81–90 of 99 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If the lady is comfortable with it and you're not you could simply ignore them? Which is what I would do. Politely ignore it. And that means I'm uncomfortable. I don't tend to politely ignore things that I am comfortable with. That said, I think we're missing the point. Why is the mum of a newborn in the office in the first place? She should be enjoying her many weeks (52 would be great) of paid maternity leave. An…
>And that means I'm uncomfortable. And ? You're an adult and should gather the knowledge of personally dealing with discomfort. The world isn't a liberal arts college campus.
I never said anything more than looking at breastfeeding/pumping makes me uncomfortable. I did childishly compare it to other bodily functions but hey, it's a bodily function.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The weird thing is I'm around a lot of conservatives in a conservative place in this country, you know, the people who supposedly are the ones getting offended. I haven't found one damn person who thinks Facebook is doing the right thing. I'm really trying to find these offended people, but I cannot. The Vietnam photo censorship was met with quite a bit of confusion since I think most folks misremember it being our h…
Do you remember the super bowl janet jackson fiasco? There were millions of people outraged by an accident and it almost wrecked her career. It's issue like this that mean that Facebook has to build aggressive adult filters that will have false positives. Because frankly the cost of a false negative is much much bigger than a false positive.
In other words: I'd say there were an order of more millions of people amused about the outcome.
Now here's the thing: Mocking other people's morality isn't going to help here, I understand that. Giggling has no place in this debate.
But .. we're talking in a specific context here. Facebook. The company that wants to impersonate The Internet™. If they adopt the morality of their home country, then their rules are going to be absolutely insane in the rest of the world.
Morality isn't being defined by Facebook, nor by the US. It's a personal choice. And while 'no pornography' is an understandable business choice, 'breasts are the devil' or 'let us pretend that no human has nipples' is somewhere between hilarious and stupid if you extend that beyond a certain demographic.
Just imagine the harm seeing a breast can do to a vulnerable young child. /s Facebook needs to literally grow up, removing porn is one thing but clinical images, mothers feeding their children and such should not even be up for discussion. It's a fine line between protecting your users from seeing offensive content and outright censorship, good to see them doing the right thing in this case, pity it is still on a 'ca…
I had the unique opportunity of visiting a nudist event recently. While children weren't allowed, some of the people had grown up in nudist communities. They are incredibly capable people with no trauma; nudity itself just isn't damaging -- not all nudity is sexual.
That said, I'm not convinced that sexuality on its own is damaging either. I'm not sure if you implied that with the second half of your statement/the nudity vs sexual distinction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Millions? the FCC said there were 540,000 complaints from Americans[1] of which 65,000 came from the Parents Television Council[2]. The media cared more than the people. Heck, I wonder if we polled on it, how many think MTV's response was the bigger problem. 1) http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/2005-01-20-bowl-cover_x... from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime-sh... 2) I'll save my commentar…
I bet more people were offended than just those who filed complaints. So millions seems like a reasonable number.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why can't Facebook filter out whatever they want to filter out? Why can't people let Facebook know what should and shouldn't be filtered? Facebook already have policy that breasts are ok when they're raising awareness of breast cancer or being used to feed children, so facebook is ignoring their own existing policy.
The naked female body is only acceptible in a medical or child-rearing countext. No. We need to reject this ideology. It is wrong wrong wrong. We need to stop perpetuating this lie. Naked human bodies are wholey unremarkable in the strongest sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The naked female body is only acceptible in a medical or child-rearing countext. No. We need to reject this ideology. It is wrong wrong wrong. We need to stop perpetuating this lie. Naked human bodies are wholey unremarkable in the strongest sense.
I'm not even close to a prude about nudity, but I utterly reject that you may have any say about my attitude toward it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The weird thing is I'm around a lot of conservatives in a conservative place in this country, you know, the people who supposedly are the ones getting offended. I haven't found one damn person who thinks Facebook is doing the right thing. I'm really trying to find these offended people, but I cannot. The Vietnam photo censorship was met with quite a bit of confusion since I think most folks misremember it being our h…
Do you remember the super bowl janet jackson fiasco? There were millions of people outraged by an accident and it almost wrecked her career. It's issue like this that mean that Facebook has to build aggressive adult filters that will have false positives. Because frankly the cost of a false negative is much much bigger than a false positive.
For one thing you can't really compare an act that's purely entertainment to a video that could theoretically save someone's life. It just doesn't have as much value.
Secondly, what Jackson did is against the law, which wasn't the case for the FB video. Public airwaves and all that.
And lastly, if you think that was an accident I have a bridge to sell you.
I agree about the adult filters. Companies like Facebook, youtube, and Twitter can't hire people to look at every single video. They don't have the margins.
Just imagine the harm seeing a breast can do to a vulnerable young child. /s Facebook needs to literally grow up, removing porn is one thing but clinical images, mothers feeding their children and such should not even be up for discussion. It's a fine line between protecting your users from seeing offensive content and outright censorship, good to see them doing the right thing in this case, pity it is still on a 'ca…
The weird thing is I'm around a lot of conservatives in a conservative place in this country, you know, the people who supposedly are the ones getting offended. I haven't found one damn person who thinks Facebook is doing the right thing. I'm really trying to find these offended people, but I cannot. The Vietnam photo censorship was met with quite a bit of confusion since I think most folks misremember it being our h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The weird thing is I'm around a lot of conservatives in a conservative place in this country, you know, the people who supposedly are the ones getting offended. I haven't found one damn person who thinks Facebook is doing the right thing. I'm really trying to find these offended people, but I cannot. The Vietnam photo censorship was met with quite a bit of confusion since I think most folks misremember it being our h…
I'm sure if you looked hard enough you could find someone who is offended. There's always somebody . But this isn't something that's going to offend your average conservative - titillation clearly isn't the point of a video like this.