3 ms·

this is textbook whataboutism. also, I support less repression on sexual expression (btw something that often correlates with support for LGBT issues) and (as

this is textbook whataboutism. also, I support less repression on sexual expression (btw something that often correlates with support for LGBT issues) and (as a European), I find American prudishness to be often quite puzzling, but this > TLDR: we (as a group) support social networks deleting photos of female nipples, because showing and seeing those is morally wrong in our culture, even though it's an issue that affects a lot more people than LGBT stuff. is ridiculous. Some people's inability to be able to view boobs on FB is not on the same level as LGBT rights.

ajsnigrutin 6y ago
> Some people's inability to be able to view boobs on FB is not on the same level as LGBT rights. Why? Isn't seeing boobs a lot more natural than anything lgbt? I mean, pretty much a 100% of people have boobs, 50% of those have the ones we're not allowed to see, and if you count all the lgbt people, you get what.. 10% of the population? 20%? Definitely less than the number of people with boobs. Yes, i know it's a stupid example, and there are historic reasons for promoting lgbt rights... but we're currently in a state, where one person (or a relatively small group of people) with their own set of beliefs, can decide that an 8-9yo drag queen is ok (Lactatia), a 6 year old can be a star of really creepy beauty pageants (honey boo boo), but one visible, female nipple is bad (sometimes even very bad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_show_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_sh... ) Who decides what is ok and what is not? Laws surely don't. Yes, facebook is a private company, but it should be treated as having a monopoly position, especially after buying instagram and whatsapp. Having a company with so much power (having so many eyes watching them, that they can manipulate) is not a good thing, especially if they can arbitrary censor stuff they arbitrarily don't like.
- Tainnor 6y ago
  > Why? Seriously? LGBT people are being bullied and beaten not only in Russia but also in Poland, which from here is about an hour away. In Iran and other countries they are hanged. In Chechnya, they're being deported and murdered. But even in the West, suicide rates for LGBT people are much higher, AIDS continues to be an issue (even though significant progress has been made), there are still crazy people who think that teaching LGBT issues in school - which would be enormously helpful for teenagers in accepting themselves - is some sort of propaganda, and to this day, some families still don't accept if their kid is gay (or trans). Oh and also, just a short while ago, in a city not that far from where I live, there was a murder attempt on a homosexual couple and one of the guys actually died. These are real issues with real impact for the people that are affected. It's easy to think that homophobia is gone in the West, because of the public opinion, but secretly and deep down some people (even if they are fewer) are either latently or sometimes deeply homophobic.
  - ajsnigrutin 6y ago
    Funny of you mentioning Iran... https://monitoring.bbc.co.uk/product/c2011nxv https://monitoring.bbc.co.uk/product/c2011nxv ... 24 years in prison for removing a headscarf. Again, as in the other thread... who decides what is moral and what is not? In iran, it is moral and expected for women to cover parts of their bodies, that men don't have to cover. And on facebook it is moral and expected for women to cover parts of their bodies, that men don't have to cover. But you care about LGBT issues, and don't care about special covering rules for women, so you're arguing me, that one group of people should be protected because of unequal treatment, but other group of people shouldn't be protected for their unequal treatment.
    - Tainnor 6y ago
      What on earth gives you the impression that I would be defending Iran of all places? You're strawmanning and shifting goal-posts. Yes, it's wrong that women are forced to wear head scarves, but that has nothing to do with nipples not being allowed on Facebook.
      - ajsnigrutin 6y ago
        Ok, let me simplify this for you. You're letting facebook decide that groups of people should be equal regarding issue #1, and disregard facebook treating them differently regarding issue #2. To quote you from another post: > Well, it depends a bit on what is meant by "banning LGBT content", but suppose that a gay couple wouldn't be allowed to post their wedding pictures. Since, presumably, all straight couples can do so, Facebook would effectively imply that gay couples are somehow "wrong" and should not be shown to people. I would find that deeply immoral because gay people are not worth less than straight people. I'll just change a few things: Well, it depends a bit on what is meant by "banning womens nipples", but suppose that a woman wouldn't be allowed to post their nipple pictures. Since, presumably, all men can do so, Facebook would effectively imply that womens nipples are somehow "wrong" and should not be shown to people. I would find that deeply immoral because womens nipples are not worth less than mens nipples. You're basically saying iran is right to jail women not wearing headscarfs, because their culture and morals say that it's somehow wrong for women to go outside uncovered, while man can do that.... oh wait... replace "iran" with "facebook", "jail" with "delete photos", and "headscarfs" with "nipples". So basically, by your logic, discrimination is ok, as long as it's nipples, and not anything lgbt related. I mean, showing womens nipples is immoral in america, showing womens faces is immoral in iran, and women kissing women is immoral probably in iran too... as a not-american, it's interesting to me, that you're against respecting what's im/moral in iran, even if it's clear discrimination, but don't care about discrimination if it involves american morals.

