Torches & Pitchforks

[quasigeostrophy]

A riot... iss an ugly tingk. Und I tink it's yust about time dat vee had vun!!

Sheesh.

Preface: I am all for breast-feeding. I am not prudish and generally, except considering business environments that prohibit such content for, IMHO, valid reasons, don't care what images or content is on my default LJ reading list.

Here's what annoys me - a little concept I call Crowd Mentality. To quote Tommy Lee Jones' character from Men in Black: "A person is smart. People are dumb." I completely believe that. I woke up this morning to find ranting and raving all over LJ about this breast-feeding default icon hoopla. I've read a couple of sensible posts on my default friends list, but on friendsfriends and elsewhere, people are misinterpreting the LJ TOS left and right, they're screaming LJ is unfair and is changing the TOS on them, they're quoting California laws about breast-feeding, etc.

All for naught. Step back and take a look at the issue. All LJ is saying is not to have default icons with breast nipples visible. Maybe that is a little unfair because, not that anyone would want to see them, I could show my manboobs all I want in a default icon and not get slapped. LJ can do that. They can change the TOS whenever they want. They are a place of business and have reserved that right. If someone doesn't like the new TOS, that someone is certainly free to terminate the business relationship with LJ. California laws about breastfeeding don't apply here - they're not telling anyone not to breastfeed.

More importantly, I get annoyed whenever something like this blows up with apparently large numbers of people jumping on a bandwagon, stirred up in all the fury, without logically looking at the issue. Why do I seldom if ever discuss sensitive issues in my LJ? Same reason I don't discuss them heavily IRL. I'm always gathering data and analyzing it. Does this mean I never take a stand and am wishy-washy? Not in the least. But I refuse to grab a torch and a pitchfork and go running off to burn the monster when I don't know what if anything he may have done. I'm told I think too much sometimes. Maybe there's a cosmic balance to some who think too little.

This rare soapbox brought to you by the letter 'W', for 'witchhunt'. We now return you to your regularly scheduled LJ...

Comments

[sweet-tea79.livejournal.com]

Heh, interestingly enough, I was thinking of using that Tommy Lee Jones quote for a post that's brewing in my head that might appear sometime later tonight. It's one of my alltime favorite quotes b/c it's so very true.

[quasigeostrophy.livejournal.com]

Great minds? :-)

[sweet-tea79.livejournal.com]

Ours too!

[datagoddess.livejournal.com]

Bwhahahahahahahahaha!!!!

[bafleyanne.livejournal.com]

Here's what I said in someone else's journal about the hoopla:

My issue with it mainly is that they're being arbitrary about it and backpedaling. I am not in the "OMG LJ is banning all nursing pics! Discrimination!!111!!!" camp. But it seems weird to me that the TOS started off saying "graphically sexual or violent" default userpics were not allowed, then changed it to "nudity or graphic violence", and then clarified it further by saying that nursing pics *are* allowed as default icons, as long as no nipple or areola is showing in the picture.

Which, okay, but there are some women who just have bigger areolas than others. Are they supposed to not post a default nursing icon because of it? And also, LJ Abuse isn't going to go hunting for these icons, so the only way they hear about it is if someone reports them. Which means all kinds of opportunity for personal vendettas to come into play here. And I understand that they don't have the time to look at a million LJ icons to see if they all comply with the TOS. But it still seems arbitrary to me.

That said, a lot of the boob_nazis are so up in arms about it that they're threatening to leave LJ over it. I'm definitely not going to do that. I don't care *that* much. :)

[quasigeostrophy.livejournal.com]

some women who just have bigger areolas than others. Are they supposed to not post a default nursing icon because of it?

Forgive me for sounding crass, but if that's the rule, yep.

LJ Abuse isn't going to go hunting for these icons, so the only way they hear about it is if someone reports them.

With the number of accounts, I can't imagine a company like LJ/Six Apart would have any aort of time to go hunting. A personal vendetta, IIRC, is how the whole thing started anyway.

But it still seems arbitrary to me.

How is "no nipples or areola" arbitrary? I'm not trying to be bitchy. I want to know because it looks well-spelled-out to me.

[bafleyanne.livejournal.com]

Arbitrary, I guess, because two women could take the exact same picture, be the exact same amount covered up, and yet one would be considered inappropriate and the other wouldn't just because of a size issue.

And yes, a personal vendetta is *exactly* how it started in the first place. hardvice was told not to use a default icon of a naked Bea Arthur and went looking for a group he could stir up and get to fight back with LJ Abuse, and he decided to pick the boob_nazis. He reported about 30 different people's icons to LJ Abuse.

[bafleyanne.livejournal.com]

This (http://pics.livejournal.com/hardvice/pic/000ge6f9/) is the pic in question, btw, and he modified it by putting animated pasties on to make it compliant. (And now it's not his default icon at all anymore. Go figure.)

[lightning-rose.livejournal.com]

It's arbitrary because it applies only to womens nipples.

What pisses me off is the implication that female nipples are somehow obscene. If it's ok to show male nipples in default pics, why not female? And what about tranny nipples? At what point do MTF nipples cross the line? If a legally male, fully bearded FTM before top surgery shows his nipples is that a violation? It's a stupid policy, and one that 6 Apart should abolish.

[quasigeostrophy.livejournal.com]

Possibly. I'm not arguing for or against the fairness of it - I even stated it wasn't fair. What annoys me is the flailing of a large number of people who think they have all sorts of rights being violated, when they start saying things like "LJ is against breastfeeding" or "California law allows breastfeeding in public so that means they can't prohibit the pictures" when neither statement is true and the flailers have no idea what they're talking about.

[hitchhiker.livejournal.com]

good on you. i was wanting to rant about that, but i didn't have the energy for the debate.

[quasigeostrophy.livejournal.com]

It's rare for me to get the energy. This one just lit a fire, I think. :-)

[cassidyrose.livejournal.com]

I have expended all my energy about it myself (http://cassidyrose.livejournal.com/540873.html) and yet, still feel cranky.

[hitchhiker.livejournal.com]

that's a brilliant rant!

[cassidyrose.livejournal.com]

Well, thank you.

I had just had ENOUGH.

There are other issues going on in our lives right now where the mob-mentality has taken over and it has pushed me to negative tolerance for any of it.

[d-h.livejournal.com]

Crowd Mentality? Good Lord man, this is LJ. It runs on crowd mentality.
Let him who is memeless cast the first stone ,etc.

Also, LJ is a social networking site (user created content rather than user consumption of content)- so in some respects acceptability (rather than legality) is defined by the community. If the site management change something legal to being unacceptable, then those in the community who feel differently should voice their opinion. The two adages that spring to mind are "only governing with the consent of the governed" and "any decision made will upset someone".

Personally I tend to feel that anyone who makes arbitrary and selective decisions, and then changes the rules after the fact to justify the decision (as seems to be the case from the chronology I've seen), should be made to feel a bit uncomfortable over their actions.

[quasigeostrophy.livejournal.com]

I do memes just like the next person, the ones that are rather meaningless.

I'm all for people voicing their opinions, just be informed when doing it. But I don't think that LJ has anyone to answer to except the customers when they do something perceived as arbitrary. It's a business, not a government. Customers have these choices when LJ does something:

1. Gripe about it.
2. Shut up.
3. Take business elsewhere.