Slashdot Mirror
Norway's Largest Newspaper Accuses Mark Zuckerberg of Abusing Power After Facebook Deletes 'Napalm Girl' Post (theguardian.com)
An anonymous shares a report on The Guardian:Norway's largest newspaper has published a front-page open letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, lambasting the company's decision to censor a historic photograph of the Vietnam war and calling on Zuckerberg to recognize and live up to his role as "the world's most powerful editor." Espen Egil Hansen, the editor-in-chief and CEO of Aftenposten, accused Zuckerberg of thoughtlessly "abusing your power" over the social media site that has become a lynchpin of the distribution of news and information around the world, writing, "I am upset, disappointed -- well, in fact even afraid -- of what you are about to do to a mainstay of our democratic society. I am worried that the world's most important medium is limiting freedom instead of trying to extend it, and that this occasionally happens in an authoritarian way," he said. The controversy stems from Facebook's decision to delete a post by Norwegian writer Tom Egeland that featured The Terror of War, a Pulitzer prize-winning photograph by Nick Ut that showed children -- including the naked 9-year-old Kim Phuc -- running away from a napalm attack during the Vietnam war. Egeland's post discussed "seven photographs that changed the history of warfare" -- a group to which the "napalm girl" image certainly belongs.
If Facebook is considered a 'mainstay of democratic society' you know the news media is complete fucking disconnected from reality.
Categorising one of the most important images of the 20th century with child pornography is a problem. A big one.
This has repercussions to the very roots of a free and informed society.
I am no fan of Facebook and their communist leanings, but do people really think it's Zuckerberg sitting at his desk clicking a "nix" button on these things? It's some hipster making 15 bucks an hour reading through a word document that tells them how and what to do.
Categorising one of the most important images of the 20th century with child pornography is a problem. A big one.
This has repercussions to the very roots of a free and informed society.
Welcome to the world. Our press has become ever more tightly concentrated over the past hundred years and highly censored during every war, including the world war we are in right now. Oh did you not notice we have troops fighting wars in at least 5 different countries right now? During the Bush years the press was all too eager to support going to war and then oppose the war, then hide the war for the last 7 years once it was supposedly over. We have a fickle press, but not a free one.
Sure the Internet was great for a while, but those looking to control society have learned how to manipulate it to a great extent. And now we are back to having very centralized control of the press.
You know, you post constantly, and I kind of want to put together a collection of your finest moments which makes me sure you're about 13 years old, but yes, Facebook is allowed to choose what they want to show the public, and everybody else is allowed to call them out on what they choose to do. Do you understand that's how freedom works? Yes, you're free to do what you want, and I'm free to criticize you for it. And if Facebook chooses to act this way, and enough people voice their criticism, they can either change their ways, or risk losing a customer base.
Is what I'm talking about too complicated for you? And I'm speaking down to you, because I do think it would be worth your time to go back and re-read most of your posts and see how they make you come across as a very immature individual.
No it isn't. Even Italy has declared that certain things are off limits when they involve children.
You could turn this around and say "Internet lech complains that picture of naked little girl taken off of Facebook."
This is about decorum and not ideology. So the the cries of censorship are a little less meaningful. Facebook censors for content on a regular basis and gets a free pass for it. If you want to whine about something, whine about that.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The problem here is that Facebook want newspapers to publish on Facebook. Zuckeberg knows that Facebook need more than cuddly cats to survive long term. So maybe it is in his interest to listen?
Facebook is a private company. Facebook can "censor" whatever they want. There is no free speech issue. There is no first amendment rights issue. There is no journalistic duty to do anything... Facebook isn't a news source, it's social media. As much as I think it's stupid that the post was removed, because this clearly isn't child porn, watching people scream "Waaaaah, facebook deleted my post" turns my stomach. Grow the fuck up.
If you want to shock children about the Vietnam war, there are plenty of other photos to choose from. The summary execution of the Viet Cong partisan is a very good example.
The more I think about this particular picture the more I view that picture as being less about Vietnam than it is our "think of the children" bias that tends to short circuit any sense or reason. That goes for the picture itself as well as the objections too it. The Vietnam angle is really far less relevant.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
It was worrying to hear that Zuckerberg deleted the image, but then I found out something that I think everyone else missed: He only deleted it from Facebook. So it's missing from (approximately; I'm just rounding to the nearest percentage) about 0% of the web, but there's still the other 100% where Zuckerberg didn't touch anything.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Much as I dislike Mark Zuckerberg, the real problem is not him, nor Facebook, but the users who have made Facebook the " lynchpin of the distribution of news and information around the world..." I realize that Facebook is how a lot of people get their news, but the responsibility for that rests on the shoulders of the dumb shits who use it that way, not on Mark Zuckerberg. While Zuckerberg has made it clear that he would like for Facebook to become everyone's entire internet experience, that can't happen without the cooperation of the people using it.
Proverbs 21:19
The real issue here is the wide spread usage of Facebook as a news distributor. Media houses should let Facebook handle selfies and chat between friends, not the what and who of distributing news.
Facebook can censor, suppress or hype any news story using "algorithms" that nobody outside of the company can inspect.
Forget about voting for the senile old bastard. What about going out and doing something. They want a free unicorn pony and whine about the state of the world but do squat about it. If they really want a European lifestyle, they could reduce their amount of living space and give most of their income to the charity of their choice.
THAT would make an immediate impact and would not require the intervention of the government, or leader, or savior. It would (oddly enough) be closer to the communist ideal too.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
If Facebook is considered a 'mainstay of democratic society' you know the news media is complete fucking disconnected from reality.
Free and uncensored communication is the mainstay of democratic society.
Facebook just happens to be the medium that a very large fraction of people are using to accomplish this, right at the moment.
We must accept that it's time for Western Civilization to take a back seat.
Make us. Before you try, remember that we still have biggest sticks.
Last I checked it's a social networking site, NOT a NEWS SOURCE.
Despite the millions of users, it's a private company, not a government news source, they can censor if they want to. If it bothers enough of their users, those users will quit Facebook. ITts their site, they have no responsibility to provide an utterly open platform, nor have they ever claimed to. They take down porn, hate pages, etc.
Communist, really?
