trubble76 wrote:But it's not practically the same thing, is it? At least, I don't think it is.

Well it is, unless someone were to argue that stigmatising birth defects is only okay as long as you're not stopping someone from posting pictures online, which may be a consistent position but it's pretty arbitrary and a little silly.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

trubble76 wrote:But it's not practically the same thing, is it? At least, I don't think it is.

Well it is, unless someone were to argue that stigmatising birth defects is only okay as long as you're not stopping someone from posting pictures online, which may be a consistent position but it's pretty arbitrary and a little silly.

You may consider both acts to be stigmatising but I'm not sure they are equally so. The Facebook example demonstrates a loss of liberty and is an attack on a sufferer and his family. The Cali example is a criticism of that loss.

trubble76 wrote:You may consider both acts to be stigmatising but I'm not sure they are equally so. The Facebook example demonstrates a loss of liberty and is an attack on a sufferer and his family. The Cali example is a criticism of that loss.

I really don't think the primary criticism against the Facebook decision is a "loss of liberty" or to do with censorship..

People don't write articles and start awareness campaigns when their naked pictures get taken off Facebook. The problem is that Facebook treated the picture of a child with a birth defect as 'offensive material' and people found this decision to be insensitive - this same kind of insensitivity was the foundation of Cali's joke.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

trubble76 wrote:You may consider both acts to be stigmatising but I'm not sure they are equally so. The Facebook example demonstrates a loss of liberty and is an attack on a sufferer and his family. The Cali example is a criticism of that loss.

I really don't think the primary criticism against the Facebook decision is a "loss of liberty" or to do with censorship..

People don't write articles and start awareness campaigns when their naked pictures get taken off Facebook. The problem is that Facebook treated the picture of a child with a birth defect as 'offensive material' and people found this decision to be insensitive - this same kind of insensitivity was the foundation of Cali's joke.

I didn't mean to imply that the loss of liberty was the primary criticism, I meant it to show the differences between the two examples. Your comparison with naked pictures doesn't seem satisfactory. I don't know much about Facebook, so you'll have to correct me if I'm wrong, but does Facebook's user agreement restrict images of nudity while there is no such restriction placed on family pictures? If so, the removal of nude pictures is a warranted loss of liberty whereas the removal of a family picture would not.

I don't think we are going to make any headway here, it seems to be a subjective judgement. You think the two incidences are the same, I do not.

trubble76 wrote:
I didn't mean to imply that the loss of liberty was the primary criticism, I meant it to show the differences between the two examples.

But my point accepts that there are differences, just that the differences are irrelevant (unless, as I mention above, insensitivity is deemed okay as long as you don't remove someone's pictures from Facebook). The comparable situation to me would be if somebody was denied the use of a service because they were black and somebody comments on the story by saying, "Man, the owners of that service are the worst kind of niggers!" (with the joke being that "nigger" is an insult whilst also referring to the black people who were refused service).

In that situation I'd argue that the problematic component is the same in the two examples (i.e. racism) even though there are differences (i.e. only one denied a person access to a service). Someone could potentially argue that the problem with the first situation is that someone is being denied access to a service but presumably they wouldn't have a problem with other instances of that, like a drunk being refused service in a bar, so the main factor would still be the racism.

trubble76 wrote:Your comparison with naked pictures doesn't seem satisfactory. I don't know much about Facebook, so you'll have to correct me if I'm wrong, but does Facebook's user agreement restrict images of nudity while there is no such restriction placed on family pictures? If so, the removal of nude pictures is a warranted loss of liberty whereas the removal of a family picture would not.

Oh yeah, I think you've been getting the wrong end of the stick. The problem is that Facebook has a general policy against graphic or non-family safe material, so things like naked pictures aren't allowed, and then somebody reported the pictures of the child as offensive material. Facebook agreed and removed it.

What the article, and consequently this thread, is about is the horrible decision by Facebook to agree that children with birth defects are 'offensive material' - i.e. they're bad, on par with gory images, can be used as an insult, etc. Cali then made a joke where the child's condition was used as a description of something that is bad and can be used as an insult.

