You Can't Say That On the Internet

hessian writes in with a story about the arbitrary and often outdated online decency standards being imposed by companies."A bastion of openness and counterculture, Silicon Valley imagines itself as the un-Chick-fil-A. But its hyper-tolerant facade often masks deeply conservative, outdated norms that digital culture discreetly imposes on billions of technology users worldwide. What is the vehicle for this new prudishness? Dour, one-dimensional algorithms, the mathematical constructs that automatically determine the limits of what is culturally acceptable. Consider just a few recent kerfuffles. In early September, The New Yorker found its Facebook page blocked for violating the site’s nudity and sex standards. Its offense: a cartoon of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Eve’s bared nipples failed Facebook’s decency test."

Comments

Sounds like a campus speech code

[Anonymous Coward]

Must.

Not.

Offend.

Anyone.

(unless the target is white males)

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[trum4n]

Screw you, and the donkey your Savior rode in on!

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[mwvdlee]

Must.

Not.

Offend.

Anyone.

(unless the target is conservative Christian white males)

FTFY.

You ever tried to offend a christian?
Trust me; you must not offend a christian. It's worse than offending a muslim.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[Anonymous Coward]

It's your white male privilege to withstand being offended by anything.

ANYONE can learn to withstand being offended by anything. Why, after a time you get so good at it that the offended types look like a bunch of pathetic whiners who only cry about what somebody else said (that they didn't have to listen to) because they've never once faced a real problem.

By the way, who decides this shit? You can show almost all the breast, or lots of cleavage, but not the nipple, and that's okay. If you show the nipple but not most of the breast then that's indecent. But we see male nipples all the time seeing how they have no breasts and go shirtless if they want. Guess nipples aren't a problem there. Maybe being unable to nurse an infant is what makes them non-obscene? I'm confused.

Can the prudes at least learn a little consistency?

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[characterZer0]

Trust me; you must not offend a christian. It's worse than offending a muslim.

Explain.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[gnasher719]

You ever tried to offend a christian?
Trust me; you must not offend a christian. It's worse than offending a muslim.

If that is your experience, then the offended person probably wasn't a Christian but only called himself or herself one. (Of course you need to consider that the Christian principle of "love your neighbour as you love yourself" may include teaching your neighbour that offending others may have consequences. But that is the limit of it. )

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[Tsingi]

Trust me; you must not offend a christian. It's worse than offending a muslim.

Explain.

All you have to do to offend a Christian is question his God.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[AlecC]

And how is an outsider to distinguish between a Christian and someone just calling themselves one? Remember that the Crusaders, the Inquisition and Fred Phelps call themselves Christian. I am not concerned about the inward doctrine - many intolerant people claim the legal protection and public recognition of being Christian.

I an an atheist, but I honour the teachings of the Gospels (but not the rest of the Bible) as admirable and compassionate. But, in my opinion, nearly all southern republican politicians who claim to be Christian are in deep breach of that loving doctrine. I cannot recognise the teachings of Jesus in anyone, for example, who supports the death penalty. Nor in those who support lifetime benefit caps. But if I insult them, they will wrap their claimed Christianity around them and spit venom at me.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[kilfarsnar]

Must.

Not.

Offend.

Anyone.

(unless the target is white males)

You mad!

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[Anonymous Coward]

This Toyota advertisement clearly stars a woman walking as she strips off her clothing to reveal her bare breasts.

But "she" is really a man, hence why the panties stay on. Decency standards be damned, this is 100% legal to air.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[0a100b]

Right, then the offended person is no true Christian. Maybe a Scotsman?

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[sycodon]

At least he won't cut your throat.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[Anonymous Coward]

All you have to do to offend a muslim is draw a respectful picture of Mohammad, what's your point?

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[sycodon]

Because you are intimately familiar with almost all southern Republican politicians.

How's the weather up there on your High Horse?

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[DrgnDancer]

Not that I agree with your parent; I've met prickly people of almost every faith and creed who can become unreasonable at the least provocation. That said, your reply is a pretty poor counter. Such a "No True Scotsman" argument can be applied to almost anything: "No true Muslim would be so offended, after all Islam means "peace"", "No true liberal would be so offended, we're all about inclusiveness of ideas", "No true conservative would be so offended, we always argue from a position of logic", No true Buddhist..." etc.

"Love thy neighbor as thyself" is only one line from one Testament, from one half of the book. There's plenty of arguments in Christian scripture for being an asshole too, and lots of Christians use those to justify the very behavior you say they shouldn't engage in. There are lots of Christians in the world. There are lots of prickly easily offended people in the world. The intersection of those two sets is also quite large.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[Tsingi]

At least he won't cut your throat.

And the government won't either. It's a struggle keeping church and state separate, but worth it. For the most part the west has gotten rid of ridiculous blasphemy laws.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[sycodon]

Good pivot there.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[C0R1D4N]

Hot

Thank you

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[theshowmecanuck]

It's your white male burden to be accused of offending everyone.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[mwvdlee]

Just wait a few hours, then read the comments to see just how easy it is to offend a christian.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[icebraining]

No, but they might bomb you if you offend them by being in a nightclub for people with the wrong sexual orientation.

You may also offend them by being poor, in which case they might just steal your recently born baby.

Of course, these are exceptions. But so is your accusation.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[bickerdyke]

By the way, who decides this shit?
Can the prudes at least learn a little consistency?

Oh that's simply. Facebook decides what is acceptable on facebook, twitter decides what is acceptable on twitter. You neither have to agree with nor use their service. And as you're free to run your own website, this isn't even censorship. The internet is much bigger as facebook, you know?

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[sycodon]

Two very tenuous and strained attempts to link violence and Christianity.

Wade through this if you have enough time.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[bickerdyke]

And how is an outsider to distinguish between a Christian and someone just calling themselves one?

There is 100% sign: Anyone who calims to know God's will is more subject to hybris than to christian teachings. Christians should take responsibility for their actions and not blame them on "God's will".

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[sycodon]

You mean like this?

 

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[bickerdyke]

"Love thy neighbor as thyself" is only one line from one Testament, from one half of the book. There's plenty of arguments in Christian scripture for being an asshole too, and lots of Christians use those to justify the very behavior you say they shouldn't engage in.

But in gerenral, that "Love thy neighbour" is considered as a bugfix for those older "eye for an eye" rules.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[Anonymous Coward]

And as you're free to run your own website, this isn't even censorship.

Stop repeating this nonsense. It's censorship, but it's not as if it's unconstitutional or even necessarily wrong.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[mcgrew]

And how is an outsider to distinguish between a Christian and someone just calling themselves one?

Actions speak louder than words. The "God hates fags" crowd is perhaps the worst, but maybe that's because a middle-aged lesbian told me only a week ago she wished she wasn't gay because she didn't want to go to hell. I pointed out that since I'm single, it's as much of a sin for me to eat pussy as it is for her. What's worst is she hadn't been with a woman for years.

It's amazing that so many people who call themselves Christian don't understand the core of Christianity -- forgiveness. kindness, charity. She felt bad about being a lesbian, so she was automatically forgiven. Forgive others, you will be forgiven yourself. Too bad few southern preachers and politicians understand that. They should read the bibles they thump.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[CanHasDIY]

Decency standards be damned, this is 100% legal to air.

Reminds me of this Xbox 360 ad that was also barred from airing.

Considering that the advert is far, far more tame than typical prime-time programming, it's beyond logic why the ad would be banned...

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[CanHasDIY]

You ever tried to offend a christian?

Yea, that's the only effective way to tell real ones from fake ones.

The real ones are really, really hard to offend. They tend to just smile, touch your shoulder, and say, "I forgive you."

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[CanHasDIY]

At least he won't cut your throat.

But he might murder a doctor.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[icebraining]

Oh, I have no doubts that there is much more violence begin carried on today in the name of Islam than any other religion, possibly combined. I just don't like whitewashing.

And there is nothing tenuous about what the Catholic Church did during Franco. They were Catholic priests and nuns - not just the average believer - stealing thousands of babies from their mothers for decades.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[mypalmike]

git commit -am 'New feature: love thy neighbor. This should permanently fix WorldView.pl bug where eye_for_an_eye function was causing deadlock.'

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[mcgrew]

As a Christian, I forgive your hatefulness. That's what we do.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[Tsingi]

Thank you.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[sycodon]

Crusades? Did we suddenly get transported back to the 12th Century?

Stay focused here eh?

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[sycodon]

One nut job vs. a few million nut jobs.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[characterZer0]

Oh no! They're going to write angry comments on /.! Whatever shall we do?

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[dev.null.matt]

If that is your experience, then the offended person probably wasn't a Christian but only called himself or herself one.

Let me guess... he or she probably wasn't a Scotsman either?

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[trum4n]

Wow, you satire is better than mine! (I am also a Christian, and i stopped going to church because of Christians)

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

Same here. I'm still a Christian, but the politicization of religion and the hypocrisy of other Christians made church unbearable. I think there are more of us than most people imagine.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[stewwy]

It's funny! :-) Blurs and challenges peoples assumptions.

I'm in the UK and for what it's worth I'm a transsexual currently growing her own boobs, (not bad, a bit more than a B cup at the moment :-) )

The situation is interesting though, if I'm in male mode and strip my top off from there in a situation where male bare-chestedness is appropriate (say a normal beach) then that is OK as far as the cops are concerned.

But it's not OK if I strip off from a Skirt and Bra.

I actually find this quite an enlightened attitude. In the rare case that I'm presenting as male I'm treated as one

When I'm presenting as female then I'm treated as one

Which is how it should be. I do find this whole thing about nipples (in the USA ) a bit ridiculous, and to be honest a bit childish, it smacks a bit of giggling in the playground

It is however an insidious way of introducing censorship.

In the UK we treat sexuality ( and nipples ) a bit more seriously, strangely thanks to the murdoch press and the Sun (a low brow, very popular newspaper ) girls on page 3

But we fall down considerably on freedom of speech at the moment ( witness the guy being arrested for a burning poppy on his FB page along with calling squaddies c*nts, as if they would care )

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[sycodon]

I'm pretty sure that was an analogy for the most part. But by all means, you should go around hitting people exiting the church on Sunday morning. Let us know how that works out for ya.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[TheP4st]

James Charles Kopp (born August 2, 1954) is an American citizen who was convicted in 2003 for the 1998 sniper-style murder of Barnett Slepian, an American physician from Amherst, New York who performed abortions. Prior to his capture, Kopp was on the FBI's list of Ten Most Wanted Fugitives. On June 7, 1999 he had become the 455th fugitive placed on the list by the FBI. He was affiliated with militant Roman Catholic anti-abortion group known as "The Lambs of Christ".

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[operagost]

Are non-white males somehow less impervious to offensive behavior? You sound prejudiced to me.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[bickerdyke]

At least wikipedia distinguishes between censorship and self-censorship. Facebook supressing things on facebook only qualifies for the latter.

I can't see a big difference between Facebook not publishing a user posting and a newspaper not publishing a letter to the editor.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[operagost]

Had to dig pretty deeply, huh? That's one dead against, how many thousands at the hands of Islam since 1998? When was the last time a "Christian" attacked anyone involved with abortion? I mean, if you like snipers since 1998 we had the D.C. snipers, and they killed several people in the name of Allah. Murder is murder, but I think we can agree which is more likely.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[jakimfett]

Christians? Nah. It's the "Church" that is killing it for me. So many people locked into their hypocrytical ways...

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[jakimfett]

Catholic != Christian
Also:
Catholic != non-Christian

A does not equal B. Not B does not equal not A. (yes, I posted this just above.)

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[jakimfett]

Pretty much exactly this. The whole bit where it says "A new commandment I give you...love God, love your neighbor" is what is supposed to be driving "Christians" (paraphrase mine, google it if you want the full text).

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[Raenex]

She felt bad about being a lesbian, so she was automatically forgiven.

So you think she needs to be self-loathing while committing her "sin" of engaging in consensual sex with another adult?

Forgive others, you will be forgiven yourself.

And where do you draw the line at this forgiveness? Did the Catholic priests who molested children deserve to go to jail?

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[CohibaVancouver]

The majority of Christians do not appear to be real Christians so why do you ally yourself with them.

Well, I'm not sure I stated that I was 'allied' with Christians per se (I am not a regular church-goer, although my wife and mother-in-law are. Amusingly, my father-in-law is an atheist.)

That being said, there are a lot of reasons to ally with Christians. When aids first appeared on the scene here in Vancouver in the 80s, it was the hospitals run by Catholic nuns who treated the sick and held the hands of the dying while other hospitals were putting up plastic shields. The 'soldiers' in the Salvation Army feed the hungry and help children all over the world. And on and on... So yeah, there are certainly some Christians I can ally with. They take the word of Jesus to heart and follow his (supposed) teachings.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[Gonoff]

Christianity does not politicise.

What US conservatives describe as "Christian" often does not fit in with anyones reading of the Bible outside your country.
I recently came across someone stating that he could not support universal health care because he was a Christian. I told him that my being a Christian was a major deciding factor in my working for the NHS in the UK. Stopping people being looked after when they need it is what most Christians in the UK would define as a bad thing.

As a Christian, I also support the universal availability of contraception, social security and welfare. Perhaps this may have confused some people on your side of the pond but your Christians seem to be different from other ones. I am a white male Christian- just not a conservative one. I am also hard to offend (please do not take that a a challenge!)

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[jakimfett]

And, a lot of them don't even say that...because you can put a *lot* of venom/double meaning into the words "I forgive you". Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. Short circuiting this cycle makes a life much more worth living.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[Sique]

Ah, the no true scotsman argument.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[Sique]

It does. Because most christians are not so forgiving. So either there are no true christians out there (which makes the whole discussion moot anyway), or we have to accept as christian most of the people who claim to be christians.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[CanHasDIY]

One nut job vs. a few million nut jobs.