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Then it's even more tragic that apparently hipsters today don't know that iconic picture that was probably critical to the change in the public opinion on the Vietnam war. Not knowing this means not understanding how reporting in war zones works today.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This is very true! Zuckerberg had nothing to do with the removal of the photograph. It is some millennial, with a man-bun and a beard, looking at pictures and determining from some PDF Facebook policy manual whether or not a picture needs to be deleted. Said millennial probably didn't realize that this was one of the most historically significant pictures ever taken. He/She probably doesn't even know enough about history to be aware of said picture. It's not some fascist plot by overlord Zuckerberg to suppress freedom of speech. It's just a simple mistake made by someone who thinks they are following child pornography rules. God help us when the millennials are in charge of something more important than Facebook's photograph posting policy!
Dissemination of information based upon the feelings and opinions of the users to decide what is and is not 'news' is NEVER uncensored communication.
It cannot ever BE MADE to be uncensored. It is filtered.
If you're basing what you view as 'free communication' off of what is 'trending' that's a problem, and a HUGE one. The fact that people think this is a good thing is (in only my opinion of course) a travesty.
I am no fan of Facebook and their communist leanings, but do people really think it's Zuckerberg sitting at his desk clicking a "nix" button on these things?
According to my Jewish friends, Zuckerberg personally nixes all pro-Israel posts and approves all anti-Israel posts.
No it isn't. Even Italy has declared that certain things are off limits when they involve children.
Exactly. This is the problem when you have inflexible rules: a rule "no naked pictures of 9-year-old girls" sure sounds like a completely uncontroversial rule, one for which it's even reasonable to say "this rule has no exceptions; we just can't allow that kind of naked pictures on our site."
The difficulty is that the opposite, approach, which is to allow human judgement to make exceptions to the rules, is just as bad, and just as subject to abuse.
It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for them. Making exceptions to rules on naked pictures of children is just as likely to give problems.
This picture we're talking about is a piece of history. That picture shaped what people felt about a war and it had a huge impact on the war itself, how it was waged and how it was seen.
Are you one of those rednecks that consider Michelangelo's David porn 'cause it's "just a stone guy with his wang out"?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Who gives a shit what facebook lusers believe? They're apathetic and live their lives according to that website and app. While they were all exited about Bernie Sanders, did they go out and vote in the primaries and support him in public? No. The just jerked each other off online. If they got off their asses and actually did something, Sanders would be the Democratic candidate.
Your statement is nonsensical, and holds speculative opinion at best.
And now, they are all hate'in Clinton so they'll use that as an excuse to stay at home on facebook and bitch and moan when Trump wins. And continue their circle jerk on facebook during his presidency. Rinse repeat in '20.
This is just purely political banter, and has no real merit on the article at hand.
And as far as the rest of the World's lusers, it's just people who don't have a life and do nothing to better their communities. Today's couch potatoes.
It's "losers" not "lusers". Internet dictionaries are free.
And everyone of them gets spoon fed information and advertisements while their personal information is being pimped out.
Sadly in the age of social media this is the world we live in. Get used to it.
LOSERS! facebook is for LOSERS!
This is childish at best.
The history US schools do teach, is also biased to seem patriotic to the point of straight wrong.
The history book I had in the early 1980's ended just before Watergate and President Nixon's resignation. The instructors made no attempt to explain what happened since then. I had to go to college to learn about the history they don't teach in public schools.
I would recommend against it personally as it looks more like child porn than anything else.
That is your opinion, hardly a good basis for determining what other people can see and hear.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Is what I'm talking about too complicated for you?
No, the opposite: you're too simple for me.
Your point is basically that censorship is bad when it's done by a government, but anybody else can do it, no problem. The real world is somewhat more complicated. If one particular channel for information is the dominant channel for information exchange, yes, it does matter if they are picking and choosing what opinions they allow to be communicated over their channel.
You may like to shout "freedom, freedom, corporations need to have freedom!" all you like, but in fact, what Facebook is doing, in censoring their information flow, is to take away freedom from their users.
With that said, I think that in this particular case, Facebook has a real reason for their actions. But the belief "it doesn't matter when they restrict our freedoms because we only care about it when the government restricts freedoms" is a poor argument.
+1 "Interesting"? Sorry that's +3 Funny!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
the belief "it doesn't matter when they restrict our freedoms because we only care about it when the government restricts freedoms" is a poor argument.
So, to coin a phrase: "All freedoms matter."
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Would that be your Jewish friends with the tinfoil yamakas by any chance?
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
You're assuming they've even heard of the vietnam war.
A Facebook spokesperson has given a written statement saying that they stand by their decision to censor the image. It is not "someone working for Facebook" who has decided it, it is Facebook's decision as a company.
You would know all this if you read the article, but I do respect your strict adherence to the ban on reading the article.
Computerized process, an automatic recognition program. Not a person.
Lay a nice helping of blame on the traditional media who have spent more time fighting the internet than adapting to it. Why aren't they, with decades of in-house experience, creating better systems than Silicon Valley?
Nope, no sig
saw a picture of a naked girl and thought, "Child Porn!!!
So, no concept of context then?
Have gnu, will travel.
the realization that you're right makes me profoundly sad...
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
I remember seeing that picture in a reader's digest. IIRC it is b&w or at least faded so it's not all that apparent initially that it's a girl on fire (and not in the Hunger Games way).
The picture want worth nearly as much to me as the article, which stated the pilot was told with certainty that the area was full of enemy combatants - not civilians - and when he found out the reality of quad he'd done he had to live with that guilt.
Pretty sure that - regardless of the picture's impact - there hasn't been much of a lesson learned there as such "mistakes" continue to happen. Hell, in Afghanistan the USA bombed a regiment of Canadians.
It's "losers" not "lusers". Internet dictionaries are free.
You mean, like the Hacker's Dictionary? "Luser" is in there. Even with that spelling.
"Luser" is ancient late-70s/early 80s computer jargon, an insulting word for the computer users, a portmanteau of loser and user. (Not acknowledged in the jargon files, but it originally stems from an anti-drug ad from the late '70s that got played ad nauseum as a public-service announcement on the radio, with the refrain "users are losers and losers are users.")
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I will agree, restrictions are restrictions... and I find them icky. However, my point was that there's nothing illegal about it.
I don't recall anybody suggesting that it was illegal. Undesirable, possibly-- but not illegal.
According to my Jewish friends, Zuckerberg personally nixes all pro-Israel posts and approves all anti-Israel posts.