Mr.Samsa wrote:..No, I'm claiming that it is.

Good, me too.

Sendraks wrote:Because it's inconsistent. You can't complain about a lack of empathy, humility, and general decency and then engage in similar behaviors which lack empathy, humility, and general decency without being hypocritical.

That is what you claim. I disagree.
I think pointing out the Facebook's behaviour is arguably worse than the very condition they are trying to hide, is in no way lacking in empathy, humility, and general decency. Indeed, it is driven by a considerable amount of empathy.

Sendraks wrote:That is what you claim. I disagree.
I think pointing out the Facebook's behaviour is arguably worse than the very condition they are trying to hide, is in no way lacking in empathy, humility, and general decency. Indeed, it is driven by a considerable amount of empathy.

Using the birth defect of the mother's dead child as an insult is a position driven by a considerable amount of empathy?...

Mr.Samsa wrote:

trubble76 wrote:
I didn't mean to imply that the loss of liberty was the primary criticism, I meant it to show the differences between the two examples.

But my point accepts that there are differences, just that the differences are irrelevant (unless, as I mention above, insensitivity is deemed okay as long as you don't remove someone's pictures from Facebook). The comparable situation to me would be if somebody was denied the use of a service because they were black and somebody comments on the story by saying, "Man, the owners of that service are the worst kind of niggers!" (with the joke being that "nigger" is an insult whilst also referring to the black people who were refused service).

In that situation I'd argue that the problematic component is the same in the two examples (i.e. racism) even though there are differences (i.e. only one denied a person access to a service). Someone could potentially argue that the problem with the first situation is that someone is being denied access to a service but presumably they wouldn't have a problem with other instances of that, like a drunk being refused service in a bar, so the main factor would still be the racism.

Fine, I think the differences are relevant, for the reasons already discussed.
In your racial example, which I think is a good example, you show the differences perfectly. I can imagine that very conversation taking place and it seems a perfectly reasonable exchange to me. In that case, the context rescues the "nigger" from being an indefensible racist remark and shows it as a satirical show of support.
It seems to me that you have made my point for me.

trubble76 wrote:Your comparison with naked pictures doesn't seem satisfactory. I don't know much about Facebook, so you'll have to correct me if I'm wrong, but does Facebook's user agreement restrict images of nudity while there is no such restriction placed on family pictures? If so, the removal of nude pictures is a warranted loss of liberty whereas the removal of a family picture would not.

Oh yeah, I think you've been getting the wrong end of the stick. The problem is that Facebook has a general policy against graphic or non-family safe material, so things like naked pictures aren't allowed, and then somebody reported the pictures of the child as offensive material. Facebook agreed and removed it.

Okay, I agree.

What the article, and consequently this thread, is about is the horrible decision by Facebook to agree that children with birth defects are 'offensive material' - i.e. they're bad, on par with gory images, can be used as an insult, etc. Cali then made a joke where the child's condition was used as a description of something that is bad and can be used as an insult.

Yep, I agree. As I said, and you highlighted with your racial example, the two incidences are not the same. The differences seem very clear, and relevant, to me. The Facebook action being indefensible, the satirical retort being defensible. The denial of service based on race being indefensible, the satirical retort being defensible.

Mr.Samsa wrote:Using the birth defect of the mother's dead child as an insult is a position driven by a considerable amount of empathy?...

You can disagree, but you are not in a position to make claims vis my empathy.

Mr.Samsa wrote::lol: Jesus this is ridiculous. K, I'm obviously in the wrong for thinking it's shitty to use the condition of a mother's dead child as an insult. Great work team.

You're very clearly not wrong, and I too find the use of "anencaphalic" as a pejorative to be grossly hypocritical and in extremely poor taste, albeit not remotely surprising, given the source.

Strontium Dog wrote:You're very clearly not wrong.

I did wonder when you'd pitch in as the ultimate arbiter of "right and wrong."