You know as well as I do that the murder of Dr. George Tiller is, by far, not the only example of Christian extremists taking the lives of others.

Of course, you don't care, since every rebuttal I offer will result in you once again moving the goalposts, as you've done here. Ironically, such behavior is often indicative of the very extremist attitude you're trying oh-so hard to convince us that Muslims exhibit en masse.

Before you try and deny goalpost relocation, allow me to summarize the conversation thus far:

Tsingi: "All you have to do to offend a Christian is question his God."

You: "At least he won't cut your throat." (Presumably, you meant to imply that a Christian wouldn't cause a person harm for offending them)

Me: "Christians killed Dr. Tiller because he offended them; your premise is flawed."

You: "This is a volume issue."

Classic example.



Now, if you like, I can provide several other incidents of "Christians" intentionally harming others for offending them. However, considering your above response, I feel it would be a futile effort as thus far my exhortations have fallen on deaf ears. You're welcome to prove me wrong on that point.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[CanHasDIY]

Forgiving the transgressions of others against oneself is a (the) key tenement of the true Followers of Jesus Christ.

Not really sure what you're trying to say here...

Elucidate?

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[kelemvor4]

They made a movie about that. Quite a few years ago, actually. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2Fp61jJcIs

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[Runaway1956]

And, what exactly do you think you need to do to offend the Muslims you have cited?

DUHHHH!!!!!

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[scot4875]

Christianity does not politicise.

In other words, Christianity is not a True Scotsman.

--Jeremy

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[scot4875]

Because you are intimately familiar with almost all southern Republican politicians.

I'll bet he's more familiar with all southern Republican politicians than you are with the millions of violent Muslims that you claim to have such intimate knowledge of.

In other words: your generalizations aren't any more valid than the ones you disagree with.

--Jeremy

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[scot4875]

See, that's your definition of Christianity.

Some others define a Christian as anyone who has accepted Jesus Christ as their lord and savior.

Why should we take your definition over theirs? Because you're the True Scotsman?

--Jeremy

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[Stan92057]

Who makes the rules? Whoever owns the site. A web Site is not a democracy so whoever pays the bills gets to decide what content is allowed without breaking any laws. ie allowing underage kids access to adult content.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[networkBoy]

Actually...
Catholic == Christian
&&
Christian != Catholic

Much like:
square == rectangle
&&
rectangle != square
-nb

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[CohibaVancouver]

Ah, the no true scotsman argument

Doesn't apply here, as there is no definition of a 'true' Scotsman. There *is* a defintion of a Christian -

1) Follows Christ's teachings
2) Believes in the Apostle's Creed

You do those two, you're a Christian by the generally-understood rules.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[networkBoy]

but I think that's why they're mad at us right now...

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[Stan92057]

Ya i agree it is censorship its also enforcing their own moral values. Like the guy said don't like it? Make your own web site and enforce your own set of moral values.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[sycodon]

When you can offer an example of 3000 instances (to start with) then people might pay attention.

So far you have offered nothing that can't be explained by a random nut jobs.

If you go to the middle east and offend a Muslim (that is, engage in Blasphemy) you will most likely get your throat cut. Your odds are even higher that you may get your head cut off courtesy of the State. Go ahead and travel to Saudi Arabia and engage in conduct such as adultery or something as simple as tearing up the Koran. If you are really brave, take a dump on it. I wouldn't bet anything on your survival, let alone getting out of the country. Hell, Obama effectively put someone in jail for making an anti-muslim film.

Now, do that same thing in the Vatican (a place which is home to the historically most violent of Christian sects). I suspect that at most you would be rudely ejected from the premises. Who knows, maybe some citizen would beat you up. Worst, you might have to put up with the Italian legal system.

My statement is true. Offending a Muslim is manifestly more risky than offending a Christian. All your prattle about goalposts and whimsical dialogues doesn't change that fact.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[TheP4st]

Breivik identifies himself as a christian.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[sycodon]

You obviously are living in the past.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[sycodon]

My generalizations are derived from empirical data...lets start with 9/11.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[Stan92057]

Com-on its not because of someone else your lazy And weak. That's why you don't go to church. Every religion has its assholes and no ones forcing you be there friends God decides who crosses the gates, not me or you our someone else.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[melikamp]

If you post something on FB and then FB removes it, that's just censorship. It would only be self-censorship if you were a FB employee, and your FB speech was limited by your contract.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[mcgrew]

You guys just need to find a better church. I was going to one about ten years ago, when the preacher prayed for President Bush to have continued wisdom, that was the last time I attended that church, it's like praying for the ocean to have continued dryness.

A good clue is, does the preacher wear a tie? If so BAD CHURCH. The tie is Satan's leash, symbol of wealth and power, things Christ was decidedly against. I've noticed that the tie-wearing preachers don't preach what Christ taught.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[CanHasDIY]

Anecdote != fact.

You can make all the outrageous claims you want, but without any source citation you're just blowin' in the wind.

When you can offer an example of 3000 instances (to start with) then people might pay attention. So far you have offered nothing that can't be explained by a random nut jobs.

I know it will do no good as you'll just move the goalposts again, but I'll humor you anyway:

There was the firebombing of a theater in response to a movie Christians didn't like

Timothy McVeigh and Anders Breivick were both identified as Christian terrorists.

The IRA was well known for it's acts of Christian terrorism.

Of course, those are but a few examples of many, up-to-and-including the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition (which no one expects), the KKK's influence in southern America, or any of innumerable examples about the world

Of course, as your original premise was to imply that any and every Muslim would cut a person's throat for offending (in spite of the fact you can't seem to muster even a single source to back your outrageously bigoted claim), but that not a single Christian would, my earlier example of a "random nutjob" suffices to disprove your hypothesis, your lack of agreement notwithstanding.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[sycodon]

" though he is critical of the Catholic and Protestant churches"

So...he's a Christian that disagrees with the two largest representative organizations of Christianity (Russian Orthodox being the next largest).

Oh..there's also the fact that he's a nut job. When you get a few thousand or so like this guy, rioting and killing because someone threw a Bible away, then you may be on to something.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[sycodon]

Yeah...we're all waiting.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[mcgrew]

Very fitting sig, sir. Tea party? "Render unto Ceasar". Universal health care? Christ did it for free. Welfare? Conservatives hate poor people, "blessed are the poor". Abortion? "Judge not, lest you be judged yourself". Homosexuality? Why do right wingers think gays' sins are any worse than their own? Jesus was not only a liberal, he was executed for his liberalism by the conservative clergy!

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[suutar]

assuming that 'Christian' maps to 'One who follows the teachings of Christ' and 'Scotsman' maps to 'One who resides in Scotland', I'm not seeing how grandparent's statement is equivalent to the described scotsman-related fallacious assertions. That is, it seems that GP's statement is actually related to the term's definition in a way that the NTS fallacy description's examples do not.
Or do you have a different definition for 'Christian'?

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[sycodon]

All you offer is paltry singleton examples of tenuous links of nut jobs to Christianity. Where are your links to major Christian clerics advocating murder? Where are your links to entire Christian (if you can find any) nations being dedicated to the destruction on non Muslim nations?

And the Crusades? Please. Even if you wanted to say that something that happened in the 12th Century is relevant, those were regional power struggles under the guise of religion.

You want Evidence? Just ask why Iran wants to erase Israel from the earth? Hint, it's not because they don't like Kosher.
The evidence that Islam is violent and dangerous is all around you. You just have to open your eyes and take a look.

My original premise is largely true. I encourage you to test it as I mentioned previously. Let us know how it turns out.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[Pope]

Catholics are definitely Christian. That whole believing in Christ thing for one.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[DrgnDancer]

Which is fine if you concentrate on the parts of the New Testament that focus on Jesus himself (or at least mostly so, every so often Jesus gets all "I am the Son of God, cower before me!", but I tend to think those might have been later edits), but honestly that's less than half of the New Testament. Once Paul, to a lesser extent Peter, and to great extent John of the Apocalypse, get their say things get a lot murkier. One could certainly argue that since Christianity is about Christ, we should ignore the bits where Peter, Paul, and John get extremely un-Christ-like, but that's pretty much flying in the face of the last 2000 years of mainstream Christian tradition.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[suutar]

'most are not' doesn't seem to directly translate into 'there are no'. 'There are not many', perhaps?

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[dywolf]

Pretty much proves the point of the sig right there.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[Tsingi]

DUHHHH!!!!!

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[dywolf]

Right, because Catholics don't believe in Christ.... or something equally ignorant.

Hint: Catholics are the O.C.'s of the Christian world.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[realityimpaired]

How many muslims do you suppose have been killed in Iraq since 2001, for the crime of being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Fear breeds hate, and hate breeds violence. If you're prone to it, then you don't need an excuse, though religion is a convenient one.

To put it another way: there are a billion muslims in the world today, some of them with legitimate access to nuclear weapons (Pakistan). If they were really as extreme and violent as you seem to believe, we'd have turned the world into a glass-floored parking lot by now.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[realityimpaired]

If you've accepted JC as your saviour, shouldn't you follow his teachings?

Could somebody please give me a reference where, in the 4 gospels, homosexuality is even mentioned? I've read them, and the whole book for that matter, and with the exception of a few references to non-consensual acts in Paul's letters, homosexuality isn't even mentioned at all in the new testament....

Of course, that's just one example....

(and no, I'm not a Christian... I used to be, but I left the church about 17 years ago, as I was tired of being told by some of the more conservative members of the congregation that I was going to hell. My concept of faith, since then, has become a lot more complicated.)

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[CohibaVancouver]

Or do you have a different definition for 'Christian'?

Yes. (Well, perhaps not 'different,' but you're missing a key piece.)

A Christian is more than 'one who follows the teachings of Christ.' Lots of non-Christians do that. A Christian also believes the Apostle's Creed.

The Apostle's Creed

I believe in God the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth:
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
Born of the Virgin Mary,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
Was crucified, dead, and buried:
He descended into the dead;
The third day he rose again;
He ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost;
The holy Christian Church;
The Communion of Saints;
The Forgiveness of sins;
The Resurrection of the body,
And the Life everlasting.
Amen.

If you don't believe those tenets of the faith, you're not a Christian.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[sycodon]

We'll see what happens with Iran.

I'm laying 50=50 odds that Iran lights off a nuke on someone. And that they are annihilated in return.

Muslims killing other Muslims is not relevant to my statement. Actually, it could be because it was inter-sect violence. So forget not believing in Mohammad, all you really have to do is believe in him in the wrong way apparently.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[CanHasDIY]

When you can offer an example of 3000 instances (to start with) then people might pay attention.

I know it will do no good as you'll just move the goalposts again, but I'll humor you anyway

Where are your links to major Christian clerics advocating murder? Where are your links to entire Christian (if you can find any) nations being dedicated to the destruction on non Muslim nations?

Man, can I call 'em, or what?

And the Crusades? Please. Even if you wanted to say that something that happened in the 12th Century is relevant, those were regional power struggles under the guise of religion.

A) Malarkey, you just don't want to admit to being wrong.

B) I take it, then, you didn't even bother to visit the Wikipedia link I provided in that same paragraph, that details many instances of Christian terrorism dating no further back than 60 years? Oh, right - doing so might have shown you facts that counter your pre-conceived notions, I should have known better than to try and taint your worldview with reality.

You want Evidence?

Yes. Preferably, reputable sources such as university studies, but I'll take a random news clip or two provided they aren't supplied by blatantly biased propaganda machines thinly disguised as "journalists," ala InfoWars or FOX news.

Hell, quote FOX if you want, it's a better source than the none whatsoever you've presented so far.

I encourage you to test it as I mentioned previously. Let us know how it turns out.

Sorry, but I'm not one to stir a hornets nest just to see if I get stung. I'm also not so much of a bigoted asshole as to subsequently refer to all hornets as lunatic extremists as a result.

You're welcome to your opinion, bigoted though it may be. What you are not entitled to is your own facts. I have laid out plenty, backed with source citation, whereas all you have offered thus far is vitriol, bigotry, and a complete absence of anything so much as resembling fact. While that may play out well for you at the Wonderland that is the RNC, here it only serves to prove how little you know about the topic at hand.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[Sperbels]

Oh? Have you read the founding fathers? I think it's pretty clear that they believed in seperation of church and state regardless of whether or not the constitution forbids it.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[realityimpaired]

Actually, I wasn't talking about inter-sect violence, I was talking about "collateral damage". Most of the people causing it are Christian, and many of them have gone on record talking about how much they hate the "towel-heads". If you want to look at inter-sect violence, I'll direct your attention to Ireland, where there's still some events of violence to this day, and where there are still walls dividing neighbourhoods in order to keep the violence down.

As to your odds on Iran, I would take those odds for a very simple reason: they may be a theocracy, but they're not stupid. Assuming they're pursuing nuclear weapons in the first place (remember how many nukes we found in Iraq?), they'd be doing it because Israel already has them and has been rattling their sabres in Iran's direction for years.

Any rational mind knows that nuclear weapons are a deterrent. They are not there to be used, they're there so you can use them if somebody else does first. Once you push the button, all bets are off. Sun Tzu said we study the art of war so that we may never need it... in more modern parlance, speak softly, and carry a big stick.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[readin]

You don't forgive someone unless they've done something wrong, so to say that you forgive someone is to implicitly accuse someone of doing something wrong.

So rather than saying out loud that they forgive you, many Christians will forgive you silently so as not to cause offense.

Imagine you're having a bad day and are rude to someone, and that someone says "I forgive you". What you're likely to hear in your mind is that person saying "I forgive you for being such an @ss and I'm soooo much better and more righteous than you." So instead the person simply forgives you without saying anything, and continues to try to be nice.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[jakimfett]

Not...exactly. Perhaps I should have stated it this way:
Catholic != Christian
Catholic != Protestant
Protestant != Christian

The last few hundred years of history should make this pretty clear. Look up a man named Martin Luthor and his 95 thesis if you don't believe me. There are people who claim "Christianity" as their religion, but don't reflect that in their actions. Belonging to a denomination means nothing if you don't actually practice what is contained in your Scriptures...but that's a whole can of worms that I'd really rather not get into, mainly because it's pretty gnarly, and digs into my personal history with so-called "Christians".