And according to the typical internet trollbag, the opposite is true, and it's a Zionist conspiracy. What kind of name is Zuckerberg anyway? etc etc
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
There are probably lots of pictures that these people don't know or understand. My cousin who is much younger than I am didn't know what this picture was even though it is one of the most recognizable photos of the 20th century. He asked me about it when there was some promotion for the Minneapolis institute of Art (I think it was them) on photography that used it extensively several years back. How many of those people would know about the napalm girl photo, the self immolating Buddhist monk, and General Nguyen Ngoc Loan executing a Viet Cong prisoner in Saigon, well maybe the last one as it has become an internet meme.
Time to offend someone
Yep, our wonderful school systems in action.
It also may have to do with millennial mind thought that "I don't have to learn anything, I can always Google it..."
So, there is no learned history would have put this photo into context, at least enough for them to look into it further.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
What kind of name is Zuckerberg anyway?
Zuckerberg Name Meaning Jewish (Ashkenazic): ornamental name composed of German Zucker 'sugar' + Berg 'mountain', 'hill'.
http://www.ancestry.com/name-origin?surname=zuckerberg
"government news source"? Do you even know how news works? News sources are private. That's why they are watchdogs of government. While Facebook is, indeed, a social networking site and not a news outlet like the (privately held) Washington Post or Guardian, it is a source of news for many and, therefore, a news source. Finally, news sites, newspapers, television reporters--none of these has any special constitutional rights or duties. They are stand-ins for regular folks. They report on city hall so we can go about our jobs. The problem is, not enough of us are paying for our news. Therefore the old traditional sources of reporting are drying up.
If you want to shock children about the Vietnam war, there are plenty of other photos to choose from. The summary execution of the Viet Cong partisan is a very good example.
Out of curiosity, why do you find that picture shocking? It was a very common occurrence that is authorized by the Geneva convention and the rules of war. He wasn't even a partisan, he was an NVA officer captured in civilian clothes near a mass grave and who admitted to carrying out the killings. Did you know the photographer that took the picture even regretted how the image was twisted into an anti-war icon because the photo didn't convey the circumstances surrounding the execution.
Personally, as someone with a history degree, and who as a child reread multiple times a (I believe Time) book set on Vietnam in their elementary school library, I found the image of the protesting monk burning himself to death to be much more shocking and powerful than the execution photo.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
You're assuming they've even heard of the vietnam war.
Correct. And if they did, they probably wouldn't give a shit.
We should tell them it was the Hipster War, as in, "You probably never heard of it."
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
“When I was making a World War II movie called ‘Fury,’ we did this boot camp for a week, and Logan Lerman, who was the youngest actor of the bunch — I think he was 21 — was given grunt detail. We gave him a watch and he had to keep track of how long it took us to eat and get in and out of our gear. One day he came to me and said the watch has stopped, and I said, ‘You’ve just got to wind it.’ He came back literally 15 minutes later and said, ‘Wait, how do you wind it?’"
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I shoulda put quotes around that bit, I guess.
You can find out what kind of name it is just from his WP page, albeit without the definition.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This is about decorum and not ideology.
Ahhh, "decorum", another "go-to" excuse for censoring things that might be controversial or make someone feel bad, ashamed, or uneasy.
There's a place for decorum and then there are times it must be ignored in favor of the truth.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Being at the mercy of someone like Zuckerberg is unacceptable, and I prefer to keep my private live *private*.
I don't need Facebook, period.
One thing certain is there are many groups that use FB to distribute activities, events, local happenings, etc. on FB. Ballroom dancing in Silicon Valley for example makes extensive use of FB. If you are into ballroom dancing, either social or competitive, you gotta be on FB or you will not be in the loop of workshops, lessons from notable instructors, competitions, parties, etc.
mfwright@batnet.com
I thought the PSA was "Only losers use drugs" which was quickly corrupted to "Only users lose drugs"
Enigma
Indeed communist: Cultural hegemony is a Communist theory to manipulate the thoughts, culture and morality of the multi cultural society in order to make the parties (in this case it's Facebook) the only accepted world view among the public.
Having one single thing in common with certain theories held by certain communists definitely does not make one a communist. That's like saying Facebook is like my mum because she, too, has an internet connection.
Besides, you are misunderstanding the concept of cultural hegemony in Marxist and post-Marxist theory. It's mainly an observation of how things in fact work in society, which you could have known by skimming the first paragraph of your link. That some theorists also recognized that it may be turned around as a weapon was inevitable. Either notion is not particularly limited to communism and in time would have been recognized by any number of people of different political leanings, it just happens that Marx was quick to see it as with quite many other properties of modern capitalist societies.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Would that be your Jewish friends with the tinfoil yamakas by any chance?
Tinfoil Yakamas, no. Tinfoil underwear, yes.
By that logic, no art is allowed. Ever. I bet there's Mona Lisa porn, and I dare not enter that search string into Google.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What? America losing a war? That's so unpossible!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Teens use Facebook? I thought they all ditched it once the grandparents started making accounts so they could see the baby pics the parents where posting. I though all the teens where on Snapchat?
This is very helpful post.Thank you for your good article.I am give here a link which help you to found more good article. www.ezinearticle.com
I am no fan of Facebook and their communist leanings,
wot?
You know "communist" is a word that actually means something, not a generic insult to hurl in the direction of something you dislike. Or maybe I misunderstood and actually Zuckerberg owning the means of production is one of the core tenets of communism.
It's some hipster
Well, the important thing is that you've found someone to feel superior to. Enjoy your 2 minutes hate.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
+1 Interesting.
Sad that young kids don't know, or don't care to know, about the significant milestones of our history.
Someone really needs to write an article entitled:
"The 20 most important images of the 20th century and why."
too bad you can give a +1 Troll modifier, that's some quality trolling.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
The homeless guy living under the bridge shouting at passing cars about how the aliens probed his ass is a "News Source", but would you really rely on/trust him?
Same with Facebook.
Just because people are stupid enough to think of Facebook as a news source doesn't actually make it one, it's a SOCIAL site, everything there is technically "lore" rather than "data". You don;t like what Facebook deletes, vote by leaving Facebook. That's the only real option you have unless you can afford to buy enough shares to take over the company...
Oh, and a picture from the Vietnam War that's been around for decades isn't news, it's history.
