Note: Please bear in mind that whilst this topic does canvass opinions, it is not a fight club. You may disagree with other posters but we do ask you please to stick to our Talk Guidelines and to be civil. We don't allow personal attacks or troll-hunting. Do please report any. Thanks, MNHQ.

Was I BU to challenge friend on FB who made horribly prejudiced comment and photo posting?

(104 Posts)

An acquaintance on FB surreptitiously took a photo of a very overweight lady sitting opposite him across two seats on the morning commute and captioned the photo with "Fat tax for rush hour trains?!"

I commented on his photo and horrid opinion saying "there ought to be a 'dislike' button on FB, there's no need to be so rude".

He posted a reply which he later deleted asking if the lady in his photo was a friend of mine and there was no need for me to "get all high and mighty". Then he posted that he agreed there should be a dislike FB button for photos that we're disgusting ie the lady in the picture.

I was so angry, poor woman minding her own business on her way to work being secretly photographed and humiliated on FB. BTW, I've no idea who the woman was, but I feel that disgusting attitudes like this need to be challenged as silence in the face of this kind of prejudice just condones it in my view.

Just needed to vent. Going to 'unfriend' the bastard angry

mignonette Fri 23-Aug-13 09:22:34

AK 'flounced' because she/he lacked the intellectual ability and verbal dexterity to argue coherently. The abusive foul language is her/his only refuge.

A creature to be pitied.

AKAK, despite your huffy flounce, on the off chance you come back to this thread I would like to point out a few things which seem to have spectacularly passed you by:

The issue I wanted to raise was the cruel and spiteful targeting of a stranger just for kicks. I am not interested in a debate on paying for two seats, that can be for another thread (if you are brave enough?!) wink

As a previous poster said, you appear to have no moral compass whatsoever, and as a result I'm not surprised you have developed a thick skin, god knows you seem to need one.

I'm sorry you have medical and health issues and that you have had a rough time in the past but one would think this might make you a little more sensitive to others, no?

You are either emotionally illiterate or extremely obtuse.

daisychain01 Fri 23-Aug-13 06:40:44

Rosduk you are correct regarding usage of a photograph of a recognisable person, for commercial gain but there are somewhat tricky nuances. My DP is a professional and leisure sports photographer and he knows someone who took exception to his recognisable photo appearing in a specialist sports publication. He got legal advice about whether to pursue the photographer for damages and was told not to bother, he was on a hiding to nothing these days! Ubiquitous cameras on phones, tablets, SLRs etc makes it so difficult to draw the line between a "face in the crowd" "an innocent, naive bystander" being recognisable, due to pinpoint quality of today's digital imagery. It would make lawyers very rich and the vulnerable individual very poor.

My contention about Hatebook, which I withdrew from over a year ago, is that it is a free-for-all. It is a social media tool, put into the hands of a dangerous mix of idiot people, many of whom are ignorant and haven't got a clue about the concept of ethical guidelines (which are deemed to be overarching rules of decency based upon The Nuremberg Code). People tend to have an innate sense of what feels right, decent, just, but many people have never had that moral compass or boundaries. They are the ones who spring up on Hatebook with filth like coffee highlights in the OP.

Taking photos of people and publishing their images without their consent not only goes against their right to privacy, it contravenes their ability to give full informed consent, and can humiliate them (either knowingly or in absentia) especially if posted with derogatory comments. So that's not one but three ethical guidelines they have ignored. Fakebook proliferates this behaviour by enabling Tagging although they were pressurised into having the additional feature which gives the ability to suppress it. I found it unacceptable and it wound me up having photos of me in a group appearing on other people's profiles without my consent. And tagged, eughhh! After a while I just sucked it up came off the bloody thing and now its ignorance is bliss, I just ignore it, its a circus.

I feel very sorry for that poor woman in the photo, being mocked about her weight by a stupid idiot. For all he know she could have had thyroid problems, how dare he. I am gratified people on here are equally shocked, its the modern day social disease, making fun of people on Fb sad

Rosduk Fri 23-Aug-13 05:35:34

'photographers are free to use photos taken in public however they wish including for commercial gain'-

Not true. As a photographer you cannot use a picture for commercial gain that has a recognisable face unless the subject has signed a model release.

However, unfortunately you can take candid photos and put them on Facebook and mock the subject as much as you like, but that just makes you an arse-hole.

Doesn't matter if you agree with fat tax or not, a photo of someone taken without their consent did NOT need to be used to make that point.

DanicaJones Fri 23-Aug-13 00:52:32

Before the summer holidays i was walking along a street holding my 6 year old dd's hand after school and I looked behind me and there was a boy in high school uniform who had obviously been taking a photo of us as he sort of guiltily put down the phone when I looked round. I then carried on walking and looked behind me again and he did the same thing. I am a size 16/18 and had on a long cardigan which covered my bum. I assume he must have been going to post it on some site where people post photos of fat people but i didn't think i could have looked that ridiculous as 16/18 in a long cardi and jeans (rather than if i had been wearing skin tight skimpy clothes) is not that unusual. I was confused

prissyenglisharriviste Fri 23-Aug-13 00:36:19

Yes, sorry Rebecca, I should have said 'that makes you LOOK LIKE a cock'.

You are right, Penny - and actually that is another good argument for doing the weekly shop online, because there is less temptation.

exoticfruits Thu 22-Aug-13 18:21:13

I would assume that if AKAK can't see the problem then she must be the one with the problem.

Pennyacrossthehall Thu 22-Aug-13 18:14:40

Hi SDTG I know that the solution is very obvious, but much less easy to implement.

My 2p is that willpower is much easier to exert in the supermarket than at home: ie if I buy the chocolate/crisps/nuts I will eat them, it's easier not to go down those aisles in the first place!