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[jakimfett]

I'd probably agree with most of that. The only church that I've ever seen practice what they preach is a tiny non-denominational fellowship that met in the basement of an abandoned catholic church. But, that was in central Ohio, and I'm in Oregon now. So, I'm still looking. Funny thing is, my DnD group is closer to a solid fellowship than any "church" I've ever been to.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[jakimfett]

This was exactly what I was trying to get at. Thank you for expounding.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[JackieBrown]

That's as fair as lumping all atheists with Stalin, Kim Jong, and Dahmer.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[sycodon]

And we come to this..."Citation required" and "You're a bigot".

The last words of someone out of ideas and arguments.

Here is reality. Dispute it at your own risk (but by all means test it!)

1. Islam, as practiced in the Middle East and other parts of the world, is an inherently violent religion that officially encourages and sanctions murder under the guise of the religion self.
2. Islam is more prone to have extremists who commit violence in "defense" of Islam.
3. To the extent that Christians have perpetrated violent acts, they have been few, isolated and in no way sanctioned by anyone in the Church hierarchy.

No need for scholarly papers or studies or otherwise paying homage to the Gods of Academia. All you have to do is open your eyes and pay attention to what's going on around you.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[Larryish]

Facebook sucks.

More news at 11.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[stewwy]

not a student of anatomy then :-)

first point :

Both sexes have 'boobs' Its just that natal females have more developed breast tissue, all oestrogen does is to cause that tissue to develop ( to simplify )

FYI lactation and breastfeeding is even possible in men look (up the Aka tribe)

The second is just an opinion, which I feel free to ignore. although I have to admit to a slight agreement with you on 'fatass's ' but it's my body so I'll do what the f*ck I want with it :-)

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[HornWumpus]

Both sexes have 'breasts' but only women have 'boobs', 'tits' or 'funbags'.

A man can only have 'moobs'.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[Macgrrl]

Personally, I stopped going to church because of what I like to refer to as "1-hour-a-week Christians". Who seem to think because they rock up to a specific geographic location at a set time each week it excuses them for how they behave the rest of the week.

These days I'd class myself as more agnostic, but with a strong moral code. I still try to stick to the 10 commandments, except for the one about having no other god. If god really exists, he/she has an odd sense of humour to permit some of what is dones in his/her name. I believe in an non-interventionalist god. I don't care how much you pray - he/she expects you to work it out for yourself.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[bickerdyke]

If you post something on FB and then FB removes it, that's just censorship.

Facebook removes something on Facebook. Still sounds pretty much like "self" to me.

I would agree with you if FB had any legal, contractual or other obligation to publish your content. Don't start with moral obligations. Not as long as they can be sued for lack of due diligence by their shareholders if they value "moral" over money. And I'm pretty sure they ruled out ANY obligation in the TOS.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[bickerdyke]

true, but not the point.

The defacto facebook monopoly sucks.

And you should not trust that a free service offered by a for profit company has any interest to secure your constitutional rights.

Freedom of speech that no one is allowed to stop your public speech, but noone needs to publish it for you. That's YOUR legwork you have to do.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[Darinbob]

If it's a web site like Facebook, the rule is "must not offend people who earn us revenue".

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[CanHasDIY]

You don't forgive someone unless they've done something wrong, so to say that you forgive someone is to implicitly accuse someone of doing something wrong. So rather than saying out loud that they forgive you, many Christians will forgive you silently so as not to cause offense. Imagine you're having a bad day and are rude to someone, and that someone says "I forgive you". What you're likely to hear in your mind is that person saying "I forgive you for being such an @ss and I'm soooo much better and more righteous than you." So instead the person simply forgives you without saying anything, and continues to try to be nice.

Fair enough, thanks for the clarification.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[CanHasDIY]

And we come to this..."Citation required" and "You're a bigot".

The last words of someone out of ideas and arguments.

Except, I've been making that point since post one, and you have yet to A) provide a citation, or B) prove your not a bigot (quite the opposite on that front, your hatred for everything Arab is quite evident at this point).

You seem to think this is some sort of argument - in that, you are incorrect. In an argument, both sides posit beliefs and subsequently define their position using source citation.

This has been a one-way conversation of me pointing out facts that refute your obviously ignorant and pre-conceived ideology, to which you respond by changing the subject and, of course, throwing up strawmen.

A conversation that is now over, as you've made it quite plain that you have no intention of listening to rationality, facts, or anything else so much as resembling reality, and I have better things to do with my time than scream at a wall; a bigotted, ignorant, incapable-of-cogent-thought-or-reasoning wall.

I only hope that you do not infect any future generations with your poorly-reasoned nonsense, and that any and all attempts you make at doing so are immediately shut down by someone far more intelligent than yourself... I think the common 4th grader would suffice. Preferably in a way that causes you great public embarrassment.

Good day.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[Zuriel]

As a Christian, I forgive your hatefulness. That's what we do.

Sadly, I think you'll find that's only what Christians are *supposed* to do. Not what they usually actually do.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[Red Flayer]

Even if you wanted to say that something that happened in the 12th Century is relevant, those were regional power struggles under the guise of religion.

Somehow you think the situation today is any different?

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[icebraining]

I know not who Martin Luthor was, but Martin Luther was the guy quoted a lot by the ruling party members in Germany in the 1930s.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[jakimfett]

Whoops. Shows what I get for replying without spellchecking. Yes, Martin Luther.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[gmhowell]

There were Christian sects prior to the council of Nicaea (sp?) who didn't agree with the outcome. Are there many left? No. But your definition is not necessarily accurate.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[jc42]

Hey, I see you got moderated funny+flamebait+insightful. Congratulations! I've been trying for that (possibly with informative rather than insightful) for years, and I've never succeeded. I'm really envious. ;-)

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[Macgrrl]

The same thing we do every night, Pinky - try to take over the world!

- Brain

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[wisty]

I think the "no nips" rule came out of wrangling between film makers (who wanted to show breasts) and censors. A simple rule meant they wouldn't have to argue so much over it.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[wisty]

> Doesn't apply here, as there is no definition of a 'true' Scotsman. There *is* a defintion of a Christian

No, there's not. Christians *believe* that there's a definition of a Christian. All Christians should be essentially the same, because being a Christian should mean something. It doesn't, which is why different self-declared Christians can believe very different things, despite thinking they are true Christians.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[scared masked man]

Personally, I think the South Australian rule is more enlightened: any nudity you like is allowed in public (but not if you photograph it and slap it on a wall - but then, who wants constancy in laws), provided it not for the purposes of causing shock (and you're not invading a public event - i.e. no streaking at sports matches).

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[scared masked man]

Not quite: self-censorship means censoring one's own speech, usually because it would lead to unfortunate social repercussions. Me thinking that a "yo mama" joke would be funny but not making it because I don't want to be looked down on would be self-censorship. What Facebook is doing is censorship. That's not to say that it is moral or immoral, or that it should be permitted or forbidden.

Personally, I do think that publishers should be absolutely immune to all charges relating to the content they publish provided they are common carriers, with permission only for user-moderation as occurs here or on reddit. OTOH, if a provider enforces any decency code, they should be liable for content as though they were the traditional publisher. That way, it encourages openness without mandating it. (I am actually far more concerned about the free-speach implications of privatising public open space, but that is harder to come up with a solution for.)

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[Sique]

No. Because every christian is non-forgiving about something, may it be too much salt in the soup or bodily harm against children. Just being tolerant against verbal abuse is no special threat. When I was 17, my primary tactics against being bullied was to trump other peoples words thrown at me by correcting and enforcing them, it was basicly turning the other verbal cheek. It worked wonders, as the verbal abuse stopped after a few days. But it didn't make me a real christian. It just made me a smug teenager.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[AlecC]

I went to explicitly Christian schools for ten years. My mother was a believing Christian until her death. I did my share of Bible study.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[tehcyder]

If you go to the middle east and offend a Muslim (that is, engage in Blasphemy) you will most likely get your throat cut.

If you go to the US and offend a Christian (that is, engage in Blasphemy) you will most likely get your head shot off.

That's one baseless anecdote each, so it's a tie!

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[tehcyder]

I'm laying 50=50 odds that Iran lights off a nuke on someone.

What, on the basis that they are Muslim, and therefore insane? So why haven't Pakistan done anything yet?

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[tehcyder]

My generalizations are derived from empirical data...lets start with 9/11.

9/11 was an act of political terrorism, not an example of the average Muslim reaction to being offended, you stupid fuck.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[tehcyder]

If someone tried to "forgive" me for being gay, having sex outside marriage, or whatever other tribal taboo they've dredged up from the Bible, I'd deck the fucker.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[mcgrew]

Funny thing is, my DnD group is closer to a solid fellowship than any "church" I've ever been to.

Then your DnD group IS your church. "Whenever two or three are gathered together in my name, I will be there."

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[mcgrew]

Being a Christian isn't easy.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[Gonoff]

In other words, Christianity is not a True Scotsman.

I however am. As far as I know, there is no photographic proof of this though!

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[Stuarticus]

What about the 100,000 minimum that have been killed in Iraq on the latest crusade?

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[Gonoff]

Why do right wingers think gays' sins are any worse than their own?

A major facet of Christianity is that all sin is bad. Saying that they only do small sins is like someone saying that she is "only a bit pregnant".

Also, many of the people that talk about other peoples sins the most seem to forget their own.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[highphilosopher]

Nope that's fact. White males between the ages of 25 and 50 is the only group that you can legally discriminate against in this country.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[Machtyn]

The TEA Party doesn't want zero taxes, it wants less spending and less taxation. Would it be so bad to have a balanced budget and even start paying down the $16,000,000,000,000+ debt?
Universal health care. Yes, Christ did do it for free. He could also make an olive tree grow and give him fruit. He also wasn't forced to do it. He was no slave.
Welfare? Again, it's the whole being forced by the government under penalty of jail time that we're against. Plus, I can't think of a more inefficient and corrupt system than government to handle welfare. We have millions of people making "welfare" a lifestyle. I don't mind helping a guy, gal, or family down on their luck, helping them get on their feet and be productive again. I don't mind giving money to organizations that teach a man to fish, while giving them a fish for awhile, as long as they go and fish on their own at the end of some period of time.
Abortion? Only rarely is it ever used to save the life of the mother. Most of the time it is a convenience killing.
Homosexuality. I was able to keep it in my pants until I was married. A lot of people are. I won't cast any stones, but I won't condone sexual deviancy either, whether it be between a man-man, woman-woman, man-woman, or whatever.
Finally, I think it's funny that a person will say they don't mind the religion, but can't stand the hypocrisy of the members. Look, we're all hypocrites. A Christian believes in being perfect, but knows that none of us are perfect. We strive for perfection, but fall short daily. And our sins are many, from sins of commission to sins of omission.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[AK Marc]

I know not who Martin Luthor was

Lex's lesser known little brother.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[AK Marc]

Do the same rules apply to Islam? Because it sounds more like you have been proven wrong 1000 times, but are just inventing a more subtle "no true Scotsman" construct.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[AK Marc]

The last words of someone out of ideas and arguments.

Sounded more like a guy fed up with your dodges and refusal to play by your own rules. Again, you post unsubstantiated opinion as fact, then, when presented with facts, you ignore them and repeat more unsubstantiated opinion as fact.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[cavebison]

more violence begin carried on today in the name of Islam than any other religion

Keep in mind most Muslims live in 3rd world countries and SE Asia - places like Pakistan and Indonesia where government isn't particularly progressive. The socio-economic and political situation in the places populated by most Muslims DOES have an effect on how people behave.

So, in that sense, you are bound to see a lot of repressions and violence in Muslim populations, simple because of where most of them live. Compare it with the behaviour of the majority of Muslims in Western countries, and then tell me if the rate of violence is higher among them than the wider Western population.

TL;DR: Don't be so simplistic as to border on ignorance.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[TranquilVoid]

And how is an outsider to distinguish between a Christian and someone just calling themselves one?

A good question and one that almost invites the No True Scotsman fallacy. On the other hand self-identification is also problematic.

From an individual perspective you, even as an outsider, could base it on your own understanding of Christianity, and similarly for Islam. Both have holy texts that are generally considered authorative. Because interpretations differ you have to supply your own standard, otherwise the definitions become so broad as to be meaningless.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[TranquilVoid]

A couple of things;

1. Christianity is defined more by belief than behaviour. While that belief may encourage certain behaviour individuals do not necessarily take on all encouraged behaviours.
2. "Do not judge" is referring to the absolute sense (of salvation). Christianity is/was a mix of moral standards (i.e. judging, "expel the immoral brother"), tolerance and passificism. I'd imagine (but don't know) homosexuality, for example, would not be tolerated by the early church. The circumstances today are quite different of course, where democracy and freedom-of-speech give everyone a voice.
3. I agree that the True Scotsman doesn't apply as Christianity has a less nebulous definition. You can see, though, why it is being brought up; being a Scotsman is not defined as being a citizen of Scotland but of having a certain set of idealised character traits.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[mcgrew]

The TEA Party doesn't want zero taxes, it wants less spending and less taxation

Federal taxes are lower than they've been since Truman, so what are you guys bitching about? Spending -- yes, we shouldn't have spent those trillions on two wars, one of which was inarguably based on lies and misinformation. Alaskan and Floridian bridges to nowhere? No, that shouldn't have been built. Note the Governors of both states are Republicans. Kinda hyopcritical, if you aske me.

Universal health care. Yes, Christ did do it for free. He could also make an olive tree grow and give him fruit. He also wasn't forced to do it.