I think, generally speaking, you're right, AC. Each generation is often ignorant of the events of the previous generation, while mocking the next generation for not knowing their history.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
If you depend on Facebook for actual news and actual history, it's really your own fault....
Don't give the mem-makers any more ideas....
Uh, when did I say that you weren't free to criticize? Criticize Facebook all you want. Sometimes I wonder if some people here have basic reading comprehension.
Get 50 different people to write that article and you'll probably see 1000 different photos between all 50 articles....
No doubt. My point isn't that Facebook should be doing what they are doing. The point is that newspapers have been doing the same for decades. Now they don't like it because they aren't in control of the filter.
You're assuming they've even heard of Vietnam.
Yep, our wonderful school systems in action.
You mean like here in Texas, where the state school board requires text books to refer to African American slaves as "workers", not to mention a long list of other Republican revisionist bullshit. Yeah, just like that. I'm pretty sure that next year, the books will conclude that we lost the Vietnam War because of "hippies".
'fraid so, sarcasm truly is dead.. killed by political correctness. Can't run this on the TV anymore, in fact youtube pulled it on "copyright" grounds. These are dark times.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
If you want to shock children about the Vietnam war, there are plenty of other photos to choose from. The summary execution of the Viet Cong partisan is a very good example.
Out of curiosity, why do you find that picture shocking? It was a very common occurrence that is authorized by the Geneva convention and the rules of war.
No it isn't.
The Geneva convension is rather big on the rights of prisoners of war, you could in fact say it is the largest part of it, because it is. I am amazed you could get yourself to even believe that.
Categorising one of the most important images of the 20th century with child pornography is a problem. A big one.
Except it is not pornography. Pornography is defined as printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity intended to stimulate sexual excitement.
Now if somebody really believes a photo of napalm victims is intended to stimulate sexual excitement, then I agree this person might have some big problems indeed.
I honestly saw this and thought it odd as I figured Facebook was becoming irrelevant. Most of my peers and my kids and their peers no longer even use the site or the apps. Surprised to see the outcry.
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
I can't understand half of what he is saying, but from what I do I fail to see what this has to do with making the observation that a powerful ruling class can shape the norms of what is culturally acceptable or how the fact that Facebook necessarily does fit this observation makes them communist.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
There's a million "the 10 most (insert random bullshit) of all times" out there, on various pages and on YouTube, I refuse to believe it doesn't exist.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I'd gladly think so but remember: These people vote. And thus affect you.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Dissemination of information based upon the feelings and opinions of the users to decide what is and is not 'news' is NEVER uncensored communication. It cannot ever BE MADE to be uncensored. It is filtered. If you're basing what you view as 'free communication' off of what is 'trending' that's a problem, and a HUGE one. The fact that people think this is a good thing is (in only my opinion of course) a travesty.
Voting as metadata saying you approve or disapprove of a post is an expression of free speech, even if you don't seem to like it. Actual filtering of negatively rated posts to the point where you can't read them anymore is censorship. People post a lot of drivel, there is no right that I should spend equal time on an insightful and informative +5 comment and a -1 GNAA troll, particularly if one side is just trying to flood the discussion with copy-pasta, crazy rants, meaningless drivel or blatant propaganda. If you don't do it by votes you do it by other forms of popularity like how many bother to read your blog or follow you on Twitter, just because you think your thoughts are so important the world needs to know the world doesn't have to agree. Journalists also do their selection and write from their perspective and bias and editors choose what's the top story, the true neutral and objective news source doesn't exist.
Idea have to fight for survival, if you send me a link I might bother to read it or I might not - depending on what you usually send. I might share it further - or not - depending on what I think of it. And if you keep sending crap, I might block you completely. And I got the right to enlist the help of others in deciding whether or not you're worth listening to, it's not censorship to ask other people's opinion of you. I have the right to not listen to them and make up my own opinion, but you don't have the right to demand that I do. Anything else would lead to absurd results, not least of which that there are 7-8 billion opinions in the world. This is mine, you don't have to listen to it and even if it got voted to -1 it's still just an unpopular opinion, not a censored one. Not that the moderation system is really supposed to be a popularity contest anyway.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
If you want to shock children about the Vietnam war, there are plenty of other photos to choose from. The summary execution of the Viet Cong partisan is a very good example.
Out of curiosity, why do you find that picture shocking? It was a very common occurrence that is authorized by the Geneva convention and the rules of war.
No it isn't.
The Geneva convension is rather big on the rights of prisoners of war, you could in fact say it is the largest part of it, because it is. I am amazed you could get yourself to even believe that.
Commissioned officers captured in civilian clothing are considered spies and unlawful combatants and therefore not entitled to prisoner of war status. As an unlawful combatant as defined by the Geneva convention, they are eligible for but not guaranteed the rights and protections of a POW. If the status of the combatant is in doubt a "competent tribunal" is required to determine the status, but as the prisoner had already confessed to the act, been found in proximity to evidence of the act (the mass grave), and there were witnesses to the act his status was not in doubt and therefore a trial was not necessary. And summary executions of spies (during open conflict) and other unlawful combatants has been accepted practice for centuries.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
'fraid so, sarcasm truly is dead.. killed by political correctness.
Demonstrably untrue. Else I'd be getting deliriously drunk at your funeral.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
That's a version of totalitarianism which isn't limited to communism.
Then it's even more tragic that apparently hipsters today don't know that iconic picture that was probably critical to the change in the public opinion on the Vietnam war. Not knowing this means not understanding how reporting in war zones works today.
I doubt that the picture made any difference in anyone's opinion for a couple of reasons.
One is that it took place in June 1972. The USA's withdrawal was nearly complete (down to around 25,000 troops from 500K).
The other is at that time everyone I knew was pretty solid on their opinions. Those who favored the USA's involvement were in an awkward position of supporting a war that the USA had plainly announced they were ending. Those who were against were having their way.
As for people who were on the fence, those tended to be looking at the rather complex Vietnam war situation from a point of view of both local and global events, and were already well aware that people suffer horrible injuries during war. Keep in mind that our (WWII and baby boomer) generation grew up on a steady stream WWII carnage and Nazi death camp pictures.
The press had already been keeping us well-supplied with pictures of dead children for some time and the alternative press showed even more graphic photos than the mainstream.