It is a lot worse living within that sort of body 24/7, Penny. And I know that the solution is easy - fewer calories, more exercise - but due to my depression and my abysmal self esteem (due to bullying, hence my reaction to AKAK), I have really struggled to like myself enough to look after my own health, and to find the necessary motivation. If I tell you that I often have to fight to find enough motivation to get up or to brush my teeth, maybe that will help explain why finding the motivation for the huge task of losing so much weight is beyond me much of the time.

I am making small steps - going regularly to the gym, trying to cut down on fat and sugar, but when I have a depressive attack, as I did last weekend, it all goes to pot.

Pennyacrossthehall Thu 22-Aug-13 17:59:07

In response to the OP (not the subsequent frenzy):

Taking and posting a picture of one individual - pretty unpleasant.

The general point of pay for the number of seats that you occupy - entirely reasonable. I say this having once spent a long-haul flight (which was not cheap) sat next to a lady who was so overweight that I was unable to use the movie controls on my side of the armrest because her rolls of fat hung over them. That was a deeply unpleasant experience.

RebeccaMumsnet (MNHQ) Thu 22-Aug-13 17:24:32

<ahem>

Can we please introduce our Talk guidelines

Clearly some of you have forgotten them or need a refresher perhaps?

mignonette Thu 22-Aug-13 15:29:27

Posting an anonymous photo because the person is too cowardly to address somebody or an issue directly has got nothing to do with being 'honest' AK. Rather a poorly thought out example.

You are judgemental and ignorant AK . Nowhere did I say you were of normal weight. In fact you appear to have internalised prejudice as Prissy suggests and clearly unable to read. Your bitterness exudes from every word.

Nor did I assume you are healthy. In fact you are temperamentally and attitudinally very unhealthy. Like I said, I pity your children immensely to have you as their parent.

And I have a cunt yes. A rather lovely one in fact.

Don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out.

[MN will be better without this sad, inadequate excuse for a human being emoticon]

AKAK81 Thu 22-Aug-13 15:04:41

No I just really couldn't give a toss about strangers' opinions of me. I'm ambivalent at best. This obsession that people have these days about what people think of them is just idiotic. I really can't be arsed to debate this any more so I'm off.

prissyenglisharriviste Thu 22-Aug-13 14:49:35

I'm fat. I think it's your attitude that needs fixing AK, I don't give a flying fuck if you featured on some miserable 'too fat to leave the house' show. Believing that the op's friend is an innocent who was merely commenting on commuter pricing makes you look woefully ignorant about human nature.

He was displaying a photo to get his mates to laugh at a fat woman. For you to be so 'oh it doesn't matter, get a grip' makes me think you're more affected by your own weight than you claim. Protests too much etc. either that or you're just one of those folk that pick the opposite point of view to get everyone all riled up. I'm normally a huge fan of people that stand up for their own beliefs and don't run with the crowd, but on this occasion you are effectively saying that you think it's okay to humiliate people in public for their weight. And that makes you a cock, whatever size you are.

Well, AKAK - the the things you have said on this thread are exactly the sort of things that someone judgemental and ignorant would say, so I think we are pretty spot on in thinking you ARE judgemental and ignorant.

FYI - it is not a virtue to speak the truth when doing so benefits no one and causes hurt to someone. The sort of bluntness you are advocating is a very fine line away from bullying - you would be happy if one of your children's 'truth telling' was bullying someone else, would you?

Like I said earlier - I am wasting my time trying to teach decency to someone who has none.

aturtlenamedmack Thu 22-Aug-13 14:44:23

It's manipulative. The facts might be true but the way that they are presented is designed to tug on hearts strings and make people feel guilty for reporting. It's facebooks way of weedling out of their responsibilities.
And what about the suicides which could be prevented by removing bullying and abusive pictures?

VerlaineChasedRimbauds Thu 22-Aug-13 14:43:18

It's a pity you are so thick-skinned really AKAK81 - otherwise you might be able to absorb a little human kindness from others.

I would hope to teach my children that, whilst truth is important, kindness and tolerance are also important. There is no need to "tell the truth" if telling it is merely an excuse for spite or mockery. "I was only tellling the truth" is a phrase often used by whining bullies.

aturtlenamedmack Thu 22-Aug-13 14:41:50

And it looks like it's working.
How many rapes do you think Facebook prevent?
I'd say no more than the one mentioned in the article and I think even that's a stretch.

Sanctimummy Thu 22-Aug-13 14:41:31

turtle

It's not a pile of shit, it's true.

AKAK81 Thu 22-Aug-13 14:36:53

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

aturtlenamedmack Thu 22-Aug-13 14:35:44

Samctimummy - that article is a pile of shit, I've read it before.
Facebook are trying to use emotional manipulation to try and discourage people from reporting.
I have absolutely no doubt that those who moderate Facebook are faced with horrific images on a daily basis, however Facebook is a multi billion dollar company and if they are struggling to deal with their responsibility to moderate content then they need to employ more people or refine their systems and methods.
They have a responsibility to protect their users from distressing images or images which break their guidelines, that's why the report system is in place and should be used to report offensive images.

Dawndonnaagain Thu 22-Aug-13 14:33:45

1) Whilst there is no presumption of privacy in public places the if the photograph taken is used for harassment, then the person concerned has a case. This could reasonably be termed harassment.
2) AKA You have decidely unpleasant views. My weight varies for a number of reasons, all of them medical and linked to whether or not I"m taking steroids at the time.
3)Your views are invalid as you are unable to construct a clear and coherent sentence, punctuate properly and spell correctly.
4) Bugger off now, there's a dear, your results will have arrived.

Didactylos Thu 22-Aug-13 14:33:18

this

yanbu to unfriend and report the photo: hes a shallow little shit

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now