If you're not offering health insurance to your employees, you're no Christian. If you're OK with people like my late friend dying from inability to afford health care, you're no Christian. If you think Christ would be against universal health care, you don't understand the first thing about his message. You can't possibly be compassionate and against universal health care.

Welfare? Again, it's the whole being forced by the government under penalty of jail time that we're against.

Jail time? You mean for not paying your taxes? Again, compassion for the poor -- there's none whatever in your post, and none whatever in the tea party.

We have millions of people making "welfare" a lifestyle.

Not since 1996 when PWORA was enacted.

I don't mind helping a guy, gal, or family down on their luck, helping them get on their feet and be productive again. I don't mind giving money to organizations that teach a man to fish, while giving them a fish for awhile, as long as they go and fish on their own at the end of some period of time.

Which is what PWORA did. So why do tea partiers still bitch about welfare?

Abortion? Only rarely is it ever used to save the life of the mother. Most of the time it is a convenience killing.

Christians are against abortion, but your sins are not my business. I have enough trouble with my own sins. I'm against abortion, but I'm more against meddling in others' lives. Odd that right wingers are against government meddling in their own lives but have no trouble with government meddling in others' lives.

Homosexuality. I was able to keep it in my pants until I was married.

You committed no sins whatever? AFAIK there has only been one person who ever did that, and he was executed by torture for your and my sins. Make no mistake, we're all sinners; me, you, the Pope.

And why do right wingers condone all the sin Gingrich has done? Why do you tolerate Gingrich but not Barney Frank?

I won't cast any stones, but I won't condone sexual deviancy either, whether it be between a man-man, woman-woman, man-woman, or whatever.

Nobody's asking anyone to condone it, just to tolerate it. Again, it's none of my business what other people do, their judgement is up to God, not me.

Finally, I think it's funny that a person will say they don't mind the religion, but can't stand the hypocrisy of the members. Look, we're all hypocrites. A Christian believes in being perfect, but knows that none of us are perfect. We strive for perfection, but fall short daily. And our sins are many, from sins of commission to sins of omission.

I couldn't agree more.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[mcgrew]

Christianity is defined more by belief than behaviour.

That's true, a Christian is someone who believes that Jesus is the Christ, son of the living God, their lord and savior who died for their sins. However, you know what Paul told the Corinthians.

Do not judge" is referring to the absolute sense (of salvation).

The exact phrase is "judge not, lest you be judged yourself."

And yeah, I understand why the True Scotsman was brought up, but it doesn't apply, as you point out.

Re:Sounds like a campus speech code

[mcgrew]

A major facet of Christianity is that all sin is bad.

Exactly. As I pointed out to my lesbian friend, it's as much of a sin for me to eat pussy as it is for her.

Also, many of the people that talk about other peoples sins the most seem to forget their own.

They also forget "judge not, lest ye be judged yourself."

filters

[Custard Horse]

Perhaps if we could set our own content filters this would solve the problem? I'm uncomfortable with others deciding whose nipples I can and can't see.

Re:filters

[Quakeulf]

Yes, they might just have really bad taste in nipples too!

Re:filters

[Dr. Manhattan]

That's part of it. But it's not like Facebook is obligated to carry stuff they don't like. They have a perfect right to be stupid and intolerant laughingstocks.

Re:filters

[PolygamousRanchKid]

"Nips! Or it didn't happen!"

Re:filters

[aevan]

You sure? 'cause that means you have to vette every nipple yourself, and you cannot unsee what you've seen.
Sometimes, sometimes it just might be okay to take that ashen faced pallor as trustworthy when your friend says, "You don't want to go in there". :P

Re:filters

[scared masked man]

1man1jar didn't do me that much harm - a nice swig of brain bleach and all was well again.

I'm sure I can take whatever the internet can throw at me.

(oblig.) /me sees your mum, decides otherwise. (sorry)

Obligatory XKCD

[Anonymous Coward]

http://xkcd.com/137/

Facebook is not "online culture"

[vlm]

Silicon Valley imagines itself as the un-Chick-fil-A

Eve’s bared nipples failed Facebook’s decency test

LOL facebook is for middle aged women to check every 15 seconds for new pixs of their friends kids or pix of their "fur babies" aka over pampered dogs, and teenage girls to sling insults at each other and compete about friend counts. Guys mostly post "blackmail pixs" for fun of their buddies throwing up, getting high, or getting it on with a landwhale.

"tits or GTFO" is not going to work on FB. Its middle aged woman / teen girl culture not online or whatever.

Now if you posted a nice rack on a "internet culture" area like 4chan or maybe a link here on /., that would more or less work.

Re:Facebook is not "online culture"

[jnelson4765]

Um, it's not just that. Me and my friends use FB for organizing social events - parties, performances, etc. The fire performance troupe I'm involved with does most of our organizing on Facebook too - we have jobs, and kids, and school, and live all over the area, so having quick discussions there makes life much easier.

Look, I go to Burning Man. I've seen more people naked than anyone short of a doctor or a nudist tour guide, and I have to say the ban on nudity on Facebook is a good thing. There are creepers out there who post pictures of people having a nude stroll. Without the subject's consent.

Being able to complain about it means that they get taken down.

Facebook is for real life, and some people (myself included) like having an area where there isn't soft-core porn all over the place. See, if I had to deal with that, I'd return fire with some of the better pictures from /r/gaybears - not everyone is into the same thing, and you get rather tired of being shown something you're NOT IN TO.

Re:Facebook is not "online culture"

[Sanoj]

Are you one of those "bro-grammers" we keep hearing about? I was convinced they did not exist but after reading your post I am not so sure.

Re:Facebook is not "online culture"

[mister_playboy]

Now if you posted a nice rack on a "internet culture" area like 4chan or maybe a link here on /., that would more or less work.

More or less? I'll opt for "more".

Re:Facebook is not "online culture"

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL facebook is for middle aged women to check every 15 seconds for new pixs of their friends kids or pix of their "fur babies" aka over pampered dogs, and teenage girls to sling insults at each other and compete about friend counts. Guys mostly post "blackmail pixs" for fun of their buddies throwing up, getting high, or getting it on with a landwhale.

Yeah "internet culture" is no place for insult-slinging or animal pictures!

Re:Facebook is not "online culture"

[jc42]

LOL facebook is for middle aged women to check every 15 seconds for new pixs ...

Maybe, but if so, this doesn't make sense. I know lots of middle-aged women, and I doubt if any of them would be offended by the cartoon in question. Small dots for the nipples in a cartoon outline of breasts is not anything I'd expect to offend any woman, except maybe the most inhibited sort of religious fundie types, and usually not even them.

How in the world could anyone at facebook thought this cartoon would offend (or sexually excite ;-) anyone except a real extremist?

And no, I don't think it was done by software without human help. We're talking about an image of a cartoon here. If the software is able to recognize a curved line with a dot somewhere inside, it would be giving false positives to half the images posted. The censorship has to have been OK'd by a human.

Maybe they were just "tweaking" the system, by OK'ing an image that, under the most extreme interpretation just happened to fit one of the more absurd of FB's censorship rules, with the hope that this sort of controversy would result. Enforcing some extreme "letter of the law" can sometimes be an effective way to get the "law" changed.

Re:Facebook is not "online culture"

[mcmonkey]

vlm's comment is already at +5, so I'll just ride those coat tails.

Facebook is not the web. The web is not the internet. You can see a lot more than cartoon nipples on the internet without too much effort.

I don't think it's a problem that some small percentage of the web is devoted to something other than pr0n. It's only an issue if those companies with restrictive policies get to decide the standards for the web and/or internet as a whole.

Re:Facebook is not "online culture"

[Qu4Z]

I was with you until you suggested 4chan as a center of internet culture.

Re:Facebook is not "online culture"

[vlm]

Well, its not telegraphy culture, or TV culture, or pretty much anything else ...and it IS on the internet, so...

If you don't like it...

[aicrules]

go use some other internets! Oh wait, you mean to say it's not the internets that is being censored? It's actually company or privately-owned websites that are accessed using the internet? And these companies and people who own these sites are able to set the bar for what is allowed on their site? There are many wonderfully open sites out there that will gladly let you post whatever you want despite you not being owed anything by them. Why is this a problem? And kerfuffle? Seriously?

Re:If you don't like it...

[Chrisq]

go use some other internets! Oh wait, you mean to say it's not the internets that is being censored? It's actually company or privately-owned websites that are accessed using the internet? And these companies and people who own these sites are able to set the bar for what is allowed on their site? There are many wonderfully open sites out there that will gladly let you post whatever you want despite you not being owed anything by them. Why is this a problem? And kerfuffle? Seriously?

Because everyone knows that there are no alternatives to Facebook .... at least where your 1010 friends can discuss "Big Brother" and "Pop Idol" (but not "Big Brothel" and "Pop your blow-up doll")

Re:If you don't like it...

[joaommp]

Only ten friends? How sad :(

Wait, you have friends?!? Good for you!

Re:If you don't like it...

[aicrules]

Random "oops i took that number as binary because it only has 1 and 0 in it" joke...

Re:If you don't like it...

[Hatta]

Why are these companies censoring their sites? Because they don't want to offend their customers. But I find censorship offensive, and I might want to be their customer. If they care about avoiding offense to their customers, shouldn't I at least let them know?

Yes, they're well within their rights to censor anything they want on their websites. That doesn't mean it makes sense for them to do so, and it doesn't mean we can't complain about it.

Re:If you don't like it...

[DrgnDancer]

This guy isn't saying that these companies are violating the law, or that they should be somehow forced to change their algorithms. He's simply pointing out the hypocrisy of their advocating for free access to information while simultaneously directly and indirectly censoring the content they present. Whether the hypocrisy is a problem or not probably depends on who your are, what your goals are, and what level of censorship the company is presenting you with. Google for instance doesn't censor its results (except in rare cases where it's required to by law), but does censor indirectly through blocking certain search terms in auto-complete. Arguably that's a pretty mild and indirect form of censorship (you can after all simply type the your search terms out completely), and it may not bother many people. Facebook is more explicit in its censorship, but also arguably has a greater legal compliance requirement.

It's a discussion that's worth having, even if the most we can do about it is avoid or support companies that either support or reject our own opinions on the matter. It's certainly not as important a subject as some others, but it's not trivial either. It's worth looking at.

Re:If you don't like it...

[bickerdyke]

Censorship usually refers to limitations of free speech.

Setting and enforcing house rules is NOT censorship. From "free speech" you can not derive a right to speak (or write) in someone elses newspaper, tv station or website.

Re:If you don't like it...

[aicrules]

If saying "I take offense at this content" was the extent of a person's offense to some content, then they probably wouldn't be as concerned with doing it. However, since in many cases that offense tends to be taken to extremes such as lawsuits, and certain content being "allowed" to exist on a company's site actually has basis for legal action, then that leads to companies having to create policies that often have zero tolerance.

Re:If you don't like it...

[Hatta]

However, since in many cases that offense tends to be taken to extremes such as lawsuits

Awesome. How can I sue companies for offending me by implementing censorship?

Re:If you don't like it...

[Hatta]

It's censorship, no matter who is doing the censoring. It's only unconstitutional when it's the government. Censorship is simply the name of the act, and it's the same act either way. It's even censorship when you're doing it yourself.

Re:If you don't like it...

[chaos_technique]

Only A friend would have been even worse. Shame, really.

Re:If you don't like it...

[bickerdyke]

But it also considers self-censorship to be different enough from "ordinary" censorship to give it its own lemma: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship

I think we're at a point where we would need to decide on an authorative source for a definition first...

Re:If you don't like it...

[ultranova]

Setting and enforcing house rules is NOT censorship.

Of course it is, just not government censorship. And censorship - limiting the allowed topics of and positions in conversations - is harmful no matter the source, especially since more and more public spaces are actually commercial ventures.

From "free speech" you can not derive a right to speak (or write) in someone elses newspaper, tv station or website.

Of course you can. There's no inherent reason why power - which money is just a form of - shouldn't come with responsibilities. A popular enough website could certainly be deemed influential enough that allowing it to practice censorship causes a public harm. It's simply a matter of priorities.

Re:If you don't like it...

[jakimfett]

This is /. Binary number jokes are almost as obligatory as programming language elitism.

Re:If you don't like it...

[History's Coming To]

Thank you.

Yes indeed, you can say whatever you want on "the internet". That's why, for example, you can find child porn or incitements to murder all members of $religion or $politicalStance. Doesn't make it right, and you have to take personal responsibility for what you post, but yes, you can say what you want.

A Slashdot editor who confuses "Facebook" with "The Internet"? Really? Or is that just the obvious-mistake-to-draw-pageviews?

Re:If you don't like it...

[khallow]

What makes it hypocrisy? There's this thing called "context". Blocking sexual images is a cheap way to reduce porn surfing on company computers.

And there's a huge difference between "censorship" on a business's private machines which blocks what its employees are allowed to view only on those machines and "censorship" which blocks or removes content for anyone in an entire population. In the former case, the employee can always go home to view the content in question.

So I don't think there is hypocrisy here. And I sure don't believe there is a conversation worth having here.

Re:If you don't like it...

[aicrules]

File a lawsuit. It'll get thrown out and you'll probably get to pay the other party's legal fees and court costs, but you can file a lawsuit.

Re:If you don't like it...

[DrgnDancer]

First, we aren't talking about corporate porn filters on their own networks. In fact, at no point in the article or the summary is such a thing even mentioned. This is about the big technology companies that run the major sites used throughout the world: Facebook, Google, Twitter, Youtube, Amazon, and how they used filters and censorship on the customer facing side of their network (not their internal networks), despite their vocal public appeals for the net to be free and open. I don't see how you can possibly miss the hypocrisy. I'm not saying they're wrong, I'm not saying that some level of censorship is not probably necessary for them to dodge regulators, concerned parents, and prudes, I'm just saying there's a level of hypocrisy.