IMHO, what made the photo of Kim Phuc interesting was that she was naked and alive. There had been many pictures of naked and dead adults and children published before with the My Lai massacre of 1968 being among the most notable.
Here's another one from back then that I remember that I found far more unsettling than the Kim Phuc photo.
http://www.vets-helping-vets.c...
Too bad our votes don't matter. Between voting machines with no paper trail and the legalized bribery that is campaign contributions, Regular Americans don't really control much of anything. When all contributions are banned and punishable harshly, and accepting bribes punishable even more harshly, nothing will change.
It is interesting to see this argument to be coming up again but reverse from the previous generation. During the 80s it was hard fought on the left in America (at least in print and film) that nudity could be presented acceptably, even in underage girls, if the content was asexual objectively. The right argued against it for ethical reasons and were accused of slippery slope beliefs and moralizing. I dont know Zuckerberg's real politics but he is considered left of center socially. If this was banned as part of a no exceptions policy on underage nudity he would basically be taking the rights position from the mid 80s (Jerry Falwell!) It seems the argument against is the historical importance of the photo, and current modern propaganda (without making a moral judgement either way) against war in general and specific tactics and weaponry. It begs the question however, why is facebook a necessary medium. Facebook is neither a journalistic outlet, a historical medium, or an advocacy group. In fact, to facilitate its goals, it makes sense that facebook would want to avoid becoming an outlet of gruesome war photos, films or images of murders, surgical or autopsy images and the like. If allowing this image, facebook also decided postings of aborted fetuses were also allowed to appear in your timelines, how many would still be on board. All of those would be equally controversial, but also as subjectively valuable to various advocacy proponents.
I think you mean that IRONIC commercial (compare big brother to the Apple model)? I don't see how it is relevant to a severely misguided understanding of politics in general and communism in particular, a level of understanding that I'd measure close to a mental disease (absolute black and white understanding of the world + ignoring everything that shows that ones preferred model also contains parts of whatever one hates).
Until you begin understanding that nothing in this world is black or white there simply isn't something to discuss. BTW posting something that shows one knows about something isn't being apologetic - in the same way that pointing out that eating children isn't normal in a communist country doesn't make one an apologist!
Some windable watches are okay with being overwound (or they have an audible clue), but you can damage other ones by doing so. Maybe buddy wanted to make sure he didn't?
Why would they? The US wasn't in that war after all, it was just a civil war in Vietnam... /s
Think min-wage workers in the Philippines
https://www.wired.com/2014/10/...
Probably not. Of the top of my head you would likely see napalm girl, the burning monk, the Afghan girl with green eyes, Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald, Tienanmen Square, Iwo Jima, Marylin Monroe on the subway grate, the V-J day kiss, and probably a few other common ones, also from those brief descriptions you probably know exactly what picture I am talking about. So while having 50 people generate a list of 20 important images will end up having more that 20 unique pictures it won't be anywhere close to 1000 unique pictures. You would probably end up with 100-150 pictures most of which would likely belong on the list.
Time to offend someone
There are public news sources. But yes, most news organizations are private, for-profit entities.
Vietnam was a tie!!!
You're assuming they've even heard of the vietnam war.
Well, it is clear nobody remembers World War 2, much less World War 1. Vietnam was just a small skirmish compared to those.
What a sad world we live in where some people think we should forget about all of that so we can do it all again. :(
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
from memory, it goes a little like this:
today marks the one year anniversary of the behavioral unification directive. never before have we had such a complete uniformity of beliefs and ideals. we are one people, one will. our uniformity is more powerful than any weapon, any army...
in other words, he was preaching about the cultural hegemonies that GP was mentioning. while perhaps more fascist or socialist in its delivery, (the nature of the totlitarian regime is not elaborated on, but the wording of the speech sugggests socialism, while the heavy police presence suggests fascism) the subject matter of a centralized power structure preaching that nonconformity is a crime in and of itself, and is not only illegal, but immoral as well, because it undermines the society as a whole, with implications that the speaker himself is a koolaid drinking true believer is the real takeaway here.
The last interview with the head of that area of Facebook that I saw indicated that they used software algorithms to identify images that might be against their policies and then a human has to look at the result and determine if the software was correct or not.
[UID-HeinzIntel]
Did you know the photographer that took the picture even regretted how the image was twisted into an anti-war icon because the photo didn't convey the circumstances surrounding the execution.
If I recall correctly, that image was shown at the start of CBS News every 6pm in the very early 70s. I was 3 or 4 years old so some of the details may be wrong. I just remember being shocked by it.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Yeah, and *describing* how this works does not make cultural hegemony a "Communist theory to manipulate the thoughts" as the AC wrote to who I replied.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
lol.
if you knew anything about me, you would know that the above does not describe me at all.
in fact, i am practically the poster child for asserting that ethics is subjective, and determined by environment and circumstance (as opposed to rigid, and nonnegotiable, like FBs zero tolerance stance is.)
as for the prior post i made, let me clarify.
the primary thesis behind communism (the ideal kind) is that society disitributes wealth and power. the ideals of the society as a whole (the community), are what shape policy.
in every attempt at creating a communist state, the naturally conflictory desires and objectives of the individuals in the community create deadlock. to function, the governance must have unity. this leads to two possible roads:
1) all culture must become generic, and uniformly implemented, such that society pulls in a unified direction, and this happens naturally.
2) a central power brokering force must be implemented to accomplish item 1 through force. (this is what has nearly always been implemented.)
the confusion comes from how useful behavioral unification is for any government type, besides just communism.
Facebook is not communist. it is fascist. it just uses socialism as a rationale for its authoritarian rule of its platform; it uses the useful idiots of the SJW movement to bully its membership into a monocultural norm, then asserts that it is just enforcing the monoculture's will with its terms of service.
that communism created the playbook for this out of necessity is a historical footnote.
that does not remove the reality that FB is using that playbook. Saying idiotic things, like "it is thier platform, they can manage it however they like!" is apologism.
No, I presume he is the dolt responsible for the dolts that hired the dolts that hired the dolt that is sitting at his desk hitting the nix button on the most important photo of the entire Vietnam war.
Of course, some of the blame likely goes to society's latest moral panic and general lack of nuance.