ajsnigrutin 6y ago

> Some people's inability to be able to view boobs on FB is not on the same level as LGBT rights. Why? Isn't seeing boobs a lot more natural than anything lgbt? I mean, pretty much a 100% of people have boobs, 50% of those have the ones we're not allowed to see, and if you count all the lgbt people, you get what.. 10% of the population? 20%? Definitely less than the number of people with boobs. Yes, i know it's a stupid example, and there are historic reasons for promoting lgbt rights... but we're currently in a state, where one person (or a relatively small group of people) with their own set of beliefs, can decide that an 8-9yo drag queen is ok (Lactatia), a 6 year old can be a star of really creepy beauty pageants (honey boo boo), but one visible, female nipple is bad (sometimes even very bad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_show_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_sh... ) Who decides what is ok and what is not? Laws surely don't. Yes, facebook is a private company, but it should be treated as having a monopoly position, especially after buying instagram and whatsapp. Having a company with so much power (having so many eyes watching them, that they can manipulate) is not a good thing, especially if they can arbitrary censor stuff they arbitrarily don't like.

Tainnor 6y ago
> Why? Seriously? LGBT people are being bullied and beaten not only in Russia but also in Poland, which from here is about an hour away. In Iran and other countries they are hanged. In Chechnya, they're being deported and murdered. But even in the West, suicide rates for LGBT people are much higher, AIDS continues to be an issue (even though significant progress has been made), there are still crazy people who think that teaching LGBT issues in school - which would be enormously helpful for teenagers in accepting themselves - is some sort of propaganda, and to this day, some families still don't accept if their kid is gay (or trans). Oh and also, just a short while ago, in a city not that far from where I live, there was a murder attempt on a homosexual couple and one of the guys actually died. These are real issues with real impact for the people that are affected. It's easy to think that homophobia is gone in the West, because of the public opinion, but secretly and deep down some people (even if they are fewer) are either latently or sometimes deeply homophobic.
- ajsnigrutin 6y ago
  Funny of you mentioning Iran... https://monitoring.bbc.co.uk/product/c2011nxv https://monitoring.bbc.co.uk/product/c2011nxv ... 24 years in prison for removing a headscarf. Again, as in the other thread... who decides what is moral and what is not? In iran, it is moral and expected for women to cover parts of their bodies, that men don't have to cover. And on facebook it is moral and expected for women to cover parts of their bodies, that men don't have to cover. But you care about LGBT issues, and don't care about special covering rules for women, so you're arguing me, that one group of people should be protected because of unequal treatment, but other group of people shouldn't be protected for their unequal treatment.
  - Tainnor 6y ago
    What on earth gives you the impression that I would be defending Iran of all places? You're strawmanning and shifting goal-posts. Yes, it's wrong that women are forced to wear head scarves, but that has nothing to do with nipples not being allowed on Facebook.
    - ajsnigrutin 6y ago
      Ok, let me simplify this for you. You're letting facebook decide that groups of people should be equal regarding issue #1, and disregard facebook treating them differently regarding issue #2. To quote you from another post: > Well, it depends a bit on what is meant by "banning LGBT content", but suppose that a gay couple wouldn't be allowed to post their wedding pictures. Since, presumably, all straight couples can do so, Facebook would effectively imply that gay couples are somehow "wrong" and should not be shown to people. I would find that deeply immoral because gay people are not worth less than straight people. I'll just change a few things: Well, it depends a bit on what is meant by "banning womens nipples", but suppose that a woman wouldn't be allowed to post their nipple pictures. Since, presumably, all men can do so, Facebook would effectively imply that womens nipples are somehow "wrong" and should not be shown to people. I would find that deeply immoral because womens nipples are not worth less than mens nipples. You're basically saying iran is right to jail women not wearing headscarfs, because their culture and morals say that it's somehow wrong for women to go outside uncovered, while man can do that.... oh wait... replace "iran" with "facebook", "jail" with "delete photos", and "headscarfs" with "nipples". So basically, by your logic, discrimination is ok, as long as it's nipples, and not anything lgbt related. I mean, showing womens nipples is immoral in america, showing womens faces is immoral in iran, and women kissing women is immoral probably in iran too... as a not-american, it's interesting to me, that you're against respecting what's im/moral in iran, even if it's clear discrimination, but don't care about discrimination if it involves american morals.