Doesn't bother you? Fine. It really doesn't bother me either, though there are a few places in which a few of these companies are skirting a line close to something that would bother me. Do I care that Google's predictive text searches won't complete the word "penis" for me? No, not at all. Would I care if Goggle simply wouldn't search for "penis"? Yes, I would and I'd start looking for alternatives.

Re:If you don't like it...

[khallow]

I don't see any difference. Employees can go home. Populations can migrate. It's only a matter of scale.

Ok, so you don't see "scale" as a difference even though that happens to be a good and huge reason why they're different. In the first case, it's a trivial matter to look at the content in a different place. A few minutes of travel, say, to an internet cafe or whatever. In the latter case, you're equivocating that modest burden with moving out of the country (and it would have to be to a country that would allow you to see that content).

Re:If you don't like it...

[khallow]

This is about the big technology companies that run the major sites used throughout the world: Facebook, Google, Twitter, Youtube, Amazon, and how they used filters and censorship on the customer facing side of their network (not their internal networks), despite their vocal public appeals for the net to be free and open. I don't see how you can possibly miss the hypocrisy.

Very easily it seems. There is no hypocrisy to see and I think this whole argument is quite phony.

I support adult entertainment in the real world. But I don't run a brothel or adult bookstore nor even shop at such places. Nor would I permit such facilities in my sandbox, should they become as unrestricted as I would like. Does that mean I'm a hypocrite?

Look Facebook and all those other businesses have sandboxes. It's reasonable that they exercise such controls on that as they see fit. And it's certainly compatible with their beliefs about the net being free and open, since the internet is not their sandboxes. There's no inconsistency here for hypocrisy to take root in.

Re:If you don't like it...

[bickerdyke]

Setting and enforcing house rules is NOT censorship.

especially since more and more public spaces are actually commercial ventures.

And THAT'S the root problem.

If moderators wouldn't have the possibility to enforce some board rules by deleting off-topic or banning trolls, every single forum would become 4chan. And whoever sets up a board gets to choose the topic, the netiquette and how strict it is enforced. It's a simple trade-off between not-censoring but still keeping signal-to-noise ratio high.

That's perfectly fine and it won't be a problem as there are _real_ public spaces where the rules allow for open discussion and are not the result of some private companys mainstreamed traget audience model.

From "free speech" you can not derive a right to speak (or write) in someone elses newspaper, tv station or website.

Of course you can. There's no inherent reason why power - which money is just a form of - shouldn't come with responsibilities. A popular enough website could certainly be deemed influential enough that allowing it to practice censorship causes a public harm. It's simply a matter of priorities.

You mixed up cause and symptom again.

No single website should become important enough that their publishing policy effects overall plurality of opinions.

And you didn't completly read my argument. I was talking about all media. Is there something that makes websites so special that they have to publish (in your opinion) every troll and stuff not matching that stations/site/papers policy? Would a TV station, if it became infleuntial, have to broadcast each viewers political rant? I don't think so. Or did Fox/ABC/BBC ever broadcast mine? No. Is this a limitation of free speech? I don't think so.

Re:If you don't like it...

[khallow]

No, I'm saying scale is not a good and huge reason at all.

And I'm merely pointing out the foolishness of that opinion.

How is that trivial? You're assuming every single part of the country is within a few minutes of travel to a connection (by what? Foot? Car? Now you're assuming everybody has cars or access to one), and that connection doesn't censor, using an ISP that doesn't censor.

When I first posted in this thread, I thought the story was about censoring by software in a employer's servers. At that point, one merely goes to machines that aren't part of that network. My assumption holds almost everywhere in the developed world where an uncensored internet exists.

Sure, one can with considerable effort contrive a situation where one can't access a non-censored part of the network (maybe you're on an oil platform deep in the ocean or something and completely beholden to your employer), but it's not going to hold for the vast majority of the developed world.

That's the same in your "trivial" case. Again, what if that Internet cafe censors too? What if your ISP at home censors? Censoring can happen anywhere along the line which you do not control.

Then there's no opportunity for your employer or whatever to be a hypocrite and we're well into the second case where the country is alleged to censor your internet access.

The complexity of the problem doesn't change with scale.

No, we see the contrary, that scale matters. But some of us choose not to recognize the difficulties and challenges that problems of large scale present over problems of small scale. It's like claiming that because you've figured out how to feed one person, then feeding one trillion people is not significantly harder, because it is just a matter of scale.

Re:If you don't like it...

[scared masked man]

Step 1: create a religion (or at least a new sect).

Then, you can either demand censorship to such a level that it becomes unsupportable, or demand that censorship itself be banned.

Re:If you don't like it...

[tehcyder]

And censorship - limiting the allowed topics of and positions in conversations - is harmful no matter the source, especially since more and more public spaces are actually commercial ventures.

What a load of bollocks. I'm sorry, but I do not want my children's Moshi Monsters forums (or whatever) to be full of people swearing and posting violent porn videos. There is a time and a place for everything (4chan).

Re:If you don't like it...

[khallow]

And every net cafe, every ISP is an employer.

A completely irrelevant observation since not every net cafe and ISP would employ me at the very same time. It's also worth noting that virtually no ISPs censor anyone except in places where they are required to.

Censorship is censorship no matter if a private employer does it, or a government does it.

A remarkably flawed assertion. Censorship of a private employer is easily circumvented in ways I already mentioned which usual involve a few minutes of travel. Censorship of a government, which is backed by true power, the barrel of the gun, well that's much harder to circumvent, usually involving leaving the country or doing something illegal. So government censorship is of a much different quality than censorship by an employer.

It's like claiming that because you've figured out how to feed one person, then feeding one trillion people is not significantly harder, because it is just a matter of scale.

No, you don't understand context. Feeding people is a completely different problem as network (Internet) censorship.

It's an analogy. It doesn't have to be exactly identical in order to apply. You were asserting that scale didn't matter. We see from this analogy alone that yes, it does.

The solution to this problem is the same for employees and populations: flee, or submit (or fight, but that would be irrational given the circumstances)

No, it's not. The employee can always just drive to a place where they can access that content and then return to work with no one caring in the least. A small inconvenience. While engaging in rebellion just to access content? Or leaving the country just to access content? Scale matters.

Re:If you don't like it...

[aicrules]

No guarantee you can successfully sue a company for allowing your child to see nipples either. But, if enough people filed lawsuits against a company for having an "offensive censorship policy" that company might actually change their policy. Just way more likely that someone would sue them the other way around, and so they hedge their legal bets.

Re:If you don't like it...

[khallow]

You're (falsely) assuming that employers will only censor their employees.

Not at all. I'm correctly assuming that ISPs and internet cafes don't censor their customers, who pay them money, like they do their employees. Because that is how it happens in the real world. I think you're wasting my time.

Re:If you don't like it...

[allo]

but how do you know, he thinks of a decimal ten?

Re:If you don't like it...

[aicrules]

That assumes the original request was constructive. Wanting to know how to win a lawsuit against a company that censors potentially offensive content following their terms of service? Not constructive.

Interesting

[Chrisq]

Some Google autocompletes are almost comical. Enter "peni" and you get "penicillin", "peninsular", and "panistone paramount". Who would have known that a small town cinema would appear to be more important to Google than the male organ!

Re:Interesting

[Aqualung812]

That's because digital wang comes along free with most searches. It is like the parsley of Internet search results.

Who orders parsley?

Re:Interesting

[Chrisq]

That's because digital wang comes along free with most searches. It is like the parsley of Internet search results.

Who orders parsley?

For more conjectures on the Parsley/Wang metaphor please ask Parsley Wang.

don't really or she'll be justifiably pissed at Slashdot

Re:Interesting

[TheSpoom]

Google knows the bad PR that would come with a kid looking up information on penicillin being presented with penis as a possibility. Of course, it wouldn't offend the kid (who would probably see it as reasonable), it would offend their PTA office-holding parents (who would probably just see dollar signs).

Re:Interesting

[L4t3r4lu5]

The scent of parsley is more pleasing on the breath than the meal you've just eaten, especially after garlic or onion dishes. Treat it like a mint.

Re:Interesting

[Chrisq]

The scent of parsley is more pleasing on the breath than the meal you've just eaten, especially...

... especially if you've just eaten wang!

Re:Interesting

[xaxa]

Google knows the bad PR that would come with a kid looking up information on penicillin being presented with penis as a possibility. Of course, it wouldn't offend the kid (who would probably see it as reasonable), it would offend their PTA office-holding parents (who would probably just see dollar signs).

I wouldn't be surprised if most of those searching for "penis" (only that) are children, and any searching for "penicillin" know how to spell penis, and what it is. A long time ago I looked penis it up in the big dead-tree encyclopaedia my parents bought me. Admittedly, that was a "children's" encyclopaedia, but I'm pretty sure it had a cross-reference to sex.

The Google search directs me to three Wikipedia pages, followed by a British sex education page (with a gallery of pictures, intended to reassure boys that they're normal), and an NHS "penis health" page. Seems fine to me.

Re:Interesting

[mcgrew]

That's because digital wang comes along free with most searches.

You mean your searches always come here?

Re:Interesting

[scared masked man]

I've no idea why girls aren't impressed by my 14" wang...

Re:Interesting

[TheSpoom]

Never underestimate the rage of irrational parents looking for a quick buck.

Re:Interesting

[L4t3r4lu5]

The scent of parsley is more pleasing on the breath than the meal you've just eaten, especially...

... especially if you've just eaten wang!

I defer to your obviously copious experience in that matter :)

Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

You can show any type of violence. You can't show any kind of nudity. And it's not the "digital culture" in general that imposes anything. It's the religious fundamentalists of the USA who are responsible. I think the world would be a better place if we allowed children to watch porn and didn't allow them to watch violence.

Captcha: morale

Re:Simple

[BVis]

Logged in to say this. The 'moral majority' (which is neither) has decided that they know what's best for the rest of us. They terrorize politicians into implementing 'decency' rules that reinforce this belief. They pay hordes of lawyers to sue media companies that don't toe their line.

They're a bunch of fundamentally insecure white males (and their chattel) that are so terrified of the concept of female sexuality that they move to oppress any expression of it outside of... well, actually, any expression of it at all.

Fundamentalist Evangelical "Christians" are a plague on the United States. Hopefully the drubbing their meat puppets took in the last election will disarm them a bit; if the politicians know they can no longer win elections just by pandering to the fundies, they'll stop doing it.

Re:Simple

[Mashiki]

That's funny, you might want to go look at what the "savior obama" has been up to in terms of throwing your freedoms into the fire while pissing all over the Constitution in ways that those "evil christians" can't do.

Re:Simple

[readin]

Is that true, if you post a picture of a person getting murdered it won't get censored?

Re:Simple

[dbc]

Really? Then why is it difficult to find a place that will allow discussion of firearms, and advertising for firearms? After all, those are protected by the second amendment. Seems to me the knee-jerk liberal left does a fair bit of censoring of their own. Campus speech codes are another prime example -- a product of the liberal left designed to shut out speech they don't like. Intolerance is rampant.

There are nanny-state apparatchiks of every stripe. The unfortunate fact is that too many in politics simply want to fire the current nanny and bring in a replacement nanny with a different set of rules. I'd rather dismantle the machinery of the nanny state and melt it down so that it can't be rebuilt.

Anyway, I think if you take dispassionate look at what kind of speech the OP article is complaining about having censored, you'll find it is a product of the same thinking from the liberal left that brought us "offend no one" speech codes. It's also driven by marketing -- PR and marketing people first start with an "offend on one" strategy and build from there. When a person takes offense at something, it is an indication of underlying intolerance. The root problem is the intolerance.

I'd like if the liberal left showed a little tolerance shown for my lifestyle. Like being able to build a ham radio tower on my own property without having to fight nuisance law suits about how it hurts my neighbor's view. Or legally trade legal firearm components with non-prohibited persons using the same venues where I can trade electronics.

Re:Simple

[misexistentialist]

I think you'll see that your cutting-edge progressives have their own ideas for restricting sex. Listen to a white woman talk about male sexuality...the Taliban have softer hearts.

Re:Simple

[BVis]

Yeah. You guys lost. Time to move on.

Re:Simple

[BVis]

#1, if you can't find someplace to talk about firearms with like-minded people, you're not looking very hard. Last I checked, the NRA was still a thing.

#2, Your right to put up a big ugly tower on your house ends at the rights of your neighbors to not have their property values driven down from an arbitrary desire of their neighbors. I'm sure you can find someplace to live where there are no such restrictions.

#3, again, I don't think you're trying very hard. There's this thing called "the Internet", which I hear they have on computers now. What venues are you talking about?

Re:Simple

[BVis]

Listen, man, just because YOU can't get laid...

Re:Simple

[BVis]

Your definition of a "drubbing" and mine must be different:

The president won over 300 electoral votes, and won the popular vote by 3 million votes;
The GOP won ONE of the swing states;
The GOP lost EVERY contested Senate seat;
Gay marriage referenda passed for the first time ever in multiple states..

I could go on, but you see what I'm saying. You do have a point, however, about the "much of the same" sentiment. I'm looking at that as better than the alternative.

Re:Simple

[dbc]

I could have predicted your reply. Pure NIMBY intolerance.

Re:Simple

[BVis]

I bet there are a bunch of things you wouldn't want your neighbors to put in their yards.

Re:Simple

[tehcyder]

I think the world would be a better place if we allowed children to watch porn and didn't allow them to watch violence.

Exposing children to pr0n is a form of emotional violence, unless you're of the paedophile persuasion.

Re:Simple

[tehcyder]

I could have predicted your reply. Pure NIMBY intolerance.

If you don't want neighbours to complain about your erecting monstrous structures next door to them, move somewhere where the neighbours are a few miles away.