Facebook is not fascist--it is a software tool that can and does empower personal expressions of fascism through easy-to-use filters that reinforce and promote one's personal echo chamber. It can also do the opposite and tear down all the walls of the echo chamber, and turn into a panopticon that provides the viewer with as vast a display of the various facets of humanity as possible. The latter is how I've constructed my FB feed and it's akin to a Charles Stross novel (after he's gone and jacked himself up on coffee). It's exhilarating and mind opening--and guarantees I won't ever be trapped by my own biases.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
Surprisingly little actually.
As for people who were on the fence, those tended to be looking at the rather complex Vietnam war situation from a point of view of both local and global events, and were already well aware that people suffer horrible injuries during war. Keep in mind that our (WWII and baby boomer) generation grew up on a steady stream WWII carnage and Nazi death camp pictures.
One important difference, this time it was OUR side that was responsible for the horrifying image. Adding to it, the photo perfectly captured the horror on the children's faces in a way the earlier photos did not. You couldn't NOT see it. That couldn't have sat well with people who saw the gruesome images of WWII. The photo you linked was unsettling, but only if you willingly stand in the man's shoes for a moment.
We did beat the Viet Cong.
Sure. If you objectively think that a trench filled with 10,000 emaciated Jewish corpses is the equivalent of a girl who was inadvertently burned by napalm, then you're argument makes perfect sense.
> The difficulty is that the opposite,
You're begging the question.
For the majority of people ...
Exactly. The majority.
Maybe even the overwhelming majority of people.
The difficulty is, a minority of people can be a big, big problem.
It's not good enough to have rules that merely work for the "majority" of people in the "majority" of cases. It's not good enough to have rules that assume people are "smart enough to understand the _context_", rules that work except "only a complete idiot would--", or rules that work well except for "the insecurity / immature of people, and mis-use of the picture." People aren't all "smart enough", some people are "complete idiots", people are "insecure", people are "immature", and people "mis-use pictures".
And, worse, you know what? Those people point to you as the one who "isn't smart enough", is "a complete idiot", and "insecure", "immature", and probably "mis-use pictures".
Some stupid millennial, who was never taught about Vietnam and who has never expressed interest in any kind of History, simply saw a picture of a naked girl and thought, "Child Porn!!!
Some millennial, who has been taught that a picture of a naked girl is the absolute worst thing that can ever exist, saw a picture of a naked girl and deleted it, as he was told he was required to do under penalty of a very heavy-handed justice system.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
Why would they? The US wasn't in that war after all, it was just a civil war in Vietnam... /s
I'm afraid the US actually admitted to being a party in the Vietnam war (which ended via the Paris Peace Accords in which the US basically admitted to it).
On the other hand, I was in a conversation with a group of people just the other day about the NK bomb issue and mentioned that unlike the Vietnam war, the Korean war hasn't technically ended in a peace treaty yet, only an armistice/truce, and a Millennial had to google that in disbelief.. Sadly his only defense of not knowing there was still a state of war between NK/SK was that he remembered hearing about people like Dennis Rodman who went there...
This is about decorum and not ideology.
Ahhh, "decorum", another "go-to" excuse for censoring things that might be controversial or make someone feel bad, ashamed, or uneasy.
There's a place for decorum and then there are times it must be ignored in favor of the truth.
Except when it has trigger words/images, violates my safe zone, or contributes to an atmosphere of microaggressions...
Oh wait, wrong thread... ;^)
I do not think it's equivalent at all. But it was the less than human THEM that put those Jews in the trench. It's a horror, but it's one that redoubles our moral certainty that we must stop THEM at all costs.
It was US that put the look of abject terror on the little girl's face and the burns on her back. It makes us wonder if what we're doing is wrong.
Going beyond that, do you really think the people back home seeing those pictures were weighing them on an objective scale of horror to decide which one should most inflame their emotions? Perhaps they used charts and arranged some figures on the blackboard to decide how they were going to emotionally react?!?
oof! You're gonna die waitin'
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Actually it was the SVA that missed with their napalm strike.
And for every innocent accidental casualty, the nva committed thousand of acts of brutality. How many of those pictures defined the war?
None of them captured the hearts and mind of the public. That's why they're found in archives and not periodically republished. Perhaps they simply weren't all that evocative.
This isn't about right and wrong, it's about public perception.
Yes. It was our side. That's what I said.
It's about how the media shapes public perception
You forgot to turn off "safe search".
Mona Lisa porn - Google Search.
"About 586.000 results (0,47 seconds)".
If you want to shock children about the Vietnam war, there are plenty of other photos to choose from. The summary execution of the Viet Cong partisan is a very good example.
Out of curiosity, why do you find that picture shocking? It was a very common occurrence that is authorized by the Geneva convention and the rules of war.
No it isn't.
The Geneva convension is rather big on the rights of prisoners of war, you could in fact say it is the largest part of it, because it is. I am amazed you could get yourself to even believe that.
Commissioned officers captured in civilian clothing are considered spies and unlawful combatants and therefore not entitled to prisoner of war status. As an unlawful combatant as defined by the Geneva convention,...
Just stop right there. There is no such thing as unlawful combatants in the Geneva convention. It was a term invented by the Bush administration to avoid giving detained suspected terrorist a fair trail or prisoner of war rights.
If you want to shock children about the Vietnam war, there are plenty of other photos to choose from. The summary execution of the Viet Cong partisan is a very good example.
Out of curiosity, why do you find that picture shocking? It was a very common occurrence that is authorized by the Geneva convention and the rules of war.
No it isn't.
The Geneva convension is rather big on the rights of prisoners of war, you could in fact say it is the largest part of it, because it is. I am amazed you could get yourself to even believe that.
Commissioned officers captured in civilian clothing are considered spies and unlawful combatants and therefore not entitled to prisoner of war status. As an unlawful combatant as defined by the Geneva convention,...
Just stop right there. There is no such thing as unlawful combatants in the Geneva convention. It was a term invented by the Bush administration to avoid giving detained suspected terrorist a fair trail or prisoner of war rights.
A captured spy is specifically a NON-combatant and therefore loses prisoner of war rights. This just means they fall under civilian law including the posibility of a death penaly.
Trigger words: they don't exist, unless you count ever single word in the entire dictionary.
Safe zone (safe space): another thing that doesn't exist anywhere in the known universe
Microaggressions: see "trigger words", basically something that doesn't exist except in the minds of the terminally delicate.