Strontium Dog wrote:and I too find the use of "anencaphalic" as a pejorative to be grossly hypocritical and in extremely poor taste, albeit not remotely surprising, given the source.

Sorry, I'm clearly way off base when it comes to the suffering of others. What I should've said was.....

"Yawn."

That's right isn't it?

Strontium Dog wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote::lol: Jesus this is ridiculous. K, I'm obviously in the wrong for thinking it's shitty to use the condition of a mother's dead child as an insult. Great work team.

You're very clearly not wrong, and I too find the use of "anencaphalic" as a pejorative to be grossly hypocritical and in extremely poor taste, albeit not remotely surprising, given the source.

Well, at least he hasn't - yet - accused anyone of suffering from Dunning-Kruger... He got pretty close again, though.

Sendraks wrote:I did wonder when you'd pitch in as the ultimate arbiter of "right and wrong."

We have someone using a disability as a pejorative term.

It's fundamentally no different from calling people "spastics" or "mongs".

Sendraks wrote:Sorry, I'm clearly way off base when it comes to the suffering of others. What I should've said was.....

"Yawn."

That's right isn't it?

No it fucking well isn't.

However, "yawn" is a pithy response to the straw man of wholesale equating jobless people with skivers, which nobody upon nobody ever does.

How can one criticise Facebook's actions as dehumanising while using the condition of the person Facebook dehumanised to insult another? In all likelihood, neither was intended to be harmful - both were probably intended to alleviate distress - but, as the kids say, yer doinitrong.

Neither is sufficient to formulate conclusions about either source's capacity for empathy but both are nasty.

Whole lotta hypocrisy up in hurr.

Strontium Dog wrote:

No it fucking well isn't.

However, "yawn" is a pithy response to the straw man of wholesale equating jobless people with skivers, which nobody upon nobody ever does.

Yes it fucking well is.

It wasn't a yawn about a strawman, it was a yawn in response to another person raising the concern about 800 people losing their jobs. A level of spiteful indifference massively in excess of any supposed tranagression on my part.

No, it was a yawn at the tedious strawman about skivers, quite obviously. The only spite present comes from those raising such feeble strawmen to smear defenders of liberty.

Not that any of this is remotely relevant to the topic.

Sendraks wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:Using the birth defect of the mother's dead child as an insult is a position driven by a considerable amount of empathy?...

You can disagree, but you are not in a position to make claims vis my empathy.

And I haven't, so I don't understand the relevance of this post.

NamelessFaceless wrote:That's really heartbreaking, but the song playing with that video just infuriates me. "It's not my place to question. Only God knows why . . . Hallelujah . . ."

Why would that infuriate you?

Mr.Samsa wrote:

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Sendraks wrote:Who said you were wrong?

MoS is implying that someone needs to adopt a specific ideology related to atheism in order to think it's wrong to use a dead child's condition as an insult and that's why supposedly nobody agrees with me.

Sendraks wrote:You think it is in bad taste. No one is telling you to think differently.
That some of us disagree doesn't make us wrong either.

Well sure, in some strict world of relativism, maybe. But the point is that someone can't be consistent in damning the Facebook decision and refuse to damn Cali for his comment, as they are both pretty equally horrible.

Animavore wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:Come now, I don't think we should be so pessimistic to think I'm the only one who found the comment to be ridiculously bad.

Actually I did. On par with saying that person X is more Down's-y than the Down's kid they're making fun of (to stick with my earlier analogy).

Though I wasn't bothered being outraged by it. I find Franky Boyle funny FFS.

I agree with your analogy but I don't think "outraged" is a good descriptor. I find Frankie Boyle hilarious too but I wouldn't enter a thread to make fun of some ridiculously insensitive thing somebody has said about rape to quote a rape joke made by Boyle. I'm more just amused at the ridiculousness of Cali attempting to criticise the actions of Facebook by making a comment that is similarly shitty to those actions themselves.

I never thought it would be controversial to basically point out that maybe we shouldn't insult the condition of a dead baby in a thread about its mother who is trying to raise awareness of the condition..

Insult a condition? When did this become a problem, and for whom?