In any sort of urban environment, people have to co-operate to make life tolerable, and the overall public good outweighs your right to be an arsehole.

Re:Simple

[Mashiki]

Time to grow up there buddy. And realize that those of us outside of the US who pay attention to American politics might have a sharper eye of what's going on than you.

Eve's bared nipples

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's all I wanted to see: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/cartoonists/stevens-cartoon%201.jpg

Re:Eve's bared nipples

[somersault]

... *facepalm*

Re:Eve's bared nipples

[Anonymous Coward]

What the first thing Adam said to Eve? "Stand back. I'm not sure how big this thing is gonna get!"

Re:Eve's bared nipples

[tehcyder]

What the first thing Adam said to Eve? "Stand back. I'm not sure how big this thing is gonna get!"

What's the first thing Eve said to Adam?

"Of course I came."

The original sin was lying.

The world today...

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems like the world took a wrong turn somewhere:
Showing violent acts, blood, gore, murder and suffering is totally acceptable (movies, tabloids etc.), but
if half a butt, boob or nipple is visible, it's deemed unmoral, wrong, destructive, offensive and so on...

I'd rather have my children gaze upon some exposed skin, or two (or more) people in a loving embrace/sexual situation, rather than a orgy of dismembered bodies, blood and gore.

Re:The world today...

[kilfarsnar]

It seems like the world took a wrong turn somewhere: Showing violent acts, blood, gore, murder and suffering is totally acceptable (movies, tabloids etc.), but if half a butt, boob or nipple is visible, it's deemed unmoral, wrong, destructive, offensive and so on...

I'd rather have my children gaze upon some exposed skin, or two (or more) people in a loving embrace/sexual situation, rather than a orgy of dismembered bodies, blood and gore.

It's an upside-down world we live in, isn't it?

Re:The world today...

[Saint Fnordius]

Actually, this is more the standard in the USA, where violence is tolerated more than nudity. In most European countries, the standard seems to be reversed: American television shows are considered extremely violent and not suitable for children, but you can see billboard advertisements for soap featuring mild nudity (anything except genitals, really). Other parts of the world like Saudi Arabia forbid even showing females in print, which caused a kerfluffle when Ikea photoshopped all women out of the Saudi version of their catalog.

The biggest problem, really, is that obscenity filters are oriented only towards Americans, since the USA has the noisiest "church ladies" and Tipper Gore wannabes (man, I am dating myself here!). The rest of the world is either not big enough a market to filter for, or tolerant anyways so there is no need for more restrictions. So the techies just do enough filtering to cover their asses and can't be bothered to actually maintain said filters, since that isn't really a moneymaker.

Re:The world today...

[readin]

Actually, this is more the standard in the USA, where violence is tolerated more than nudity. In most European countries, the standard seems to be reversed: American television shows are considered extremely violent and not suitable for children, but you can see billboard advertisements for soap featuring mild nudity (anything except genitals, really). Other parts of the world like Saudi Arabia forbid even showing females in print, which caused a kerfluffle when Ikea photoshopped all women out of the Saudi version of their catalog.

The biggest problem, really, is that obscenity filters are oriented only towards Americans, since the USA has the noisiest "church ladies" and Tipper Gore wannabes (man, I am dating myself here!). The rest of the world is either not big enough a market to filter for, or tolerant anyways so there is no need for more restrictions. So the techies just do enough filtering to cover their asses and can't be bothered to actually maintain said filters, since that isn't really a moneymaker.

My impression is that in America violence isn't much tolerated either. When was the last time you saw on TV someone getting shot in the head - for real I mean? When those Americans had their heads chopped off and videos of the event were posted on the internet, did you see the videos on your local news? When you see a car accident reported on the news, do they show the mangled body before its covered with a sheet?

I think the distinction often lies in whether what is being shown is the real event or a simulation. Movies constantly show "dead" people, but we know they're just actors and the people aren't really dead. Movies often show people getting out of a shower covered with a towel, but we know the actors have clothes on underneath. However, when it comes to reality people start to object. They don't show real dead bodies on TV. And they usually don't show people who really don't have their clothes on (although this has certainly changed a lot over the last few decades). In both cases I think the reason is not just what is seen, but what goes into creating the image. The only way to make a photo of someone without clothes is to have someone remove their clothes in front of the film crew. This is generally considered bad for the person doing so particularly if is a young women (as it usually is). Some people believe it is ok, but we also know that a lot of women who do this sort of thing early in life later regret it. On the other hand, simulated violence on TV doesn't require the actors and actresses to engage in actual violence.

Re:The world today...

[Saint Fnordius]

Ah, but the ratings for violence are different between, say, Germany and the USA. Something considered PG in the United States might get a FSK16 (similar to R) rating in Germany due to violence. On the other hand, a movie that was shown in Germany with a FSK12 (analogue to PG or PG13) would get an R in the States due to mild nudity. That was my point.

Re:The world today...

[tehcyder]

(man, I am dating myself here!)

That's OK, you're on slashdot, we take whatever "dates" we can.

Re:The world today...

[tehcyder]

My impression is that in America violence isn't much tolerated either. When was the last time you saw on TV someone getting shot in the head - for real I mean? When those Americans had their heads chopped off and videos of the event were posted on the internet, did you see the videos on your local news? When you see a car accident reported on the news, do they show the mangled body before its covered with a sheet?

I don't feel the need to see people being shot in the head, decapitated or mangled in a car crash to follow what the news is about, especially if my kids are watching too.

Most people feel the same, which is why most TV news is "censored" like this.

Re:The world today...

[readin]

Then perhaps it is Germany that is screwed up in that it overreacts to fake violence.

Re:The world today...

[readin]

But in at least one country I know of such images are not similarly censored.

Re:The world today...

[Macgrrl]

So, what I'm hearing is American's can't deal with reality. That would explain the uptake of 'reality TV' I suppose, there ain't nothing real about that pile of fetid dingoes kidneys.

You think this is new?

[L4t3r4lu5]

"We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because it's obscene."
- Colonel Walter E. Kurtz, Francis Ford Copolla's Apocalypse Now!

What about sexualised imagery (not just the videos; Some of the lyrics are plainly obscene) in pop music, when showing just a boob gets a show an adult cert in the US. Not a problem seeing real boobs at the beach, though!

Re:You think this is new?

[ATMAvatar]

"If you suck on a tit the movie gets an R rating. If you hack the tit off with an axe it will be PG." Jack Nicholson

What's particularly disturbing is that the prudism is getting worse over time. A good example is the original Andromeda Strain. It has a G rating on it, but features (briefly) a naked woman in it. Were it to come out today, it would get an instant R rating for that scene alone.

Re:You think this is new?

[Anonymous Coward]

if a president is responsible for the deaths of 1000 of people, is fine... if he fucks his staff... whoo hold on

Re:You think this is new?

[MozeeToby]

The rating system was wildly different when the first Andromeda Strain was released. The film was released to theaters in 1971, but I'd be willing to bet that the MPAA applied its 'G' rating the year before in 1970 when the only choices were G(eneral audiences), M(ature audiences), R(estricted), X. And the nudity in Andromeda Strain is fleeting and utterly non-sexual, even today it wouldn't force the movie out a PG rating. At absolute worst Andromeda Strain would land a PG13 rating today (a rating that simply didn't exist at the time).

Re:You think this is new?

[cpghost]

"We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because it's obscene." -- Colonel Walter E. Kurtz, Francis Ford Copolla's Apocalypse Now!

Mod parent up please! "Make love, not war" ceased to be a popular slogan a long time ago. One wonders why?

Re:You think this is new?

[Saint Fnordius]

I have a problem with claiming that the Colonists were Christians, mostly because of the whole Pilgrims mythology that ignores the more profit-oriented attitudes in Virginia and the other plantation colonies. Most of those coming to the Americas were more interested in making a pile of cash, not in the vaunted religious freedoms. I would have to go do some research again, but IIRC this elevation of the New England colonists over the Virginians came with the US Civil War, bringing with it the reinvention of the Thanksgiving holiday.

The current power of the prudes is more based upon an aphorism that Ben Franklin once put in Poor Richard's Almanac: the squeaky wheel gets the grease. They might not be more than a vocal minority, but boy, are they vocal! No wonder they have gotten their way for so long.

Enough ranting for today. :)

Re:You think this is new?

[readin]

Regarding Mr. Nicholson's quote: I don't think the latter would be PG. A simulation of it might be PG. I mean, if you use special effects to make it look like an axe is cutting off some part of a person's body it might be PG. It would likely depend on the graphicness of the depiction and the quality of the special effects. However if you filmed it for real it would certainly be at least an R.

I think the same applies to the former part of his comment. If it is only simulated with special effects and doesn't actually occur, it might get a PG or it might get an R depending on the clearness of the view and the quality of the special effects.

Re:You think this is new?

[Rakarra]

What's particularly disturbing is that the prudism is getting worse over time. A good example is the original Andromeda Strain. It has a G rating on it, but features (briefly) a naked woman in it. Were it to come out today, it would get an instant R rating for that scene alone.

Or Walt Disney's G-Rated Fantasia:
http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/night-on-bald-mountain?before=1337222899 (the furies in Night on Bald Mountain were bare-chested, as were the centaurettes in the opening of the Pastoral Symphony).

Re:You think this is new?

[tehcyder]

Unless you are some sort of weird psycopath, you must realise that violence in feature films is all simulated.

A film of a tit deliberately being hacked off wouldn't get a certificate at all, it would land the filmmaker in jail.

Yet everyone likes to look at boobies

[cod3r_]

While it's censored on one site most people have at least 2 other tabs open with boobies..

Chick-fil-A is pro-censorship? Since when?

[sco08y]

A bastion of openness and counterculture, Silicon Valley imagines itself as the un-Chick-fil-A.

When has Chick-fil-A ever called for censorship? Last I checked, progressives were abusing government power to silence Chick-fil-A, not the other way around.

Re:Chick-fil-A is pro-censorship? Since when?

[aicrules]

Summary writer is clearly a progressive bomb thrower. Maybe not actually a progressive him/herself, but the whole summary is meant to be pot shot after pot shot at conservative ideals while trying lamely to appear as a real discussion on the topic. The use of the term kerfuffle sealed this assessment for me. Tries to sound like a terminally serious issue that evil people like Chik-Fil-A are on the wrong side of and then uses the term kerfuffle which, RIGHTLY, puts the topic back in the "no one really gives a shit about this because it's not actually an issue" category.

Re:Chick-fil-A is pro-censorship? Since when?

[Mashiki]

When has Chick-fil-A ever called for censorship?

Never. Even when people counter protested them, they stood up against people who were being abusive towards them including the police. This is pretty much line and sinker material of the modern press. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to dig their head out of their ass.

Re:Chick-fil-A is pro-censorship? Since when?

[CanHasDIY]

A bastion of openness and counterculture, Silicon Valley imagines itself as the un-Chick-fil-A.

When has Chick-fil-A ever called for censorship?

Well, I don't know if you would call it 'censorship,' but Chick-fil-A does require their employees to respond to the phrase "thank you" by stating "my pleasure."

For maximum entertainment value when visiting a Chick-fil-A, make sure to thank the employees profusely. For everything.

Re:Chick-fil-A is pro-censorship? Since when?

[tehcyder]

Fuck off, if someone opposes gay marriage and gay rights, they have to take the consequences, not hide behind their "right" to be evil arseholes without suffering the righteous indignation of normal non-homophobic people.

You right wingers seem to think you should be given absolute liberty, while calling for the suppression of the liberty of others.

If you want to come out and say you hate X, don't be surprised when X hates you back, and doesn't stick to the school bully "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" argument beloved of fascists everywhere (until they get into actual power and start by silencing people's objections permanently).

Go tell that to 4chan.

[Noryungi]

Go ahead. I'll wait right here.

Related webcomics

The "un-Chick-fil-A"

[Revotron]

Sorry, I just can't approve of a company that doesn't support delicious chicken sandwiches.

But no, really - I see what's going on here. "We're tolerant of everything - unless it's something we don't find culturally acceptable." Yep, that passes liberal scrutiny.

Re:The "un-Chick-fil-A"

[tehcyder]

Sorry, I just can't approve of a company that doesn't support delicious chicken sandwiches. But no, really - I see what's going on here. "We're tolerant of everything - unless it's something we don't find culturally acceptable." Yep, that passes liberal scrutiny.

Being tolerant of something doesn't mean you have to agree with it, and nor does it mean you aren't allowed to discuss it or legally oppose it, on the basis that the original person's right to say what they like is absolute and shouldn't be dampened by the fear of possible consequences.

We the People killed free speech.

[concealment]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The original idea behind free speech was that no one could prevent you from making a political statement.

Then, by popular demand, free speech got cheesed out to mean "any public statement," whether relevant or not.

This blurred the line between important speech and everyday raging around with emotions through words.

Now, we the people see all speech as a matter of flavor. Don't harsh my buzz with your unkind words, man.

As a result, the free markets are responding and are removing words that generate expensive customer complaints.

They're removing them whether there's validity to them or not.

Good work, We the People.

Re:We the People killed free speech.

[dkleinsc]

The original idea behind free speech was that no one could prevent you from making a political statement.

Actually, it seems like the basic goal of the anti-Federalist faction (led by Thomas Jefferson, although James Madison was also involved) was to prevent a government from attempting to control thought. Of any kind. That's why freedom of religion, press, speech, and assembly go together: The idea is that a free person should be able to think what they will, believe what they will, and spread their ideas around by written word or speaking privately and publicly.

Then, by popular demand, free speech got cheesed out to mean "any public statement," whether relevant or not.

Who gets to decide what kind of statement qualifies as "relevant"?

Re:We the People killed free speech.

[dkleinsc]

Also 'we the people' was a public letter to a king.

Wrong document: The Declaration of Independence was the entire Continental Congress flipping off George III (which should be pointed out, came over a year after the fighting started). The Constitution (which starts of "We the People") was written 11 years later for the benefit of the then-bickering states.

