Working it on the treadmill (imgur.com)

{funny}

15306 ups - 13328 downs = 1978 votes

442 comments submitted at 13:26:09 on Feb 27, 2013 by RyStef

  • [-]
  • doctorcrass
  • 31 Points
  • 16:53:58, 27 February

I'm going to go ahead and be that guy. If you're in public don't expect privacy.

  • [-]
  • CowFu
  • -1 Points
  • 16:56:44, 27 February

You're inside a private establishment, not on the street. There is an expectation of privacy.

  • [-]
  • doctorcrass
  • 12 Points
  • 17:01:13, 27 February

Oh reddit, trying to find ways to be outraged at nothing all day every day. She is in a gym with probably dozens of people around, nobody broke into her house and shot covert video of her.

  • [-]
  • CowFu
  • -1 Points
  • 17:33:47, 27 February

I never said anyone broke into her house and I'm not "outraged", I'm just under the opinion that there is an expectation of not being photographed at a gym.

  • [-]
  • NotSoGreatDane
  • 0 Points
  • 18:24:22, 27 February

That's reddit's way of trying to dismiss your valid argument. Same as saying "CALM DOWN" when all you've done is make a plain statement. I get it all the time here. It's incredibly juvenile.

  • [-]
  • doctorcrass
  • -2 Points
  • 18:33:16, 27 February

No it isn't this isn't a "LOLUMAD" situation. This is a reddit is always finding something to disagree with about everything. In this particular case someone shot video of another person doing something interesting a in a public setting (I don't care if its a private business its still a setting where a bunch of strangers assemble to do their business, like being in a supermarket) and this person made it seem like the OP was violating her rights or something by not getting her to sign a release form. It would be unreasonable to be upset about someone recording you doing something that you already demonstrated that you didnt mind dozens of random strangers witnessing.

  • [-]
  • timesync
  • 1 Points
  • 20:52:24, 27 February

You're missing the point. And I didn't see "dozens of random strangers" in the video. Maybe she chose that spot because she wanted privacy.

  • [-]
  • NotSoGreatDane
  • -5 Points
  • 19:12:09, 27 February

>No it isn't this isn't a "LOLUMAD" situation.

Yes, this is exactly what that is.

>Oh reddit,

Condescending

>trying

Condescending again. "Let me deem you a failure..."

>to find ways to be outraged at nothing all day every day

"LOL U MAD?"

>nobody broke into her house and shot covert video of her.

And then throw in a completely preposterous scenario that was never, ever alluded to by the commenter.

Just because you think you used more adult words, that is exactly what you just did.

You are a manipulator, not a communicator.

  • [-]
  • doctorcrass
  • -2 Points
  • 19:52:39, 27 February

are you dense? first of all let me give you an explanation of how "lolumad" works.

You use it to invalidate someone's argument by claiming they are angry. I am not doing that, I am saying you shouldn't be angry and reddit always makes these outlanding self-righteous witchhunts that remind me of the christian right's constant outrage over nothing "obama didn't say anything positive about that navy seal when he died! HE WAS AN AMERICAN HERO!" type stuff.

Someone shot a video of someone in a gym and you guys are treating it with the level of "how dare you" as you might view someone legitimately violating someone's rights. Outrage in this context means orchestrated group-think anger. LOLUMAD is completely different.

Also yes, I am condescending because you guys make us all look bad with this bullshit. This exact viewpoint is what makes us all look like dumbass over-reactive pussy liberal idiots. Someone took a video of a lady dancing in a gym. Who cares? stop making something out of nothing you fools. The preposterous scenario at the end was showing what kind of scenario would warrant this kind of backlash.

  • [-]
  • NotSoGreatDane
  • -3 Points
  • 19:54:04, 27 February

>are you dense?

I love how you keep proving my point. Thanks!

  • [-]
  • WorLord
  • -1 Points
  • 23:18:24, 27 February

Not to anyone else who has membership to that establishment, there isn't. And members of the public are welcome in gyms without membership.

So, no: there is no sane expectation of privacy; just an overly-entitled desire for it.

  • [-]
  • CowFu
  • 2 Points
  • 02:11:42, 28 February

From the planet fitness website:
11. You may not take any photographs or videos. Use of camera phones is not permitted in any facility

They make you sign the rules when you join up, there is an expectation of privacy and you have no idea what you're talking about.

  • [-]
  • WorLord
  • 0 Points
  • 02:55:58, 28 February

Just save us both the time and admit that you're an entitled, touchy person who enjoys making mountains out of molehills, who missed the part about the subject giving her permission, and who doesn't seem to know that this (or any) gym having a rule about cameras does not equate to a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Here, do an experiment. If you are think your expectation of privacy is so reasonable, try jerking off on the treadmill and see what management has to say about it. Tell them all about it. Ask why they're giving you shit, after all, you expected privacy, amirite?

If I were you, I wouldn't bother replying. Seriously. There is simply nothing you can say that can change the fact that expecting even a modicum of privacy in a place open to the general public is anything other than a galactically stupid, entitled, and deluded notion. I'm completely unwilling to do anything other than call that idea as retarded as it actually is, and any effort to try to convince me otherwise will be a simple waste of your time.

  • [-]
  • CowFu
  • 1 Points
  • 04:59:03, 28 February

If she gave her permission it's fine, I have no problem at all with it.

>try jerking off on the treadmill and see what management has to say about it.

Holy shit that's a strawman if I've ever seen one, are you kidding me?

Other people seeing you is quite different than being recorded. That's why there is a rule from the company against it. If you can't tell the difference between being seen and being recorded then you're right, it is a waste of time. Sorry that you can't figure out basic human decency, hopefully you'll figure out how to debate a case without resulting to ad hominems and strawmen someday though.

  • [-]
  • WorLord
  • 1 Points
  • 15:36:16, 28 February

> Other people seeing you is quite different than being recorded.

Congratulations, you just got the point I was making... and thus, why you are wrong to equate "management doesn't want you to use cameras on the premesis" with "management is telling you that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy". They're not the same thing, and especially in this particular case, one doesn't follow from the other: many gyms have an anti-camera policy because pictures of faulty equipment and unsafe conditions "got out" and led to a lawsuit against (if I'm not mistaken) Gold's. That policy is about a gym covering its ass, not a gym "protecting" your "privacy". Only a viewpoint as entitled as yours would posit that its all about you and your needs, but I suppose that isn't all that surprising at this point in the conversation.

But its good that you're finally all caught up. Better late than never, I guess.

> Sorry that you can't figure out basic human decency

And now you're jumping into the deep end of the entitlement pool.

I'm gonna go ahead and assume that you're young -- not to imply that young people are stupid, but certainly to imply that both generations after me are unbelievably entitled. I only ever see this newest generation of high-school/college people pretending that "not being photographed in public" is a "basic human decency" that just always was. Thing is, you're wrong. Not being seen, photographed, or recorded isn't a "basic human decency". It isn't even a reasonable expectation (or any kind of expectation at all). Your poutrage about not having something you thought you did -- even the fact that you thought you had it for no real, supportable, or understandable reason in the first place -- is as blatant a demonstration of the concept of "entitlement" as could be. The expectation that you won't be seen or photographed or recorded anywhere outside of your home was never there before you guys. Seriously, nobody my age or older expected or has started to expect that -- probably because of how wrought-iron stupid such an expectation is. It's a made up thing, this expectation, and it isn't sensible or reasonable or even necessary.

If you can't realize that you're being photographed and recorded scores of times per day -- and that you should act accordingly everywhere but in the windowless bathroom of your own house -- then the problem is that there's something wrong with you, not with everyone else not "figuring out" human decency.

Fuck's sake. The only real indecency here is a world being ever more filled with weak, sensitive, entitled crybabies who expect everything from everyone, whine about the smallest of annoyances, provide nothing of substance themselves, and who feel smugly judgmental enough to insult the very nature of all the people who don't buy into their bullshit or deliver on those ridiculous expectations.

  • [-]
  • CowFu
  • 1 Points
  • 15:49:33, 28 February

>This is why I'm calling you you "entitled"

No you're calling me "entitled" because you're confusing name calling for a rational argument.

>If you can't realize that you're being photographed and recorded scores of times per day

I'm well aware that I'm being photographed multiple times a day, you're not actually giving new information, you're just making assumptions about what I'm thinking. Argue your own points instead of telling me what my points are.

>I'm gonna go ahead and assume that you're young

I'm honestly believe that you're still in high school with the horrible way you argue. I'm not expecting privacy, I'm expecting another citizen inside a gym to ask before filming someone else, that's it, just as a social courtesy. You've blown this up into a whole other argument that has nothing to do with what I've said. Take this same argument into the locker rooms and film people getting dressed and let's see how long it holds up, it's the exact same thing, people are in a public place with the same rules/policies.

>The only indecency here is a world being filled with weak, sensitive crybabies who expect the impossible and pretend that anyone who doesn't deliver it or buy into their bullshit is somehow lacking in empahty.

Dammit, you got me, no way you're not trolling me at this point. If you actually think it's impossible to not film someone without asking first inside a gym then I'm at a loss of how to explain it to you.

  • [-]
  • WorLord
  • 1 Points
  • 16:19:56, 28 February

> I'm expecting another citizen inside a gym to ask before filming someone else, that's it, just as a social courtesy.

Why do you expect that? What do you think gives you the right to expect that? Why do you believe that it is socially discourteous to do otherwise?

None of these things are foregone conclusions or supported by evidence. These are some more of those fabricated and entitled expectations that seem to come part and parcel with the younger generation.

> I'm not expecting privacy

So when you said "there is a reasonable expectation of privacy", you didn't actually mean it? Or... you've lost track of all the things you expect from everyone? Or what?

> You've blown this up into a whole other argument that has nothing to do with what I've said

Rather, you didn't understand the implications of what you said, and now that you do, you don't like it. That's fine, you should learn from it.

All you're showing me is that I'm right about you being entitled and expectant, but wrong about what you're entitled about. Whooptie-doo. You still expect and demand things from others you've no right to reasonably expect, and you still wrongly equate the disagreement with that expectation as some kind of breach of decency.

Nothing you've said refutes any of my points; if anything, you support them.

> Argue your own points instead of telling me what my points are

I wouldn't have to if you fully understood what the hell you were talking about in the first place.

  • [-]
  • CowFu
  • 1 Points
  • 16:32:11, 28 February

You're still not understanding the difference between being recorded and just being seen as far as privacy goes. I fully understand what I'm talking about.

>So when you said "there is a reasonable expectation of privacy", you didn't actually mean it?

FROM BEING RECORDED, I have no idea why this such a hard concept to understand, it's different from just being seen at the gym. You claim to understand it earlier but now you just forgot? How is this even possible?

More Comments - Not Stored