There’s this thing that has been spreading around Facebook where everyone is encouraged to change their profile picture into a cartoon character they liked as a child.
Fine, bit of fun, not my thing.
But then various version of status updates read that this is part of a campaign to help fight violence against children. Well, good, but how on earth will me putting up a picture of Candy/a Snork/Jem and the Holograms achieve this admittedly noble goal? I don’t get it, find it all just a bit sanctimonious. If you want to be a cartoon for the week, why not do it just for fun?
I agree. I fail to see how a bit of well-intentioned copyright infringement would help to protect any child from violence. It’s slacktivism at its worst.
I personally view it in the same light as when the fad was to use a picture of yourself from the 80’s. I am in no way kidding myself that I am making a stand against child abuse with this gesture!
And it’s not like this is some unpopular position that could use the display of solidarity. It’s not like expressing support for same-sex rights or for Assange keeping the bastards honest.
When a friend personally messaged me to do it & I remembered Milton the Monster, I went ahead & put one up, BUT I also put up a disclaimer that this was not accomplishing anything.
Then this morning I changed my FB pic to George Clooney & posted:
'George Clooney says~
Ladies, 21 & up, post a pic of yourself in a bikini to show your support for God, America, the Troops, children, kittens & puppies, & an end to all war, disease & hunger worldwide, Amen.
Brad Pitt & Denzel Washington want you to do this also… honest.’
Not going to directly link because the comments on many entries get way NSFW, but an entry on Failbook (failbook.failblog.org) had someone’s entry (with a regular photo) on the topic:
“J just donated money to PreventChildAbuse.org instead of changing his picture to a cartoon character. Fuck your slacktivism.”
I’m sure someone would say, ‘see, a donation, it’s intended to do that’ - uh, yeah, I’m pretty sure I didn’t see any instructions about irritating and alienating everyone else into donating while you try to act all enlightened.
Now there’s a rumour going round that the group was set up by paedophiles because children are more likely to accept a friend request of someone with a cartoon profile pic.
Nope, doesn’t make sense to me either.
Eh, can’t be too bothered by this, however, now there’s another FB status thing out there claiming that the cartoon character thing is a pedophile device to ensnare unsuspecting children and we should all take down our cartoon character avatars in a show of unsolidarity with those evil pedos.
Excellent!! One of my friends has changed her picture to a cartoon and also has this annoying habit of following those cut and paste into your status so everyone know about this danger to the kids!!! (I think she believes them all)
“Slacktivism” is right - I keep seeing updates full of the mawkish guff that was originally the purview of chain emails from your mum and older colleagues.
It used to be that the only way you could show off that you cared about a cause was wearing a sticker or lapel pin, requiring you to donate your spare change to a guy on the street with a collection tin and a tabard. You got to demonstrate that you thought puppies shouldn’t be dragged out and shot in the street, the charity got money - everybody won.
Come to think of it, I didn’t see that many poppies this year for Remembrance Day; maybe people were too busy making ones out of ASCII to put on their wall.
And I just saw a link on “Know Your Meme” of someone switching their picture to the creepy old man on “Family Guy” with the status “Am I doing this right?”. Hilarious.