Re:We the People killed free speech.

[OldeTimeGeek]

No, the original idea behind the First Amendment was to constrain government from restricting speech. It says nothing nor has anything to say about an individual right to do so.

Re:We the People killed free speech.

[LateArthurDent]

That's a pretty shitty and restrictive definition of free speech you have there. I want no part in it.

It's a pretty common definition, though. "Free speech for speech I approve of" is the definition of free speech most people hold.

Re:We the People killed free speech.

[Raenex]

Is "liberty" only important for political statements?

Re:We the People killed free speech.

[tehcyder]

Is "liberty" only important for political statements?

All statements are political, especially those which claim to be a-political.

Interesting cultural bias issue

[dkleinsc]

In parts of the Middle East, a woman showing her hair is considered harlotry, while in parts of Polynesia a woman going topless is not. In some areas of sub-Saharan Africa, women going topless is ok, but showing her thighs is obscene. If you're operating globally, who's cultural norms do you use for censorship? Because about the only pictures of women that are universally acceptable would have everyone in burqas.

It gets even more complicated than that: Do you allow Eve topless, but not the Virgin Mary? Do you allow Venus de Milo or Michaelangelo's David, but not modern nude art? If you allow nude sculptures or paintings, do you censor nude photographs? If you allow nude photographs, what's the line between works of art and porn?

Re:Interesting cultural bias issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I find burqas obscene.

Re:Interesting cultural bias issue

[ceoyoyo]

Everyone here seems to think this is a bad thing. I disagree. Facebook et. al. are just applying what the majority THINK is their moral code, strictly. Most parents don't want pictures of boobies posted where their children can see them. Fine - no pictures of topless women, drawings of Adam and Eve, or the Venus de Milo ( Aphrodite de Milos). Oh wait, that's not what you meant?

The summary says the policies are arbitrary. They're not. Just the opposite. And it exposes the ridiculousness of our double standards.

Re:Interesting cultural bias issue

[kilfarsnar]

Kinda shows you how arbitrary it all is, eh?

Re:Interesting cultural bias issue

[Culture20]

Because about the only pictures of women that are universally acceptable would have everyone in burqas.

And in cultures where burqas are the norm, any picture of the human form could be idolatry. On the other end of the scale, there's the (fictional) Ferrengi culture which would find burqas to be the pinnacle of obscenity.

Re:Interesting cultural bias issue

[N1AK]

Personally I find burqas obscene.

I was already going to respond by pointing out that there are plenty of racist cunts out there who'd bitch about burqa's; thanks for providing a well placed example. For the sake of avoiding indignant responses, I appreciate that some people object to burqa's on idealogical grounds to do with oppression of women and not because of it's link to Islam.

Re:Interesting cultural bias issue

[dkleinsc]

And I want to point out that the only reason I brought up the burqa was not to suggest that they're right or wrong, but merely to point out that a lot of people incorrectly think that Western standards of obscenity are universal, when they definitely aren't.

Actually, they're not even universal within the US: What's totally acceptable at the Folsom Street Fair is completely unacceptable in Amish country.

Re:Interesting cultural bias issue

[Raenex]

Funny, somebody says they find burqas obscene, and you acknowledge that oppression to women may be a valid reason, but then you immediately assume its racism. The problem is with you, not the parent post.

I find burqas dehumanizing and repulsive. The human face is one of the fundamental instruments of society, allowing both expression and identification.

Re:Interesting cultural bias issue

[snadrus]

When some natural subset of the population is required (by government, friends, religion, etc) to express themselves less than others, that's oppression.

Re:Interesting cultural bias issue

[Anonymous Coward]

And even if it's about Islam: So what?
I can't be against a retarded ideology just because many people believe in it? By criticizing ideas, I am now considered a racist? Oh boy, that sure makes a lot of sense.

Re:Interesting cultural bias issue

[chrismcb]

oppression of women and not because of it's link to Islam.

It isn't exactly about the oppression of women, but it is rather blaming women for men's sins. See, it is a sin to be tempted. So rather than blaming the man for being tempted, they blame the women for being a temptation, and make them cover up.

Re:Interesting cultural bias issue

[tehcyder]

Funny how burqas bring out the otherwise extremely well disguised feminism in most slashdotters.

Re:Interesting cultural bias issue

[tehcyder]

Everyone here seems to think this is a bad thing. I disagree. Facebook et. al. are just applying what the majority THINK is their moral code, strictly. Most parents don't want pictures of boobies posted where their children can see them. Fine - no pictures of topless women, drawings of Adam and Eve, or the Venus de Milo ( Aphrodite de Milos). Oh wait, that's not what you meant?

The summary says the policies are arbitrary. They're not. Just the opposite. And it exposes the ridiculousness of our double standards.

Most people don't care about pictures of breasts as such. As you say, there are plenty of works of art with naked female flesh in them. However, that doesn't meran there is no difference between the Venus de Milo and a porn video.

Re:Interesting cultural bias issue

[Raenex]

Funny how umbrella issues like "feminism" aren't an all-or-nothing proposition.

Re:Interesting cultural bias issue

[ceoyoyo]

Sure, but you can logically describe why it might be bad to show a porn video to your kids versus pictures of the Venus de Milo. If you can describe it logically, you can tell an algorithm (or a poorly paid Indian who has to look at nasty Facebook pictures all day) how to differentiate.

Can you describe the moral (or practical) difference between, say, The Three Graces, and a still from a spring break or Mardi Gras party?

Re:Interesting cultural bias issue

[scared masked man]

If they're doing the right thing for the wrong reason, does it matter?

Re:Interesting cultural bias issue

[scared masked man]

Ah, but if it weren't for Eve, the men wouldn't be tempted, so it is still women's fault. ;)

Not algorithmic

[Ronin441]

That bared nipple in a cartoon thing? Not an algorithm (at least not one implemented on a computer) -- that was censored by a plain ol' minimum-wage human.

"Water" and "I don't know"

[cerebralpayne]

Those are the things you can't say. Not without getting soaked, anyway.

Cost

[bill_mcgonigle]

Many more people will complain about offences to their Victorian sensibilities than will complain about removing cartoon nipples. So, these policies keep their administrative costs lower. If you want this to change, attack their cost assumptions. Complain about their intolerance. I'm not typically one to advocate for being a complainer, but if these companies are putting in systems based on complainers, then those are the rules as constructed. Worst case: the rules about complainers are decommissioned.

The main problem with that strategy is that tolerant people tend to not be complainers. You won't find a Million Moms against Intolerance marching on the Capitol. But as the saying goes, "only be intolerant of intolerance."

The other approach is to accept that these services will reflect the Xth percentile opinion and the only way to change that is to change the X position in society. I can't see kids raised on today's Internet being particularly offended by cartoon nipples when they're in their 50's.

My hope is that we can move to a society where posting a war photo of a blown up baby isn't more socially acceptable than posting a picture a baby being born.

Re:Cost

[mdm42]

I am in my 50's, you insensitive clod!

And not at all offended by nipples, nudity, whatever. But then I not a Merkin...

The world doesn't revolve around the geek.

[westlake]

Silicon Valley imagines itself as the un-Chick-fil-A. But its hyper-tolerant facade often masks deeply conservative, outdated norms that digital culture discreetly imposes on billions of technology users worldwide.

Silicon Valley is tech. It enables. But it is not in control. There is no such thing as a unified "digital culture."

Online communities --- like any other --- form around people who share the same interests and values. The geek is not always going to like what he finds out there.

Re: The world doesn't revolve around the geek.

[cold fjord]

The geek is not always going to like what he finds out there.

In related news, the city of San Francisco, a mere 40 miles from Silicon Valley, is considering a ban on public nudity in reaction to the infamous (minimally pixilated, but still may be NSFW) San Francisco naked protests.

San Francisco's Congressional representative, Nancy Pelosi, has made no comment.

Re: The world doesn't revolve around the geek.

[tehcyder]

Warning! No boobies in the links above.

If you click again on the uncensored version you just get a lot of limp cock shots and grey beards. Still, whatever turns you on...

Yes We Can

[rossdee]

That

There I just did.

Re:NIPPLES HAVE NO BUSINESS BEING SEEN !!

[joaommp]

nipples should be allowed on the grounds that their images are teaching materials in interface design learning.
"The only intuitive interface is the nipple. Everything else is learned"

How about technical terms!

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps if we could set our own content filters this would solve the problem? I'm uncomfortable with others deciding whose nipples I can and can't see.

I can't tell you how many times I have tried to post something only to have it marked "[Censored]"

Words like: "orifice", "petcock", and other words that are used everyday in polite company.

I don't know what software these websites are using (ericthecarguy.com, finehomebuilding.com) but their forums block the most innocuous shit. And it's not like automechanics and construction workers are known for their delicate sensibilities!

And if anyone is offended buy words like that, they really need to get a grip.

Re:How about technical terms!

[biodata]

Just be glad you don't live in Scunthorpe!

un Chick-fil-A?

[Anonymous Coward]

The un- Chick-fil-A?? Who did that company try to silence? No one at all.

"Digital Culture" has nothing to do with it...

[wildstoo]

The example in TFS is stupid. In what sense is technology or Silicon Valley responsible for the way in which information or opinion is suppressed?

Individual companies set their own content standards, tune their own algorithms and make their own bad decisions. There's no digital conspiracy here.

TFA complains about Google's selective autocomplete. What's the big deal? It doesn't actually stop you from searching for terms that will potentially turn up material that some people might find offensive. It simply makes you type the whole term yourself.

Basically, the article seems to insinuate that the companies implementing these filters are maneuvering to become our de facto moral guardians, deciding for society what is "good" and "safe" to read or search for. This is backwards. The companies are merely responding to the demands of an already easily-offended society.

Re:"Digital Culture" has nothing to do with it...

[scared masked man]

The problem is that as the law stands, companies are generally better of folding as soon as a herd of wild prudes appears rather than telling them to get lost. A company has far more to lose from some kid seeing something their parents don't like than they do for adding just one more little bit of censorship.

The solution could easily be legislative, if only the sane majority got together and resisted the double-misnamed moral majority. All we need is to create a total exemption for third-party content, unless the aggregator is providing any censorship. Scuh a law would have to be written to ensure that community moderation remained permissible white retaining common carrier status, and it would probably need to allow removal of anonymous content which has been determined by a court to be illegal in their jurisdiction without compromising common carrier status, but it would be possible. That way, you can have a censored, kid-safe, prude-safe site, but it would be safer to censor nothing and let your competitors get sued into oblivion as they screw up.

wtf is ...

[Martin S.]

wtf is un-Chick-fil-A some American cultural assumption and why is it so un-American?

Re:wtf is ...

[fa2k]

I had a Korean friend by that name

How old is Eve?

[Anonymous Coward]

If, in the picture, Eve is supposed to be even one minute short of exactly 18 then it would also be instant Child Porn. They would be instantly dragged off to jail and have their lives taken away from them.

They got off lucky only having their page blocked.

Re:How old is Eve?

[scared masked man]

If they're in the Garden of Eden (and, as they haven't covered their nakedness, they presumably are), they're both very young...

Re:Solution could be worse than the problem/

[Thud457]

I'm pretty sure the "algorithm" in question is to forward any reported post to human reviewer outsourced to Elbonia or wherever is absolutely dirt cheapest.
Who then applies their local norms.

more like a bad article

[poetmatt]

I'm disappointed with the article headline: acting like you can't say something?
Chick Fil-gay can and absolutely did say what they said. Freedom of speech is still alive and well, even if people don't like it (add NYT to that list for willingly censoring at the behest of the government). They simply deserved what they got in response as the market correctly responded. It's one thing to be against rights (which is repulsive to many, but still free speech), but it's another entirely to do what Apple does and willingly censor.
Why do people start with bullshit headlines when the article is also crap?

Re:more like a bad article

[Jane Q. Public]

The big problem here -- which the author of TFA is apparently not knowledgeable enough to recognize -- is that "fair use" has often gotten shut off. The filters might know that it's copyrighted material, but they don't know what constitutes fair use. That takes a human.

That's what happened to Neil Gaiman at the Oscars. That's what has happened so often on YouTube.

It isn't what people say -- and others object to -- that causes societal problems. It's when they are prevented from saying it.

Re:more like a bad article

[The Iso]

Chick Fil-gay can and absolutely did say what they said. ... They simply deserved what they got in response as the market correctly responded.

You believe they deserved massive free publicity and record-setting sales?

Re:more like a bad article

[poetmatt]

It's not liberalism, it's society at large being afraid to even stomach the idea that some things may be uncomfortable but are for society's own benefit. Not any different than the MAFIAA, honestly.

Chick-fil-a in San Jose is packed

[CQDX]

We have on Chick-fil-a here in Silicon Valley, just recently opened. Last time I went it was packed. Same with the ones I went to in L.A. this past Fall. People here didn't buy into the "lets villify and boycott Chick-fil-a thing". If anything, the boycott only increased business. Despite this being a very blue state, most people around here generally have the same morals and tolerances as the rest of the nation.

Re:Chick-fil-a in San Jose is packed

[Sique]

No, it's just a convenient place to eat. It has nothing to do with your morals, or as Bertold Brecht put it: First comes a full stomach, then comes ethics. (The Threepenny Opera).

Silicon Vally is not problem ...

[Infernal Device]

The New York Times got caught in the same filter that catches everyone else while posting in corporate forum. Their problem is that, for some misguided reason, they, being the NYT, believe that they have some sort of free speech rights in a private space. Facebook is not a public space - it's corporate-owned and controlled. It's private space, open to some members of the public to post in, but with whatever restrictions FB feels like applying.