Cultural appropriation: also known as "doing anything that has ever been done by anyone from another race or culture".
Hater: anyone who disagrees with you on anything, ever, no matter how politely.
Problematic: basically anything I don't like, or that I think should be different, period.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
The difference is in the culprit. The Jews were killed by the Nazis. The enemy. The enemy was already an inhuman bastard who was capable of any and all atrocities, this only justified the war even more than it already was by Pearl Harbor. WW2 was a "good" war. Sure, your buddy might have died, but he died for the right cause. He gave his life so people could live in freedom again, liberated from THESE unspeakable monstrosities. And he gave his life so these things can not happen to our kids at home.
This picture shows something very different and one of the key reasons why Vietnam was the traumatic experience that it was for the US soldiers that came home. It was not a "just" war. This picture showed that we, the good guys, we did that. We dump Napalm on civilians, we burn kids and women, we are the monsters. Looking back anyone who has ever seen anything resembling a war can only say "Well DUH!", but remember that people some 40-50 years ago had no internet and a very limited selection of media. America was still the good guy, spreading democracy, liberating countries, and never doing anything wrong. That was actually what people believed back then!
This picture, and some others of a similar nature, tore down this world view of the just, clean war, where only the bad guys kill women and children, and no US bomb ever hurts anyone but the baddies that want to establish a Commie dictatorship everywhere on the planet.
This was the trauma of the Vietnam war. That you can't tell yourself that your buddy died for a good cause. That he isn't coming home but at least his sacrifice was "worth it". What are you going to tell his mother? And how about you, you come home, not as a hero, but as a criminal. You are seen as such, and you actually feel like one.
That photo had an incredible impact on the souls of the US people. Ask anyone over 60 how he feels about it and how it moved him back when he first saw it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That doesn't matter. The enemy is inhuman and a monster. That was established knowledge. The NVA, like the Nazis before them, were cold blooded killers that kill everyone, even their own people, in their fanatic zeal to establish a Communist dictatorship. Nobody has a problem with the enemy doing this, actually, we pretty much assume that he does that. If not, we fabricate it. People usually have a problem shooting at other people. If you dehumanize the enemy, your soldiers have a much easier time gunning them down.
The key here is that until this picture came along, the US didn't do that. At least in the minds of the people. The US does not bomb civilians. They don't kill kids and women. They only kill commie bastards who fully deserve that bullet, that napalm, that Agent Orange. Yes, of course, if you think about it, carpet bombing those towns in Germany in WW2 couldn't avoid civilian victims, but you didn't get to see them. So it was easy to subconsciously block them out.
This photo is a blatant display of just this unspeakable happening: The US bombing kids. The Army being as bad as the NVA. That it was an accident and the pilot who dropped that bomb went into severe depression afterwards because OF COURSE he didn't mean to kill children, that is actually secondary here. This photo shows what simply didn't enter the minds of the US people: That US weapons can hurt innocents.
And that was a devastating emotional blow.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Korea was one. Vietnam was mostly the US going "Screw this, I don't wanna play anymore".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I'm well over 60. I'm speaking as what would have been a liberal small-town southerner pseudo-hippie who moved to the big city, but I mostly felt the war was necessary. I would like to pretend I was otherwise, but that's the way it was.
Much of what you say is true, but ....
However I do not believe the photo was that big a deal at the time. We already had plenty.
And it certainly had no effect on the USA's role in the war because we had already withdrawn almost all our troops when the photo was taken.
At that time, 1972, the USA had about 25,000 troops in-country compared to the NVA and ARVN armies of well over a million each.
This picture, and some others of a similar nature, tore down this world view of the just, clean war, where only the bad guys kill women and children, and no US bomb ever hurts anyone but the baddies that want to establish a Commie dictatorship everywhere on the planet.
Well, no. That's just not true.
The vast majority of people simply did not have any version of that opinion by 1972. I personally had not met anyone that ignorant back then, but I have to grant that such a person may have existed. Do you really think that generation was that stupid? Where do you think the millions of protesters came from?
For example, the My Lai massacre had already happened four years before. That was in 1968 although it didn't get in the news until the next year. It was widely and continually reported. Everyone knew. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It is an excellent photo for historical purposes because it does show how war so strongly impacts the civilian population in a way that piles of corpses cannot.
However it is usually presented in a way that implies this was done by the USA, but the soldiers in the background are Vietnamese, and the pilot that dropped the napalm was Vietnamese, and the photographer was Vietnamese. At some point the Vietnamese people should get some blame for that war.
Also, I had many friends who did go to Vietnam and many of those went into combat.
Almost all of them were fine with the war other than the fact that being in combat is an unpleasant experience. It seems like they thought fighting communism is a good cause even if the leadership was screwing it up. I dunno about other areas of the country but in the south the soldiers were generally well respected.
Keep telling yourself that, old timer.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
the nature of the totlitarian regime is not elaborated on,
Well, of course not, because, as we now know, the "totalitarian regime" was Apple.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Don't have to. My Tarot reading said so
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The saddest thing is that it's apparently perfectly OK to show an image of people being attacked with napalm, as long as none of them are naked. Because sex is so much worse than killing.
Much as I appreciate information about right-wing revisionism rivalling that of - for example - Stalin's Soviet Union, did the Texas school board really require that text books refer to African-American slaves as "workers"?
I ask, because this article suggests that the shocking error was due to the publishers of the book, McGraw-Hill Education (their apology without explaining why they made such a ridiculous error might be considered a classic of its kind), and not, on this occasion, the Texas school board. But, as the writer of the article comments: "One of the most remarkable aspects of this story is how long the "worker" description went unnoticed. Under Texas rules, textbooks are posted online for public review and apparently this material was up for a year without anyone flagging it. I often wondered if anyone looks at the curriculum materials posted by states for public review and comment. I think we have our answer."
Extracts from the article:
A Texas mother created a social media tidal wave with her Facebook posting of a high school geography book caption that described Africans brought against their will to labor on American plantations as "workers."
Under the heading "Patterns of Immigration," the world geography book states: "The Atlantic Slave Trade between the 1500s and 1800s brought millions of workers from Africa to the southern United States to work on agricultural plantations."
In the week since Texas parent and doctoral student Roni Dean-Burren posted from her 15-year-old son's textbook, McGraw-Hill Education has apologized and offered to replace some of the 100,000 textbooks in use in Texas schools or provide a sticker with a more accurate caption.
