, there is still a chance you run into a crazy person who could hurt you. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by blod on 02/04/25 at 08:51:48 4A6A68607D6A0F0 wrote:
The documentary I am making in my local town is an unannounced silent documentary. It is a completely honest and unbiassed. The people decide for themselves how they will react, I offer no guidance. I have only just started the project, so far I have documented four business, three passed with flying colours, and I am sure they will be happy to be featured in the documentary , one not so much ;D So far the horse pigs have not been involved, but I doubt that will always be the case. If they do get involved they will also get the silent treatment |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by blod on 02/05/25 at 08:29:35 I went to the town council meeting yesterday evening, I brought it to a complete stand still just by walking in and not saying a word. The power of silence is greater than I ever expected. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by Eegore on 02/05/25 at 11:05:56 Isn't it the power of the camera? If you went in without the camera and remained silent would they have reacted the same you think? I couldn't say. We get a lot of "1st Amendment" audits looking for clout on YouTube in the US and many attribute their presence and questions to the reactions when I highly doubt that since there's essentially no hidden camera videos getting the same reactions. It's the recording device that stirs people up. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by THESAVAGE on 02/05/25 at 18:40:27 pretty easy to avoid a guy who is filming with a camera, just cross the street or something lol |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by blod on 02/07/25 at 04:54:54 1E3E3C34293E5B0 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by Eegore on 02/07/25 at 05:42:32 I have done exactly that when told I could not have my mail in the post office. When I just stood there ( with no camera ) and did not leave as they wanted they called the police. It seems like a reasonable expectation that remaining at a non-public location after being asked to leave by the humans in control of that location, that law enforcement would be called. I think it can be, but only when they can see a photographer holding it. Its that they have no authority to stop someone recording , coupled with no the authority to make someone speak that really pisses the control freaks. Cameras record in many places 24/7 , and it t does not bother people at all. That tells me it's not the cameras alone that get people stirred up. Makes sense. I do wonder if it has to do with the reason r potential use of the recording. For instance a surveillance camera at a store is typically not perceived to be anything more than loss prevention and part of the deal when going in a store. However a human following someone in the store with a camera is not typically perceived as loss-prevention, and not typically something one would expect to deal with. I know with all the videos of women being sold online engaging in mundane tasks, it makes sense that some are weary of being filmed. While it is rare for them to be assaulted by a customer that master bates to her footage, it's still going to be on their minds as a risk. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by TheBabyDerp on 02/07/25 at 06:19:14 4161636B7661040 wrote:
I do agree that they are mostly for loss prevention, but I will mention a small story because it's funny, but it does get around to surveillance cameras. When I was 18, I bought a phone. Used it for about 2 weeks. I did not like it, so I sold it. After I sold it to a lady, it was reported stolen to the phone networks. The lady I sold it to accused me of stealing it/purposely selling her a stolen phone. Well, anyways, I met up with her and local police at the AT&T store. I showed them email proof I had bought the phone from a private seller a few weeks prior. The seller was operating on Craigslist through email only. The lady was screwed. I did not have to give her the money back from the sale, per the police. She was strapped for cash (so was I), so I understand her frustration of being a victim. AT&T refused to give any information about the person who reported it stolen for privacy reasons. HOWEVER, they did tell the police that THE SAME PHONE was reported stolen about a dozen times over the course of a year. Yikes. Suspicious. . Well, the police agreed to assist her in finding the person who sold me the phone which was subsequently reported stolen. She went on craigslist and quickly find another phone the same seller had for sale. She set up a time and place to meet and buy the other phone. Police came in during the sale and detained the person selling stolen phones, as they already had decent enough proof. They unraveled a local ring. Multiple people ended up arrested. They were selling about 20-30 phones a month. Reporting them stolen 2-3 weeks after selling. The phone networks like AT&T would confiscate the phones and give them back. Free money. Every month. Oh yeah, surveillance cameras. This AT&T store was across the street from a Walmart. Think about half a kilometer or so. Far enough for things to be really small on camera. I don't know how this conversation came up, but the police mentioned that they regularly get warrants to take Walmart surveillance camera footage. Apparently, Walmart surveillance cameras can zoom in clearly up to about a mile away from the Walmart. Very useful for crimes in the vicinity. Oh well, I don't know if this information is useful. I just wanted to mention that every time someone goes in public, the cameras can see them almost everywhere. Even if you are driving down the street past a Walmart, the camera can zoom in on your windshield and see details of your face. It can read your license plate number when driving by. It's not the camera, but perhaps the awareness of it. Who knows. People are crazy sometimes. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by Eegore on 02/07/25 at 06:24:22 Apparently, Walmart surveillance cameras can zoom in clearly up to about a mile away from the Walmart. That's pretty amazing considering the cost of that type of camera. Clear footage a mile away is like 3k-10k per camera. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by TheBabyDerp on 02/07/25 at 06:32:34 624240485542270 wrote:
Well, I don't know exactly how clear it is, but only that it used for evidence. We had a case recently of a murder. The dude dumped a body off the Mobile Bayway bridge. Basic traffic cameras gave clear enough view of the perp. He was arrested about 400 miles away in Central Florida within a day or so. I think good cameras has become standard. Except for gas stations. I swear gas stations have the cheapest cameras from 40 years ago. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by ThumperPaul on 02/07/25 at 06:42:12 Security surveillance cameras have become generally accepted and the intended use is pretty obvious. Honest people don’t have a problem with those cameras. Some random dude with a camera, using his “power of silence”, or playing passive-aggressive with people, and throwing off a creepy vib with an attitude WILL rightfully bother some people. Especially when his intentions are unknown. One day, maybe some dude exercising his right not to be filmed will hold up his hand in front of the camera lens to block his being filmed. I can envision a scenario where the cameraman then “accidentally” bumps into his hand and his camera accidentally gets shoved into the back of his skull. When the police arrive after the tussle, witnesses will say that the creepy cameraman deliberately walked into and pushed the other guy which resulted in the camera getting planted in his face. :o :P Not something I would do, but I know people. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by blod on 02/07/25 at 07:18:33 [quote author=79595B534E593C0 link=1738525131/15#26 date=1738935752] It seems like a reasonable expectation that remaining at a non-public location after being asked to leave by the humans in control of that location, that law enforcement would be called. Its not unreasonable to be silently standing in a post office when waiting to collect mail that is at the post office. When the police arrived they instructed the post office employee to give me my mail. I then left. :) I know with all the videos of women being sold online engaging in mundane tasks, it makes sense that some are weary of being filmed. While it is rare for them to be assaulted by a customer that master bates to her footage, it's still going to be on their minds as a risk. I'm not responsible for what people imagine. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by blod on 02/07/25 at 07:26:48 0438253D2035220031253C500 wrote:
The nice thing about cameras is that they don't lie. ;) PS I NEVER call the police. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by oldNslow on 02/07/25 at 07:46:24 "I'm not responsible for what people imagine." If you act like a jerk and people imagine that you are a jerk, you are responsible for what they"imagine" You said in a previous post that making people dislike you makes you happy. Success !!! |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by ThumperPaul on 02/07/25 at 07:51:06 Except in the world of AI, CGI, and when the camera suddenly turns off. You’re obviously free to do what you want, you asked a seemingly rhetorical question, you really don’t care what others think or how your attitude and behavior affects others, and I’ve simply tried to articulate that it’s really not the camera. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by blod on 02/07/25 at 08:02:00 [quote author=605E5F53415D5C320 link=1738525131/30#33 date=1738943184]"I'm not responsible for what people imagine." If you act like a jerk and people imagine that you are a jerk, you are responsible for what they"imagine" I don't think standing silently with a camera is acting like a jerk, but you may define the word jerk differently You said in a previous post that making people dislike you makes you happy. Success !!! I will clarify that by saying making jerks dislike me makes me happy |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by blod on 02/07/25 at 08:14:33 0E322F372A3F280A3B2F365A0 wrote:
You are right to say I really don't care what people think, but I am mystified why they care so much about me and my camera. It's as if I am violently stealing something from them which is obviously not the case. People who could not care less about being recorded do not make entertaining subjects. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by Eegore on 02/07/25 at 08:51:49 I'm not responsible for what people imagine. Nobody is. However a woman being followed around by a man with a camera should be scrutinized more than a man standing on a public street with a camera. No matter what anyone imagines. Anytime I see guys trying to film girls at the gymnastic studio, I always intervene. I don't intervene when some guy is standing at the doors to the Court House filming everyone going in or out. Typically all they want is for someone to be upset about it. Nobody is going to watch hours of "documentary" where nothing happens but what they already see all day. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by ThumperPaul on 02/07/25 at 09:53:08 Pathetic you get off to agitating people and that’s entertaining to you. What a sad miserable life you lead. And don’t confuse my “disdain” for “caring”. Enjoy flattering yourself. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by blod on 02/07/25 at 10:28:04 794558405D485F7D4C58412D0 wrote:
I can see you getting agitated just at the thought of being recorded. It's people like you who make all my efforts worthwhile. I thank you for your sensitivity. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by TheBabyDerp on 02/07/25 at 10:30:53 4A766B736E7B6C4E7F6B721E0 wrote:
Well, technically, in both the United States and Canada, you do not have the right to not be filmed in public, though there are exceptions. But you are right in that someone may respond violently. I have heard of people being killed over much less. I am a decent human, so I don't creepily record people. I will say though, I would exercise this right if there is something worth recording. For example, I saw someone's truck locked onto a repo flat bed in a public parking lot and the guy jumped into the truck and tore it up trying to drive off the flat bed to avoid repo Hilarious. Wish I had a good enough view to record it. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by blod on 02/07/25 at 10:32:15 4B6B69617C6B0E0 wrote:
I would film girls and anyone else who does anything in public. Anyone who expects privacy in public is an idiot. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by blod on 02/07/25 at 10:35:56 1509040300031805041311610 wrote:
Well, technically, in both the United States and Canada, you do not have the right to not be filmed in public, though there are exceptions. But you are right in that someone may respond violently. I have heard of people being killed over much less. I am a decent human, so I don't creepily record people. I will say though, I would exercise this right if there is something worth recording. For example, I saw someone's truck locked onto a repo flat bed in a public parking lot and the guy jumped into the truck and tore it up trying to drive off the flat bed to avoid repo Hilarious. Wish I had a good enough view to record it. [/quote] Please define "creepily record people" |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by TheBabyDerp on 02/07/25 at 12:06:25 5856555E3A0 wrote:
I don't have an exact definition. Holding up your camera and recording people going about their normal life is considered weird and creepy. I didn't create the social norms of society. To add on to this, ignoring someone' s request for you to not film them makes it worse. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by blod on 02/07/25 at 12:10:36 607C717675766D70716664140 wrote:
I don't have an exact definition. Holding up your camera and recording people going about their normal life is considered weird and creepy. I didn't create the social norms of society. To add on to this, ignoring someone' s request for you to not film them makes it worse. [/quote] I would define "creepy" as recording someone covertly. I would not consider openly recording someone as being creepy. It might qualify as weird but not creepy |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by TheBabyDerp on 02/07/25 at 12:18:43 020C0F04600 wrote:
I don't have an exact definition. Holding up your camera and recording people going about their normal life is considered weird and creepy. I didn't create the social norms of society. To add on to this, ignoring someone' s request for you to not film them makes it worse. [/quote] I would define "creepy" as recording someone covertly. I would not consider openly recording someone as being creepy. It might qualify as weird but not creepy [/quote] It is what it is man. You are free to record people in public. But you cannot demand they react the way you want them to. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by blod on 02/07/25 at 12:50:16 6478757271726974756260100 wrote: It is what it is man. You are free to record people in public. But you cannot demand they react the way you want them to. [/quote] That is the truth, everyone can be recorded, kids included. I actually hate kids. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by Eegore on 02/07/25 at 16:16:14 I would film girls and anyone else who does anything in public. Anyone who expects privacy in public is an idiot. Girls in a gymnastics studio aren't in public. I would define "creepy" as recording someone covertly. I would not consider openly recording someone as being creepy. It might qualify as weird but not creepy I would say the same however as a man I find less things creepy than my female associates do. Then again they see constant examples of men filming women, legally, then showing up at their work or homes. So the "creep" factor plays in more considering they are much more likely to be assaulted by men then the other way around. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by blod on 02/07/25 at 18:14:53 6646444C5146230 wrote:
Why would anyone want to video record women with their clothes for sexual reasons ? It makes no sense to me. ... Perhaps they have a clothes fetish ? ;D |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by Eegore on 02/07/25 at 19:37:22 Why would anyone want to video record women with their clothes for sexual reasons ? It makes no sense to me. ... Perhaps they have a clothes fetish ? It doesn't have to make sense. Why would a human want to video record foreign objects being put into infants? Making sense has nothing to do with any of it. Yes, plenty of humans purchase videos of women with clothes on for sexual reasons. Why someone wouldn't think its "creepy" for a man to follow a woman around recording her makes no sense to me, but I realize there are plenty that think it's just fine to do. Weird for sure, but definitely creepy to the one being filmed is how I look at it. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by blod on 02/07/25 at 20:15:44 2404060E1304610 wrote:
If everything can be classed as a perversion women, kids ,and haddock should be banned from being seen in public at all times so as not to hurt their precious feelings. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by Eegore on 02/07/25 at 20:27:14 If everything can be classed as a perversion women, kids ,and haddock should be banned from being seen in public at all times so as not to hurt their precious feelings. Sure. Cameras too. The point is I can see why women think men following them around recording them is more creepy. Men assault women more, so it makes logical sense that women are more apprehensive about that. Perversion or not, it is statistically correct that women are more likely to be assaulted by men. Any abnormal actions, like following them around for any reason is weird, and creepy to the person being followed. That doesn't have to make sense for it to be objectively true. Making sense is not a strong argument for any of this. None of these things have to make sense to me for me to acknowledge the impact it has on others is reasonable. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by blod on 02/07/25 at 21:27:41 79595B534E593C0 wrote:
I have never heard of anyone following women around. I certainly have never followed anyone around, nether man nor woman. Do you follow women around ? I ask because you appear to be an expert on the subject, it seems to be your speciality. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by Eegore on 02/08/25 at 05:04:11 I have never heard of anyone following women around. That's interesting. Stalking is a common human behavior, and many women have been victims of crime specific to being followed prior to the criminal act. I believe you would be the only person I know that has actually never heard of women being followed. I certainly have never followed anyone around, nether man nor woman. Do you follow women around ? I don't but I also do not fly helicopters, but I do however acknowledge that other humans do and can comment on them and how they impact society. We can know about things and know humans impacted by them and also not do them ourselves. I ask because you appear to be an expert on the subject, it seems to be your speciality. Actually I have worked regularly with female victims of crime, and also build/educate protection programs. A whole division of this program is about stalking, stalking laws, mitigating digital stalking methods and response methods when being followed. So yeah I am sort of an expert because so many women are victims of crime specific to being followed that I have a regular client base. Guys following women recording them is common, as part of a demonstration in a seminar we get online (D-Web) and show how in a few minutes we could purchase or trade hours of footage of women being followed and recorded - all this and it doesn't even have to make sense. It's like things can happen that don't make sense to us. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by blod on 02/08/25 at 07:06:38 7E5E5C54495E3B0 wrote:
It's clear that women you know have serious psychological disorders. Cameras are not the cause, they are just an excuse to help generate sympathy for useless people. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4WFSFJMKp8w ;D |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by Eegore on 02/08/25 at 09:01:04 It's clear that women you know have serious psychological disorders. Cameras are not the cause, they are just an excuse to help generate sympathy for useless people. I never said anything close to indicating cameras are the "cause". I am saying that while it may be "weird" for men to follow women recording them, it is also "creepy" to the women being recorded. Cameras don't "cause" this, they are just the topic on this specific thread - Humans using cameras. Men following women without a camera is also "weird" and also "creepy" but the conversation is specific to the use of cameras. None of this has to make sense for it to exist as objective truth. Men following women around is creepy to them. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by blod on 02/08/25 at 09:55:31 7656545C4156330 wrote:
Well I have never followed women around, with or without a camera, and I don't know of anyone who has. I think it's just in the minds of inferior people who need to get real. That said I really don't care what women think, and I don't care what men think either. What purpose would following people around serve ? None that I can think of. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by Eegore on 02/08/25 at 10:56:24 What purpose would following people around serve ? None that I can think of. Crime. Criminals follow their targets - that's what makes it "creepy". I find it very implausible that you honestly think humans do not follow other humans. Case studies of hundreds of thousands of criminals indicate they actively followed their victims before committing the crime. This is not "just in the minds of inferior people who need to get real", it is a verifiable fact. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN2_769CMNk https://www.youtube.com/shorts/D69roJXttyU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5T343DWzmnM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=velHICFtUMs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZJKUZ6sylg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzAd8YTgLYQ In this case, specific to cameras, it is a common enough occurrence that there is a market for the sale of such footage. We do not have to take part in it or know people who do for it to be objectively true. I have witnessed it myself. Nothing about what you do or who you know will change the fact that humans follow other humans recording them with cameras. We can see the footage, there is literally video proof of these actions. It doesn't apply to you, but your lack of participation does not mean it does not exist or is imagined by humans that are inferior to you. It's just weird and creepy on the rare occasions that it happens. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by LANCER on 02/08/25 at 11:51:38 Ppl pop 444A4942260 wrote:
Well I have never followed women around, with or without a camera, and I don't know of anyone who has. I think it's just in the minds of inferior people who need to get real. That said I really don't care what women think, and I don't care what men think either. What purpose would following people around serve ? None that I can think of. [/quote] ******* It’s called LUST, something most humans struggle with. Typically when this is discussed most folks will think of sexual lust, but that’s only one of many. There is lust for power, money, job, housing, looks, skills, etc., the list goes on. It can literally be anything or anyone. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by blod on 02/08/25 at 14:05:51 68656A6761763633040 wrote:
Well I have never followed women around, with or without a camera, and I don't know of anyone who has. I think it's just in the minds of inferior people who need to get real. That said I really don't care what women think, and I don't care what men think either. What purpose would following people around serve ? None that I can think of. [/quote] ******* It’s called LUST, something most humans struggle with. Typically when this is discussed most folks will think of sexual lust, but that’s only one of many. There is lust for power, money, job, housing, looks, skills, etc., the list goes on. It can literally be anything or anyone. [/quote] What we are talking about here is video recording women, that being the case only lust could apply, that is UNTIL you look at the subjects, THEY ARE ALL DOGS. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by blod on 02/08/25 at 14:11:33 1535373F2235500 wrote:
"In this case, specific to cameras, it is a common enough occurrence that there is a market for the sale of such footage. " Yes this case is specific to cameras......... What market is there for amateur video recordings of fully clothed old women ? |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by Eegore on 02/08/25 at 14:38:44 What market is there for recordings of fully clothed old women ? I never indicated "old" women when describing the market of recordings of women. "Old" to you is what minimum age? Calculating out "MILF" will take some time but generally "old" or "granny" is easy to get numbers for. Again, you do not need to observe, know, or experience any of these things for them to be objectively true. Men record women in public - there is ample evidence of this. Women have been followed by, and assaulted by men. Women who are followed and recorded by men typically think it is "creepy" based on the statistically correct assessment that men can and do harm women especially when they follow them for no common reason. Men trying to sneak-record women in gyms is so common that it is now on many gym membership forms as a way to have a membership removed. Thousands and thousands of videos show men doing this - there should be zero question that men will randomly record women. You or I not caring about someone recording us, or never doing it ourselves has no bearing on the fact that many women think its creepy when a man follows her around with a recording device. If you feel this makes them inferior, great, but there is way too much empirical evidence to claim it is imaginary. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by blod on 02/08/25 at 14:41:07 7B5B59514C5B3E0 wrote:
What has this got to do with cameras or following women ? https://www.youtube.com/shorts/T75fjII9gM8?feature=share " I never indicated "old" women when describing the market of recordings of women. " And I never indicated that you did You or I not caring about someone recording us, or never doing it ourselves has no bearing on the fact that many women think its creepy when a man follows her around with a recording device. If you feel this makes them inferior, great, but there is way too much empirical evidence to claim it is imaginary." Yes in 99% of cases it's imaginary . Recording all people in public is legal, get over it and move on ;D " |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by Eegore on 02/08/25 at 15:12:44 And I never indicated that you did I never indicated that you indicated I did. I was however clarifying as I had the following question: "Old" to you is what minimum age? Calculating out "MILF" will take some time but generally "old" or "granny" is easy to get numbers for. Recording all people in public is legal, get over it and move on I agree, I never said it was not, nor do I think you are saying I did. I am just saying, in response to posts in this thread, that it is weird for men to follow women and record them, and also creepy to the women being recorded. No amount of another human's lack of knowledge or experience with this changes the amount of empirical evidence that provides proof that it does indeed happen. Since it happens, and I have witnessed it, I think it makes sense for a woman to think it is "creepy" to be followed and filmed. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by blod on 02/08/25 at 15:33:17 725250584552370 wrote:
What women consider creepy is not my concern. I would rate you as a 10/10 on the boring scale. |
|
Title: Re: Cameras Post by Eegore on 02/08/25 at 15:36:55 What women consider creepy is not my concern. I would rate you as a 10/10 on the boring scale. Great. "Old" to you is what minimum age? Calculating out "MILF" will take some time but generally "old" or "granny" is easy to get numbers for. MILF is an outstandingly large category. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |