Re: Facebook is evil
Doug Pensinger wrote: Try replacing breastfeeding with something else, like Hammer and Sickle or cleft lip. They shouldn't be allowed to censor and criminalize something that is not criminal. If they want to censor images of people smoking marijuana, or images of children with guns (and I bet they don't attack those images with the fury they attack breastfeeding, but I may be wrong), then it's ok, but there's no ethical reason to criminalize breatfeeding. How is different than, say, guidelines that discourage obscenities on a mailing list? Because breastfeeding is not obscene - as those sociopaths and perverts that own Facebook think, and try hard to push this evil and babykilling meme into children and their mothers. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Facebook is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Wikileaks?]
Dan Minette wrote: All the billions that g*vernments invest all the time to make mothers breastfeed, and those sociopaths and perverts create a Social Network that criminalizes it. They should be exiled to Antarctica. Actually, it doesn't, Alberto. Facebook is free, last time I looked. I can choose to use it or not use it. If a network won't let me refer to physics, and takes all examples of QM off it, it's not criminalizing QM. Perhaps Facebook is making a business decision. Will disallowing pictures of breastfeeding on Facebook gain it more prudish members than allowing it would gain members interested in details of breastfeeding that can best be shown by pictures? Ok, replace breastfeeding with black men dating white girls. If a Social Network disallowed pictures of black men dating white girls it would gain more racist members than allowing it would gain members interested in details of interracial relationships that can best be shown by pictures. Not allowing women to breastfeed in, say, Mall of the Americas is one thing. That severely curtails breastfeeding mom's ability to go there. But, there are other ways to communicate such info on the web, so not allowing someone to post it on one's Facebook account can be seen as a purely business decision. Not allowing black men to date white girls in, say, Mall of the Americas is one thing. That severely curtails black-white couples ability to go there. But, there are other ways to communicate such info on the web, so not allowing someone to post it on one's Whitepowerbook account can be seen as a purely business decision. Alberto Monteiro (and I didn't even use the H-word or the I-word!) ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Facebook is evil
Jon Louis Mann wrote: Only a sociopath and pervert can think that breastfeeding is pornography. It's disrespectful to breastfeeding (and to pornography too, but wfc?) those sociopaths and perverts create a Social Network that criminalizes it. Alberto, please explain how Facebook is criminalizing breastfeeding and how you know this to be a fact? Did the owners of FB come out and specifically say that? Also, why can only sociopaths and perverts think that? Try replacing breastfeeding with something else, like Hammer and Sickle or cleft lip. They shouldn't be allowed to censor and criminalize something that is not criminal. If they want to censor images of people smoking marijuana, or images of children with guns (and I bet they don't attack those images with the fury they attack breastfeeding, but I may be wrong), then it's ok, but there's no ethical reason to criminalize breatfeeding. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Facebook is evil
On 08/12/2010, at 10:12 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Try replacing breastfeeding with something else, like Hammer and Sickle or cleft lip. They shouldn't be allowed to censor and criminalize something that is not criminal. If they want to censor images of people smoking marijuana, or images of children with guns (and I bet they don't attack those images with the fury they attack breastfeeding, but I may be wrong), then it's ok, but there's no ethical reason to criminalize breatfeeding. Alberto, I get your point, but I think it would be better if you substituted the word stigmatise for criminalise. That's what they're doing. They're stigmatising legal and natural behaviour. They're not criminalising it, but they are discriminating against it in a way that might well spread that discrimination. Charlie. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Facebook is evil
Alberto wrote: Try replacing breastfeeding with something else, like Hammer and Sickle or cleft lip. They shouldn't be allowed to censor and criminalize something that is not criminal. If they want to censor images of people smoking marijuana, or images of children with guns (and I bet they don't attack those images with the fury they attack breastfeeding, but I may be wrong), then it's ok, but there's no ethical reason to criminalize breatfeeding. How is different than, say, guidelines that discourage obscenities on a mailing list? Doug ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Facebook is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Wikileaks?]
Dave Land wrote: Why do people join Facebook, when it's owned by sociopaths and perverts? Well, of course the sociopaths and perverts to which you refer are not on my friends list, so they don't have any meaningful impact on my Facebook experience. I mean own in the sense of ownership, not the game-world newspeak own. And as to others who may actually enjoy the company of sociopaths and perverts: who are you to judge? :-) It's not the people that join that are sociopaths and perverts, it's the people that control the site that are sociopaths and perverts. Only a sociopath and pervert can think that breastfeeding is pornography. It's disrespectful to breastfeeding (and to pornography too, but wfc?) All the billions that g*vernments invest all the time to make mothers breastfeed, and those sociopaths and perverts create a Social Network that criminalizes it. They should be exiled to Antarctica. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Facebook is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Wikileaks?]