But it does get counterproductively silly

[Dr. Manhattan]

It is kind of silly sometimes, though. For a relatively obscure example, the PS3 game "Infamous 2" allows users to create and upload their own missions, with text and cutscenes and everything. But the words are censored. Any word that's 'bad' in any language. For example, you can't use the word 'after' in your missions, because apparently it's a swear word in Dutch or something. Other censored words include "original", "cul", "pipe", and "bite".

(Although, if you spell it "aftèr" you can get through the block.)

Re:But it does get counterproductively silly

[Sique]

"After" is the german word for the asshole. And it's the formal one, used for instance in the biological description of animals (e.g. protostomia being the branch of the multicellular animals, whose mouth stays where it is an a new rectum breaks through - in this case in german, you would use the word "After" for the rectum).

"Algorithms" my pixelated ass

[Cid Highwind]

"Dour, one-dimensional algorithms" didn't decide cartoon nipples are taboo in Texarkana. People did.

Don't like it? Start making as much noise when something is censored as the prudes do when they see a bare boob on the boob tube.

Censorship's only a problem when

[T.E.D.]

...it happens to a New York media person, instead of by them like God intended.

The author has three examples for his "censorship" arguement: Facebook blocking a page containing cartoon nipples (but it was the New Yorker's page, so that's bad!), Apple asterixing out some letters in the name of a book, and various autocorrects not helpfullying filling out dirty words for you. That's it.

The first two are pretty damn obvious. iTunes and Facebook operate walled gardens. Monolithic control of the content, whether you like it or not, is exactly the problem with such systems. The only thing annoying about this is that Evgeny and his buddies at the Times saw no problem with this until it inconvienenced other New York media types like themselves. The obivious solution here, which I and a good portion of the rest of us here on Slashdot implement, it don't use them.

The third is just plain sillyness. Of course you don't want autocompletion software to fill out explitives for you. You have to look at how things fail here. Autocomplete is a prediction, but it isn't perfect, and the last thing you want is the damn thing changing innocuous words to one of the Carlin 7 when you are texting your family or employer. Duh.

If I want a "bad" word, I'll go through the effort to manually spell it. It's typically only 4 letters anyway. :-)

Oh, that's how boycotts work.

[earls]

Each side picks a day to go and not go and whoever has the most people on their side that day wins!

Thanks for clearing that up.

Re:Here you go.

[bickerdyke]

Not quite right: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDsQtwIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DxNApzUegikg&ei=wlqqUNycIcbfsgarroGYDQ&usg=AFQjCNFClfKjBVIJkBsBwOO4BX6JmK5p6w

Re:You think this is new? zuku

[Anonymous Coward]

Enjoy living in your ignorance and mindlessly repeating this tired old drivel. I have spent a lot of time in Japan, Taiwan, and China. There are not enough Christians there to make any difference. There is no culture there related to Christianity. Yet they have stricter rules for nudity than here (except an occasional billboard boob in Japan). It is even more controlled in China.

SF anti-nudity

[coyote_oww]

I think the "EW" factor of nude people using public seating (buses, park benches, et.al.) without any buffer is pushing the issue more than morality. The nude folks could disarm the issue by carrying a towel, but they have some militants who are refusing even that minor concession. So, its looking likely that nudity will be banned.

How they enforce it is another matter. How do you force someone to wear clothes? although, i personally would find the uncleanlyness of a jail cell motivating to provide some minimal something between me and it.

Re:SF anti-nudity

[scared masked man]

But even a cleanliness argument is silly: right now, I'm in the main shopping street in my city, and in the last half-hour I've seen three women walk by in swimwear which wouldn't provide any meaningful cleanliness barrier but which would meet a ban on nudity (if we had one, which we don't). In any case, I'm sure that even the average homeless guy isn't any dirtier than a typical park bench, complete with windblown dust, pigeon crap, and all the rest (or, for that matter, the ground).

For that matter, the cleanliness angle is only relevant if you're sitting on the seat near-naked yourself, which makes complaining slightly hypocritical.

If only politicians were actually trying to govern rationally, but I suppose that is too much to hope for.

Some should be Called Home

[RobertLTux]

the way you tell a True Christian is if they would invite you to a church function and not Publicly care about your "sin".

So if you can go to a church potluck and feel welcome then you have found Christians.

as far as your question Its a matter of Faith as to how much you can forgive personally i think that those Catholic Priests should have been Called Home because they flushed their Witness down the Loo.

And i also believe that the entire Westboro Baptist church should be Called Home

Re:Some should be Called Home

[Raenex]

It seems that everybody has their own definition of Christianity. I find yours to be a jumbled mess. How does not caring publicly about "sin" work with the necessity of prisons? You can't invite somebody to a potluck and church when they are locked up.

What does faith have to do with forgiveness? Are you saying Christianity allows having a spectrum of faith?

And when you saying these priests should have been "called home", is that your wish for divine intervention, or for people to enact justice with the death penalty?

And do these beliefs of yours come from an authoritative source, or do you just make up your own rules as you go along?

Re:Some should be Called Home

[RobertLTux]

i tend to be a bit more practical than most hence the Mess

Obviously somebody being in prison would prevent them from getting to your church but if you have a prison ministry then you can't "pick and choose" who comes to those events (from the prison population).

The General Rule is Forgive and Forget (for the individual) but Faith comes in how far you can go with this. and yes Matters Of Doctrine differ from matters of Faith so there is a spectrum.

as far as Called Home goes that is a matter Left To God (so no brothers McManus type stuff) This can be considered more gripping that they "are of no use on earth so heaven can have them" than anything else.

Summary (and article) are flawed and misleading

[brunes69]

Silicon Valley is not the one enforcing these prudish rules. It is Washington and conservative interest groups.

Silicon Valley is not responsible for Facebook's porno filters any more than NBC is responsible for SNL being on a tape delay... it's because of fear of the FTC, not NBC.

My speech isn't free. I charge for it.

[TiggertheMad]

As an atheist, I for give your silly belief in invisible Jewish zombies and talking snakes. Its what we do.

Re:My speech isn't free. I charge for it.

[JackieBrown]

You are trying to prove Scottbombs post about how it is ok to make fun of Christians, right? But you and trum4u (plus whoever down-modded Scott) are doing a great job!

Re:My speech isn't free. I charge for it.

[TiggertheMad]

You are trying to prove Scottbombs post about how it is ok to make fun of Christians, right? But you and trum4u (plus whoever down-modded Scott) are doing a great job!

It is OK to mock Christians, and anyone else who believes in things they cannot prove. You want to tell me that invisible, intangible things exist? Be prepared for me to call bullshit. The emperor is naked, and I am going to say so.

Re:My speech isn't free. I charge for it.

[LoyalOpposition]

It is OK to mock Christians, and anyone else who believes in things they cannot prove.

Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that Gödel's First Incompleteness theorem proved that there exist true statements that may never be proven. So that suggests a question: Do you disbelieve true things, or is it OK to mock you?

~Loyal

Re:My speech isn't free. I charge for it.

[DMUTPeregrine]

The first incompleteness theorem applies only to formal systems. There are accepted methods of proof outside of such formal systems.

Re:My speech isn't free. I charge for it.

[TiggertheMad]

Yes, you may mock me for the indescribable truths that exist that I don't believe in. Please enumerate them explicitly that I may learn from your wisdom as you taunt me. Proving the existence of god is not a matter of untangling the limitations of some arbitrary linguistic system, and suggesting as such is nothing more than verbal masturbation.

Re:My speech isn't free. I charge for it.

[tehcyder]

It is OK to mock Christians, and anyone else who believes in things they cannot prove.

Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that Gödel's First Incompleteness theorem proved that there exist true statements that may never be proven.

There are true statements that can't be proved ("I love you") and false statements that can't be disproved ("there is an invisible massless flying teapot orbiting the Earth"). Big deal, neither of those say anything about the plausibility of an invisible fucking sky fairy directing the universe.

Re:My speech isn't free. I charge for it.

[rocket rancher]

It is OK to mock Christians, and anyone else who believes in things they cannot prove.

Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that Gödel's First Incompleteness theorem proved that there exist true statements that may never be proven. So that suggests a question: Do you disbelieve true things, or is it OK to mock you?

~Loyal

Uh, epic fail. Godel's theories on undecidable propositions only hold within the formal systems within which they are created. There exist perfectly valid ways to decide these kinds of propositions outside the formal system. Godel's method of proof of the Incompleteness Theorem itself should have been enough to establish that for you. So that suggests a question for you: Do you actually understand why what you are asserting is false, or is it OK to mock you for your ignorance?

Re:My speech isn't free. I charge for it.

[RaceProUK]

You want to tell me that invisible, intangible things exist?

Like light?

Re:My speech isn't free. I charge for it.

[LoyalOpposition]

The first incompleteness theorem applies only to formal systems. There are accepted methods of proof outside of such formal systems.

Actually, no. Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem applies to any "sufficiently strong system." As it turns out, "sufficiently strong" isn't very strong at all. Your logic system merely has to have the ability to describe the natural numbers, it has to have addition, it has to be able to associate numbers (for example, to have the pair (2,-1)), and that's about all. If your logic system has those abilities, then it has true statements in it that can never be proven within the system.

~Loyal

Re:My speech isn't free. I charge for it.

[LoyalOpposition]

Yes, you may mock me for the indescribable truths that exist that I don't believe in.

Well, I wasn't really discussing indescribable truths. Is your offer also open for describable truths?

Please enumerate them explicitly that I may learn from your wisdom as you taunt me.

Strangely, there are an infinite number of them, making them non-enumerable. That's beside the point, really, though. You stated that you didn't believe in anything that was without proof. I showed that there exists a thing that's true, but that cannot be proven, and gave you a link where you could find more information. The ineluctable conclusion is that there exists something that's true, and in which you don't believe it's true. Now, if I have made a logical error, I would invite you to show me where it is.

Proving the existence of god is not a matter of untangling the limitations of some arbitrary linguistic system,

Wow! That's an extraordinary claim! Do you have some proof that it's true? What am I saying! Of course you have proof that it's true. You already told me that you don't believe in anything without proof. Would you be willing to share that proof with me?

~Loyal

Re:My speech isn't free. I charge for it.

[LoyalOpposition]

There are true statements that can't be proved ("I love you") and false statements that can't be disproved ("there is an invisible massless flying teapot orbiting the Earth").

So, if I understand correctly, you are going to a great deal of effort to convince me that you believe things that have no proof?

~Loyal

Re:My speech isn't free. I charge for it.

[LoyalOpposition]

Godel's theories on undecidable propositions only hold within the formal systems within which they are created.

That's not correct. As I tell DMUTPeregrine above, Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem applies to any sufficiently strong logical system. I go on to tell him that "sufficiently strong" turns out not to be very strong at all. If you're curious, then you can read what I posted to him to get more information.

There exist perfectly valid ways to decide these kinds of propositions outside the formal system.

Quite true. Unfortunately those other logic systems are also either incomplete or inconsistent. It seems hardly worth saying that proving one incomplete or inconsistent logic system using another incomplete or inconsistent logic system is a mighty thin reed to place your faith in.

Do you actually understand why what you are asserting is false, or is it OK to mock you for your ignorance?

No, I don't. I suppose it's OK to mock me for my ignorance. While you're doing that, would you care to explain why what I'm asserting is false? I'm eager to get rid of my ignorance.

~Loyal

Re:My speech isn't free. I charge for it.

[JackieBrown]

You can find a reason to mock any group of people. It doesn't mean that you should.

Re:My speech isn't free. I charge for it.

[cavebison]

Speak for yourself!

(That's also what we do.)

Re:My speech isn't free. I charge for it.

[cavebison]

There are true statements that cannot be proven, but that does not mean every unproven statement is true.

The preponderance of evidence suggests there is no external *moral* entity (as least for human values of "moral") influencing events in the universe. Darwin observed as much about Ichneumonidae. One could argue that as evidence for God's absence - as opposed to lack of evidence of his presence.

Religious people, who do not take such arguments into consideration, are naturally open to mockery by those who do.

Anyway, that is just the nature of faith. You have it, or you don't. It can't be rationalised. One can also argue that faith serves many useful purposes in culture and society - or at least did at some point. Otherwise, why would so many human beings have an instinctive affinity to it? Faith is obviously an evolutionary strategy on some psychological level.

In my opinion, atheists who do not take such arguments into account are naturally open to mockery by those who do. :)

Thou shall not munch thy neighbor's rug!

[TiggertheMad]

She felt bad about being a lesbian, so she was automatically forgiven.

Except, being a lesbian isn't a sin. So why would she be forgiven for something that isn't a sin and is simply a product of other Christians' sexual hang-ups....?

Re:Thou shall not munch thy neighbor's rug!

[mcgrew]

True, being a lesbian isn't a sin, she's how God made her. But you see way too many so-called "Christians" saying "God hates fags". The fact is, God loves gays, he just doesn't like sodomy. Being gay isn't a sin, the sodomy is. Like I said, I pointed out to her that it was as much a sin for me to eat pussy as it is for her.

Re:NIPPLES HAVE NO BUSINESS BEING SEEN !!

[chrismcb]

Here you go: . .
Ohh sorry did you some nipples?

New Prudishness? No...it's decency.

[Chanc_Gorkon]

Listen....Facebook isn't just adults. Hasn't been for a long time now. You can't act like it is any more. I've seen kids as young as 9 with Facebook accounts (yes in violation of blah blah blah...).

The one strange thing I find with Facebook is the people who INSIST on swearing, posting risque pics and more. They act like everyone who might ever friend them would like what they post. Fortunately my friends don't do this often. The real problem is on product pages. I see swearing, threats of volence and other issues on product pages like Chevy's! A product page is not your personal graffiti board! Not everyone wants to see that stuff and I SURE as heck don't want my son to see it.

I put it this way.....would you paste a pic of your naked wife on your front door? When you do that on Facebook....depending on your settings....THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING!

Facebook=public.....if you go that route when you post stuff....even if just to your friend list....then you probably won't have any issues.