Because you have the technology does NOT make it ok to use it, asshole.

The BBQ Pit
1

I’m not going to give a link, because I’m not going to participate in perpetuating it. I’m here to have a little fuckyouasshole hissy about it.

A friend pointed me to a page that was full of pictures of people looking weird ways doing odd funny things and the title of the page indicated hey, these are people who are just somehow messed up.

All the photos were of people dressed in funny ways, participating in public events, or photos of people doing things that were just funny in some innocuous way.

Then there was a photo of a fat woman wearing a very unflattering outfit. Not a weird or wacky outfit, just an outfit that was not attractive on her figure, profoundly so. She is sitting in what looks like it might be some kind of waiting room.

And it was obvious from the photo, because of the angle and the text in the border, that the picture was taken with a camera phone, surreptitiously.

Then posted on this webpage, for people to gawk and make fun.

To the person who took that photo and posted it: That woman may be unattractive and she may have bad taste. None of which matters, since she may also be a deeply kind person, we have no way of knowing, because that picture of her only shows us that she is fat and has unfortunate taste in how to dress.

But what that picture says about you is much more profound. It says that you are a nasty, cruel, mean-spirited sleazeball completely disconnected from the most basic understanding of what is acceptable. (Hint: sneakily stealing a photo of someone you don’t know while they are sitting in a waiting room and posting it on the internet is 100% unacceptable. The only way you might have pulled it off is the same way they do on TV: cut out the face so the person is anonymous. Even then it’s just small and shitty, but at least it indicates some understanding that there are limits and rules.)

Which explains perfectly why you would do something like that. Only someone who is disgusted with themselves, as you should and must be, would go to such trouble to find people they believe are worse and then make it point to direct everyone’s attention towards them.

How sad and difficult it must be to be you. May you discover your better nature someday so that you can start to contribute something of value.

Asshole.

2

Is that the one where the guy is wearing armypants and the woman has “too hot to handle” or some shit like that on her ill fitted shirt?
Now i agree with you: some of the pictures have those people posing. They know that the have attracted attention (positive or negative) and agreed for the picture.
But a lot of those pictures (like the wallmart crap) people are being photographed without their knowledge.
The people who run that site have the final say in what shows up on their page. They should have rules but they don’t. Otherwise it wouldn’t attract as much traffic.

The guy’s (mentiones in the OP) attitude is the same shit as cellphones with cameras (yes i know people did the following even with regular cameras) sticking hand under girls/women dresses to snap a pic of their underwear or lack of. Because it’s easier now

People are assholes.

3

Public humilation can be a powerful learning tool.

4

I dont’ even have that much of a beef with pictures taken of people when they aren’t posing for it if they are showing up in a public place that is reasonably likely to include picture taking: parades, celebrations, rallys, mardi gras… you have to kind of expect that if you are someplace where a bunch of people are taking pictures, your picture might get taken.

But sitting in a waiting room?? Shopping at Walmart? Not the slightest bit ok.

5

:rolleyes:

Yes, you learn exactly how small, mean, and nasty people are.

6

Err, I don’t think you get it. The joke is that she’s ugly and has bad taste, not that she has a bad personality.

7

This is, as much as I hate to say it, the Dope. You cannot mock someone for their appearance if they are overweight or conventionally unattractive without having the hounds released.

Now, if you want to make fun of how Miley Cyrus dresses, or how ugly Taylor Swift actualy is, that’s ok.

8

Unless you link to the photo we have no reasonable way of evaluating it. If the subject had no reasonable expectation of privacy, then heck it’s perfectly reasonable to laugh at them if they look stupid.

And visa versa, too.

9

There is no means by which we can empower the good and the kind and not empower the assholes at the same instant. Cannot be done. Should not be done, as that puts somebody in the position of determining who is rectal, and who is not.

The same power that allows random people to take a quick snap of a policeman doing what he ought not is the same power than allows creeps to cackle over another’s misfortunes in taste and body type.

10

Why must there only be two levels of privacy? Why not just use the common sense? “Would I be hurt by this? Then I shouldn’t do it to others. They’ll feel they have the right to hurt me to the same degree.”

It really isn’t reasonable to laugh at someone if that laughter hurts them. Laughter is about spreading joy, not pain.

11

“The blues isn’t about making yourself feel good! The blues is about making other people feel bad!”

  • “Bleeding Gums” Murphy
12

It’s part of the deal for living in civilisation.

Mind you I’m open to arguments this changes with the internet. It certainly didn’t change with the photograph.

If someone takes a photo of me looking ridiculous in a place I have no expectation of privacy, I shall deal with it.

13

Why not? No one needs to be in charge–it can just be society itself. And why can’t the ability to take a picture of someone doing something illegal, which we have a vested interest in catching, be permissible, while photos made to laugh at people not?

Why stick with the false dichotomy of allowing photos or not?

And since nearly everybody in society hates jerks, why don’t we make laws that punish jerkish behaviors? (Answer, because of that word nearly: the jerks who want to be able to be jerks are those in power.)

14

It may well be reasonably to institute such laws. That would also change the expectation of privacy I referred to.

Of course ideally, people would act decently. But that isn’t the society we are in. In a Libertarian society then I would be happy to condemn these photos. But in ones in which the state takes so much power… well I must conclude that certain behaviours then become acceptable.

This is the horror of Liberalism (in the American sense). Do you see now?

15

Again, why does it have to be? Why can’t the civilization as a whole decide they don’t want to allow certain behaviors? We do it all the time with what we label “criminal” behaviors. Why can’t the price for living in society be that you have to be nice to everyone?

ETA: Funnily enough, I think that touches your last post, so we can actually be caught up.

16

Well, not completely caught up. I missed the last part: I’d say libertarianism would be why we could allow it, as no person in a libertarian society has to care about anyone else. Is not the idea that, if we all look out for our own best interests, that everything would work out? The reason we aren’t mean to someone else is not because of some actual value they have as a person, but because it could hurt us. And the less likely that is (like posting an anonymous picture on a message board), the less likely that will be sufficient motivation.

I’d say it is liberalism that allows us to band together against the person who is performing the undesirable act. Acting as a group, we have more power, and thus can stop them.

And of course society is always a balance between what you are calling liberalism and what I’m calling libertarianism. I just wonder why the balance is where it is.

17

Can I pick the island to which you will exile me? Can you ensure that it will be replete with sneering, sarcastic elitists who are Not Nice?

I’ll pack.

18

There is an ocean of difference between taking a picture of someone that you then show to your friends when you go out for a beer, and taking a picture of someone you then **post on the internet. **

And I’m shocked at you, luc. Equating a police officer, a government official acting in their official capacity, with Nancy Nobody sitting in a waiting room? You see no distinction between them as far as which one has a reasonable expectation of being allowed to conduct their business without being photographed and having that photograph posted on the internet?

Really?

I don’t believe you.

19

You say posted on the internet like it’s the most horrible thing imaginable rather than a silly, fairly trivial thing for immature people to giggle at.

20

Because, as my title says, if your standard for what is acceptable to do is merely that it is possible to do it, then all standards and the laws that uphold them fall apart, and it becomes a matter of might makes right:

If a man can hold a woman down and fuck her and she can’t get away, then it’s alright.
If a person can take your wallet and spend the money, then it’s ok.
If a person can break into your car and drive it away, oh well, you lose.
If a person can kill you, too bad you couldn’t stop them.

Just because a thing CAN be done, does NOT make ok to do it!