On Dec 7, 2010, at 5:44 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Why do people join Facebook, when it's owned by sociopaths and perverts? and then wrote: It's not the people that join that are sociopaths and perverts, it's the people that control the site that are sociopaths and perverts. Only a sociopath and pervert can think that breastfeeding is pornography. It's disrespectful to breastfeeding (and to pornography too, but wfc?) All the billions that g*vernments invest all the time to make mothers breastfeed, and those sociopaths and perverts create a Social Network that criminalizes it. They should be exiled to Antarctica. It seemed to me that the initial post could have been an excellent illustration of a trap question in the mold of Have you stopped beating your wife?, and left it alone, admiring the complex twists of it semantic seductiveness. But this seems to be a much better question to answer in the real world. The answer is that the culture at large has some very unhealthy and dysfunctional ideas about nudity and sex, and tends to perceive women's exposed breasts (regardless of the reasons why they're exposed) as a sexualized image. I don't know if this is more so, or less so, in Brazil than it is in the USA (I've heard widely conflicting reports), but with only limited exceptions in some more open-minded areas of the country, people are taught to consider exposed female breasts a moral threat of sorts (under the guise of protecting children) and some websites run by people who adhere to that belief system tend to discriminate in that way rather, er, indiscriminately. I don't like the paradigm, I strongly feel that the value system that underlies it is ultimately more destructive and unhealthy than anything else, but it's a very deep-rooted paradigm that would require far more than my own meager efforts to shift. And whether I happen to like it or not, Facebook is likely to continue this behavior for the foreseeable future. I wouldn't necessarily call the attitudes driving it sociopathic, but I suppose I could call some of them perverted, for a fairly loose definition of perversion. (A similar definition exists in a more extreme form in parts of the Arab world where women are forced to wrap themselves in clothing to the extent that they can barely even see, supposedly to avoid tempting nearby men into acts of lust. Both are a form of blaming the victim, and I think men who believe this about women need to work on impulse control more than they need to harass the womenfolk into covering themselves up, but that may just be me.) “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” -- Mahatma Gandhi ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Facebook is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Wikileaks?]
Bruce Bostwick wrote: It's not the people that join that are sociopaths and perverts, it's the people that control the site that are sociopaths and perverts. Only a sociopath and pervert can think that breastfeeding is pornography. It's disrespectful to breastfeeding (and to pornography too, but wfc?) All the billions that g*vernments invest all the time to make mothers breastfeed, and those sociopaths and perverts create a Social Network that criminalizes it. They should be exiled to Antarctica. It seemed to me that the initial post could have been an excellent illustration of a trap question in the mold of Have you stopped beating your wife?, and left it alone, admiring the complex twists of it semantic seductiveness. But this seems to be a much better question to answer in the real world. The answer is that the culture at large has some very unhealthy and dysfunctional ideas about nudity and sex, and tends to perceive women's exposed breasts (regardless of the reasons why they're exposed) as a sexualized image. This is sociopathological, pervert and infanticidal. I don't know if this is more so, or less so, in Brazil than it is in the USA (I've heard widely conflicting reports), The conflicting reports are accurate: Brazil _was_ more liberal, but we are slowly becoming more fanatical and mysogynist than Iran and Afghanistan. but with only limited exceptions in some more open-minded areas of the country, people are taught to consider exposed female breasts a moral threat of sorts (under the guise of protecting children) and some websites run by people who adhere to that belief system tend to discriminate in that way rather, er, indiscriminately. This is sick. It's ok for children to watch ultraviolence, hear rap songs that glorify prostitution, but not to watch breasts? I don't like the paradigm, I strongly feel that the value system that underlies it is ultimately more destructive and unhealthy than anything else, but it's a very deep-rooted paradigm that would require far more than my own meager efforts to shift. And whether I happen to like it or not, Facebook is likely to continue this behavior for the foreseeable future. I wouldn't necessarily call the attitudes driving it sociopathic, but I suppose I could call some of them perverted, for a fairly loose definition of perversion. I guess there are other Social Networks with less perverted owners. Here in Brazil, the Social Network of Choice is Orkut (Orkut seems like a Brazil - India Social Network :-) ). (A similar definition exists in a more extreme form in parts of the Arab world where women are forced to wrap themselves in clothing to the extent that they can barely even see, supposedly to avoid tempting nearby men into acts of lust. Both are a form of blaming the victim, and I think men who believe this about women need to work on impulse control more than they need to harass the womenfolk into covering themselves up, but that may just be me.) Men that think so should do the way Oedipus did _after_ he found out he was a parricide and mfer. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Facebook is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Wikileaks?]
