another **** page.

[Poeticus]

Why would I do that? I don't even live in the US, where Facebook is based.

Would an American win if he/she took it to court?

 

[DallasApple]

To rectify this corporate culture, they need consistent rules. Either all topless pictures are banned, or all topless pictures are permitted. To ONLY permit highly sexualized topless pictures while banning non-sexualized topless pictures indicates that Facebook nurtures an openly misogynist corporate culture.

Agreed.

 

[Sunstone]

Would an American win if he/she took it to court?

An American would most likely need a small army of lawyers to win against a corporation with as many lawyers as FaceBook.

 

[DallasApple]

Do you think you could take this to court?

I don't think they are legally obligated to not be misogynist.That's not against the law.

 

[Alceste]

I don't think they are legally obligated to not be misogynist.That's not against the law.

Exactly. In fact, American law practically REQUIRES misogyny sometimes, especially when Republicans are in charge.

The best case that could be constructed would be theft of intellectual property, if it can be demonstrated that the admin is stealing photos that are subject to copyright law. And then the case would be against the page admin, not Facebook, and it would have to be brought by the copyright holder.

In Canada and the UK, you can sue people for slander - the legal burden is on the person making disparaging public comments to prove that they are true. However, this would probably only pass muster if the person making the comment knew and indicated exactly who the person in the picture is IRL.

I don't believe you can sue people for slander in the US.

Anyway, something can still be offensive to reason, morally wrong, outrageous and unacceptable without being illegal or grounds for a lawsuit. Laws are not the definitive measure of ethics.

 

[Poeticus]

Exactly. In fact, American law practically REQUIRES misogyny sometimes, especially when Republicans are in charge.

The best case that could be constructed would be theft of intellectual property, if it can be demonstrated that the admin is stealing photos that are subject to copyright law. And then the case would be against the page admin, not Facebook, and it would have to be brought by the copyright holder.

In Canada and the UK, you can sue people for slander - the legal burden is on the person making disparaging public comments to prove that they are true. However, this would probably only pass muster if the person making the comment knew and indicated exactly who the person in the picture is IRL.

I don't believe you can sue people for slander in the US.

Anyway, something can still be offensive to reason, morally wrong, outrageous and unacceptable without being illegal or grounds for a lawsuit. Laws are not the definitive measure of ethics.

Is it hoping too much for wanting that webpage to be shut down?

 

[Alceste]

Is it hoping too much for wanting that webpage to be shut down?

It's not hoping too much that Facebook will learn to implement consistent rules. It's a business. It responds to the demands of its customers, eventually. The fact that we even have the option to restrict some of our content was due to public pressure. Zuckerberg personally believes nobody on earth has any legitimate need for any privacy whatsoever.

 

[dawny0826]

I would agree that photos should not be used without a persons permission.



Because its OBVIOUS that its degrading.Based on YOUR logic if my husband has an affair and i find out and it hurts me him saying his intent was not to hurt me would make it NOT hurtful.

No. I'm specifically referencing labeling and intentions behind labeling and stereotyping.

 

[Poeticus]

Thanks for your well-thought responses, Alceste.

 

[Alceste]

Thanks for your well-thought responses, Alceste.

No problem.

 

[Father Heathen]

**** shaming is not "making fun of people". I'm all for making fun of people, and entirely opposed to **** shaming. There's nothing fun about it.

So it's okay to ridicule others for things such as weight, culture, accent, economic class, dress style, etc., etc. but not sexual behavior? I'm not one to abide hypocrisy, so perhaps you could explain this arbitrary exemption? Let's be honest and consistent.

The people making the lewd comments are titillated, and the victims are humiliated.

Isn't the intention of sexual provocation to titillate? It's highly unlikely that a girl flashing her tits for beads is one who would be offended or humiliated by someone complimenting her breasts. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[Alceste]

So it's okay to ridicule others for things such as weight, culture, accent, economic class, dress style, etc., etc. but not sexual behavior? I'm not one to abide hypocrisy, so perhaps you could explain this arbitrary exemption? Let's be honest and consistent.

Isn't the intention of sexual provocation to titillate? It's highly unlikely that a girl flashing her tits for beads is one who would be offended or humiliated by someone complimenting her breasts. It just doesn't make sense.

We're specifically talking about the general **** shaming tone of the page. That's specifically the comments along the lines that these women are all whores who spend all day every day full of ****, that they have terrible personal hygeine and that they're infested with diseases, as well as the implication that they deserve to be "cut".

So, no, we are not talking about showing somebody your tits and them saying "Hey, nice tits!" We're talking about someone STEALING a picture of you from your own page or the page of a friend, downloading it to their own PC, watermarking it with their **** shaming brand, then re-uploading it to Facebook, where 55,000 people have the opportunity to discuss your personal hygeine and sexual and medical history, and are encouraged to view you in an utterly one dimensional fashion - as nothing but three holes for a dick to go into.

And yes, COMEDY is OK, obviously. Poking fun is OK. Humorlessly denigrating others based on their gender, weight, religion, race, etc. is not OK. I'm frankly amazed you can't see the difference between comedy and **** shaming.

 

[Father Heathen]

It is NOT the same thing to me.I have no doubt there are some questionable comments on that page.But the entire page was not dedicated and targeting at ONE group of human beings by their gender or race or by their sexual orientation etc.

Nether was this one unless you're implying that every female ever is a "festival ****".

 

[dawny0826]

It doesn't. Making fun of people isn't for the purpose of denigration, humiliation, shame or character assassination. These words are adequate descriptions of the behavior they represent. Making fun of people is the foundation of all comedy. Making fun of ourselves, making fun of others, making fun of our family, our culture, our religion, etc. We should not take ourselves too seriously. Comedy reminds us of this. .