In its public statement, McGraw-Hill Education said:
This week, we became aware of a concern regarding a caption reference to slavery on a map in one of our world geography programs. This program addresses slavery in the world in several lessons and meets the learning objectives of the course. However, we conducted a close review of the content and agree that our language in that caption did not adequately convey that Africans were both forced into migration and to labor against their will as slaves.
We believe we can do better. To communicate these facts more clearly, we will update this caption to describe the arrival of African slaves in the U.S. as a forced migration and emphasize that their work was done as slave labor. These changes will be reflected in the digital version of the program immediately and will be included in the program's next print run.
McGraw-Hill Education is committed to developing the highest quality educational materials and upholding the academic integrity of our products. We value the insight the public brings to discussions of our content.
...
Who "we"? You are out of your mind. The USA lost.
Name some battles the US lost in Vietnam.
That's not what you said. You can't lie when there's a written record.
It was an asymmetric war; the decisive parts were not fought in battles. Name which side gave up the land and retreated.
Actually, it is. you can choose to misread what I said if you like, but that's not a discussion, it's a silly pissing contest. US as in our side, as in "the good guys".
If you need to piss, find a toilet or some bushes.
You will buy a Mac, because we are cool and hip, and know about this 1984 book.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Or he just had never encountered a windable watch and simply didn't know how to wind it.
I used to have one, and it wasn't exactly obvious that you pulled out the crown one detent to wind and two detents to set the watch. It required reading the directions.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I wasn't even aware it was a secret that the US was in the Vietnam war (I wasn't alive at the time either, but I am Gen X, not Millenial). Now, I know that China tried to hide the fact that they were on the other side of the Vietnam war, and acted like it was just the North that was fighting the US.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
As one of those people who doesn't know, what is the significance of the green eyed Afghan girl. I have seen the picture, and known she was Middle Eastern, but don't know any of the history of that one.
I can't say that I knew anything about Napalm girl, I had to look up the picture. I have no idea what the burning monk is, haven't seen that Jack Ruby picture, or Tienanmen Square. The rest I think I know about, the Iwo Jima one has a monument in DC that I have been to and read the plaque, Marilyn Monroe is hard to miss, and the V-J day kiss, is that the one in times square?
When I was in high school (graduated in 98), there wasn't much emphasis on the cultural side of these things, they were just mentioned in passing. It was taught about the protests, and that we essentially gave up due to the mood back home. I am aware of how returning GIs were treated, and that many people felt bad about that, and so treated the returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan better (that was emphasised in the news, we don't disagree with the soldiers, but with the war). I also know about Jane Fonda and what she did, but that is mostly from my Grandfather who was a B-52 pilot, and so had to endure the baby killer comments because of what she did.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
But but but, voter ID laws are racist, and we have no proof that anyone is cheating...despite all the collateral evidence. /s
Those people speaking out against Voter ID laws are pretty terrible citizens. They don't care if people cheat in the elections, as long as it is their people who are benefiting from the cheating.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
While the Marilyn picture isn't really a historic moment the picture is historic and considered among the best ever taken. I am surprised as you are only a couple of years younger than I am but was familiar with all of these images. I believe that the Napalm girl and burning monk photo were in my history book in high school as well as the one of Ruby shooting Oswald. For those who are unfamiliar with any of the pictures see:
Napalm girl
V-J Day Kiss
The burning monk
Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald
Tienanmen Square
Iwo Jima
Marylin Monroe on the subway grate
the green eyed Afghan girl
If for nothing else these pictures and the stories behind them are part of our culture and history. To that list I would also add Dewey Defeats Truman as another image.
Time to offend someone
It looks like I was correctly thinking of the ones I mentioned. It isn't so much that I don't know the picture, more that I don't know the story that makes them important.
Why was the monk burning himself?
What is the story behind the Afghan woman?
It is possible it was discussed some in history class, but it really wasn't my prefered subject. I am finding as I get older though, that I am more interested in history, but it could just be a difference in the exposure, I always found history class boring. It seems that in history, they wanted you to memorize facts, not understand the material. Knowing what date the Mongols attacked China is much less important than understanding why, and the effects it had on China and the Mongols, but this seems to be the type of thing that history class missed.
I do remember having a good teacher though and the difference it made. I remember quite well the why how what ... of the New Deal, and what led to it, and what it did. So perhaps it is just a matter of public school education and the crap shoot it is with good/bad teachers.
Many of those pictures I had seen, but didn't realize what they were. But I cannot say I have ever seen the monk, or Tienanmen Square before.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
this why facebook basics not allowed apple better look out if they try to ban any news app.
Go watch the voter ID episode of Last Week Tonight.* IIRC he said there were TWELVE counts of voter fraud caught last year. And the politicians who are pushing for the tighter laws are the same guys who are caught on camera voting for absent representatives while they're in session.
And no, obviously it couldn't be about the Republicans trying to disenfranchise the large demographics that vote against them. That's crazy talk.
Those people speaking out against Voter ID laws are pretty terrible citizens. They don't care if people cheat in the elections, as long as it is their people who are benefiting from the cheating.
Blow it out your ear. Yes I do care.
*Apparently it's the July 31st episode but I'm having a hard time finding a link to the whole thing at the moment.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
How would we know if there was voter fraud without voter ID laws? How would you tell if someone voted for their family member who decided not to vote?
Just because the incidence of voter fraud after the laws are passed is low, does not indicate the incidence when there is no law.
It does not disenfranchise poorer voters as every voter ID law included free IDs as part of the law. But even if it didn't, you can't cash a paycheck, get welfare, or even buy a beer without an ID, do you really think there is this huge population of voters with no IDs?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
How would we know if there was voter fraud without voter ID laws? How would you tell if someone voted for their family member who decided not to vote?
Just because the incidence of voter fraud after the laws are passed is low, does not indicate the incidence when there is no law.
We *already have* laws against vote fraud. These guys are trying to tighten them, which you seem to be in favor of despite us having basically no evidence it actually happens.
But even if it didn't, you can't cash a paycheck, get welfare, or even buy a beer without an ID, do you really think there is this huge population of voters with no IDs?
Yes: illegal immigrants.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Voting: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
You mean those illegal immigrants who can't legally vote? I see no problem preventing them from voting.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?