Only a sociopath and pervert can think that breastfeeding is pornography. It's disrespectful to breastfeeding (and to pornography too, but wfc?) All the billions that g*vernments invest all the time to make mothers breastfeed, and those sociopaths and perverts create a Social Network that criminalizes it. They should be exiled to Antarctica. Actually, it doesn't, Alberto. Facebook is free, last time I looked. I can choose to use it or not use it. If a network won't let me refer to physics, and takes all examples of QM off it, it's not criminalizing QM. Perhaps Facebook is making a business decision. Will disallowing pictures of breastfeeding on Facebook gain it more prudish members than allowing it would gain members interested in details of breastfeeding that can best be shown by pictures? Not allowing women to breastfeed in, say, Mall of the Americas is one thing. That severely curtails breastfeeding mom's ability to go there. But, there are other ways to communicate such info on the web, so not allowing someone to post it on one's Facebook account can be seen as a purely business decision. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: RE: Facebook is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Wikileaks?]
A business decision that injures public health. On Dec 7, 2010 3:15 PM, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net wrote: Only a sociopath and pervert can think that breastfeeding is pornography. It's disrespectful to... Actually, it doesn't, Alberto. Facebook is free, last time I looked. I can choose to use it or not use it. If a network won't let me refer to physics, and takes all examples of QM off it, it's not criminalizing QM. Perhaps Facebook is making a business decision. Will disallowing pictures of breastfeeding on Facebook gain it more prudish members than allowing it would gain members interested in details of breastfeeding that can best be shown by pictures? Not allowing women to breastfeed in, say, Mall of the Americas is one thing. That severely curtails breastfeeding mom's ability to go there. But, there are other ways to communicate such info on the web, so not allowing someone to post it on one's Facebook account can be seen as a purely business decision. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l... ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: RE: Facebook is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Wikileaks?]
A business decision that injures public health. Were facebook the internet, you might have something. But, I just typed breastfeeding videos into google, and got a zillion hits, checked the first one, and found a site with over a score of videos. Some had nothing to do with public health; others could be helpful. It took me 10 seconds to get there. How in the world does changing 10,001 sites with breastfeeding available to 10,000 do much of anything? It's like criticizing the food channel for not carrying cancer self-check instructions. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: RE: Facebook is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Wikileaks?]
Ultimately, these sorts of issues are due to insufficient diversity. As long as there is a majority (or perhaps even a large uniform minority) who believe something strongly, there will be businesses or government policies that cater to this majority. Whether government representative or business leader, the thinking goes that restricting things that are disliked by the majority will be beneficial to one's position as politician or business leader. The people who complain about the restrictions are outnumbered or outweighed by those who support the restrictions. And even among those who do not support the restrictions, many will tolerate them because it is not important to them. In order to fight this sort of thing, you have to change the majority opinion. Good luck with that. An alternative is to support fringe or niche groups that do not believe in such restrictions. That is difficult with something like facebook, where much of the utility of the service comes from having a large, mainstream network of people as members. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Facebook is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Wikileaks?]
On Dec 7, 2010, at 4:25 PM, trent shipley wrote: On Dec 7, 2010 3:15 PM, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net wrote: Only a sociopath and pervert can think that breastfeeding is pornography. It's disrespectful to... Actually, it doesn't, Alberto. Facebook is free, last time I looked. I can choose to use it or not use it. If a network won't let me refer to physics, and takes all examples of QM off it, it's not criminalizing QM. Perhaps Facebook is making a business decision. Will disallowing pictures of breastfeeding on Facebook gain it more prudish members than allowing it would gain members interested in details of breastfeeding that can best be shown by pictures? Not allowing women to breastfeed in, say, Mall of the Americas is one thing. That severely curtails breastfeeding mom's ability to go there. But, there are other ways to communicate such info on the web, so not allowing someone to post it on one's Facebook account can be seen as a purely business decision. Dan M. A business decision that injures public health. Not directly. Indirectly, it reinforces prejudices against women and childrearing that require little if any persuasion to continue, and considerable effort to dispel. And playing to prejudices is irresponsible, at the very least. But very little of that is Facebook, which is simply doing its best to appeal to a paying audience and maximize its profit, and has done the math in terms of financial bottom-line impact of allowing vs. prohibiting such pictures and decided it can gain greater profits by doing the latter. They missed an opportunity to advance a more forward-thinking and tolerant attitude, is all, and as a corporate entity, did so purely on the basis of that profit/loss analysis. Facebook's customers and their cultural values are the driver behind that. If their target audience had different cultural values, they would play to those just as eagerly -- imagine an alternate-universe USA whose culture is clothing-optional and predominantly neo-Wiccan, in which an equally-profit-motivated Facebook system plays to those cultural values just as enthusiastically as Facebook does in this universe. They merely reflect the wider population's attitudes. And again, my opinion is that those attitudes themselves are the problem, in our universe .. The true paradox of democracy is that it is vulnerable to defeat from within -- Me ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Facebook is evil
Only a sociopath and pervert can think that breastfeeding is pornography. It's disrespectful to breastfeeding (and to pornography too, but wfc?) those sociopaths and perverts create a Social Network that criminalizes it. Alberto, please explain how Facebook is criminalizing breastfeeding and how you know this to be a fact? Did the owners of FB come out and specifically say that? Also, why can only sociopaths and perverts think that? QED Jon ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