YOU may not pick fun at people in photos for the purpose of humilitation, shame or character assassination, but, if you press forward on the email, you're contributing to the same hypocritical bull **** that you oppose for women.

Because someone else might have FULL intention of humiliating, shaming or assassinating one's character based upon their weight, style of dress, sex, etc.

Practice what you freaking preach. Is it not possible that some of the ********** on the Facebook page are not commenting for the PURPOSE of entertaining each other and NOT for the purpose of degrading women?

**** shaming is NOTHING but the mean-spirited denigration of the sexual self-expression of an entire gender, for the SOLE PURPOSE of humilating women into pretending we are non-sexual beings - the "gatekeepers" of sex, the objects of the sexual desires of others rather than people who feel sexual desire themselves, etc. It doesn't remind us not to take ourselves to seriously, it reminds us to take ourselves EXTREMELY seriously, and worry every minute of every day that somebody might catch us with our tits out, opening the door to a tirade of sexual harassment and character assassination.

You're preaching to the choir. I understand ****-shaming. My counter is that not everything that you might perceive to be ****-shaming was intended to shame women.

What's "fun" or "funny" about that? Nothing.

There also isn't anything very funny about fueling hateful stereotypes in these Walmart photos either when you look at the heart of the issue. I think that some of you are being very dishonest, particularly when these dumb walmart pictures that circulate are notorious for exploiting "slutty" type women, who also often happen to be overweight.

I'm extrapolating the proportions on the rest of the site based on what I see on the first page. Lots of photos - almost all of them are just women at festivals who aren't wearing all that much. Big deal. I don't see what's "slutty" or "sexual" about wearing not very much in the summer time, even if you pose for a photo. Maybe it's because I live on the west coast. there are people in swimsuits everywhere. I can see them out my window.

I don't disagree with you. But, again you are generalizing. You have no idea what THEIR intentions were when posing for the photographs. How do you know that some of these women don't self identify as sluts and didn't intend to be sexual in those photographs.

How do you know that the photographs weren't originally intended for trash-type websites?

You don't know. Neither do I.

In fact, the only reason I went back for a closer look at the photos is your own insistence that the site is full of women who are "flipping their tops up" and "showing off their genitals" and who submitted the pictures to the site themselves - using the first photo and a comment by a completely different woman as your evidence.

Okay. What the hell is the problem?

 

[Alceste]

Here is Ricky Gervais explaining the difference very well, and it's funny.

(language warning)

[youtube]l4YZiKbklAE[/youtube]
Ricky Gervais - Fat People - YouTube

 

[DallasApple]

as nothing but three holes for a dick to go into

And two tits and 1/2 a brain cell just as extras.

 

[Father Heathen]

Here is Ricky Gervais explaining the difference very well, and it's funny.

(language warning)

[youtube]l4YZiKbklAE[/youtube]
Ricky Gervais - Fat People - YouTube

9 min is a bit too long and his accent is a bit too obnoxious. Perhaps you could give the gist of it? What difference between what is being explained? Obesity and homosexuality? How is that relevant to this thread?

 

[dawny0826]

Here is Ricky Gervais explaining the difference very well, and it's funny.

(language warning)

[youtube]l4YZiKbklAE[/youtube]
Ricky Gervais - Fat People - YouTube

I stopped at 4 minutes in as I couldn't stomach his generalizations regarding WHY people are fat. Not all people are overweight BECAUSE they are overeating.

Please explain your point.

 

[DallasApple]

Nether was this one unless you're implying that every female ever is a "festival ****".

No "festival ****" is only a venue for photo ops to get nude pictures of women to degrade them.Your kidding your self if you don't think every woman is vulnerable to this kind of "**** shaming' and degrading commentary whether she wears the title "festival" **** or not .Especially if she is attractive and or enjoys being flirtatious.Throw in some cleavage and she might as well call herself a festival **** and like these women be just begging for it.

 

[dawny0826]

We're specifically talking about the general **** shaming tone of the page. That's specifically the comments along the lines that these women are all whores who spend all day every day full of ****, that they have terrible personal hygeine and that they're infested with diseases, as well as the implication that they deserve to be "cut".

So, no, we are not talking about showing somebody your tits and them saying "Hey, nice tits!" We're talking about someone STEALING a picture of you from your own page or the page of a friend, downloading it to their own PC, watermarking it with their **** shaming brand, then re-uploading it to Facebook, where 55,000 people have the opportunity to discuss your personal hygeine and sexual and medical history, and are encouraged to view you in an utterly one dimensional fashion - as nothing but three holes for a dick to go into.

And yes, COMEDY is OK, obviously. Poking fun is OK. Humorlessly denigrating others based on their gender, weight, religion, race, etc. is not OK. I'm frankly amazed you can't see the difference between comedy and **** shaming.

The problem is that not everyone construed the tone of the page to be **** shaming. The majority of the comments that I saw (and I read more than one - far fewer than one hundred) - were either complimentary albeit stupid..."I'd hit that"..."I want to get with her" or "Nice ***" or they were back and forth between the participants on the page.

I'm certainly not implying that this is stellar commentary to see underneath your photo, but, it's certainly not indicative of ****-shaming in my opinion.

Some of us construed the "**** cutting" piece to be a really horrible stab at humor, when you actually look at the other people in the photograph.

The bottom line...this is all up for interpretation.

You can't claim the gold star for being spot on! You don't know for sure that these women feel abused. You don't know the specific origin of each photograph and the intentions behind the photos or comments.

You have an opinion.

You are speaking for OTHER women, assuming that they are impacted in a certain way.