I recently stumbled into something which I suppose could be classed as a Facebook spat.
A good friend of mine posted a picture of her new man on Facebook whilst they were off sunning themselves on holiday. It was a nice, regular photo in typical holiday fashion of him, sitting down, wearing a t-shirt, baseball cap and sporting a great little grey haired goaty. So far, so good.
It struck me straight away that there was an instantly recognisable likeness to a well known celebrity, unfortunately that celebrity happened to be the one and only Gary Glitter.
In true jovial fashion I quickly retrieved an image of Mr Glitter from the Internet and posted to the thread indicating the likeness.
For a short time that was it. Nobody mentioned it. Nobody commented on the likeness but it was quite obvious.
Then out of the blue a comment was posted from a friend of my friend staying that she thought my photo post was entirely inappropriate and warranted no mirth.
It appeared that she had completely missed the point I was making. For some reason me posting a picture of the disgraced King of Glam appeared to indicate to her that I was in fact promoting pedophiles or was in fact implying that my friends new boyfriend was linked to peodophillia in some way. The shear obvious fact that the man had a resemblance to a specific image of somebody had eluded her.
Assuming that she was either joking or deluded, I liked her post and replied that given the clear fact that my post had in some way rattled her cage I would be happy to send her a Mat Costin fanzine and badge.
Then the strangest thing happened. The friend of my friend messaged me direct. She launched into a mini tirade on how she was not one to comment on behalf of whose status it was but that my photo was entirely wrong and that Facebook was no place for this. She then suggested that she herself had been the victim of a pedophile. Again the message seemed to imply I was in some way a champion to the pedophile cause.
My response was simply that she had misjudged the reasoning as to why the photo was posted and that it was solely on the basis of a facial likeness, not based on the pedophile element of the celebrity.
The direct messaging ended and she left a final comment about not wanting to have an argument with a "sick idiot". I told her that "sick idiot" was this month's special phrase and that she would now also receive a signed photo of me with her fanzine pack.
I think that the point I'm trying to make here is how easy it is for somebody on Facebook to make assumptions without first checking the facts. This in turn leads to an obscure discussion with people we do not even know debating social media etiquette.
If my friends boyfriend had grown a little black moustache then I would have posted a picture of Hitler. The photo would be a reference to a facial likeness not a promotional link to the fact he slaughtered millions of people. I would not be promoting Nazi standards.
If my friends boyfriend had put on weight, squinted and wore khaki clothing then no doubt a picture of Pol Pot would have adourend the status due to the resemblance, not because I am a secret admirer of the Cambodian dictators beliefs in ritually slaughtering the educated.
Therefore it stands to reason that if you grow a grey goaty, wear a t-shirt and a baseball cap and that your facial features seem similar, then a link to Gary Glitter would be made. It is not a promotion of what pedophiles do. It is not an endorsement. It is a comparison on a purely physical level and to think otherwise would be foolish.
I am aghast that somebody who I do not even know has the audacity to judge me and not consider the reasoning behind the post. To not see the glaringly obvious and read something deeper into something that simply is not there is a very blinkered and shallow way of looking at life.
If she was indeed telling the truth with regards to past encounters with a sexual predator then of course I am sorry for what she has gone through, but as I don't know her from Adam it could of course be an attempt to try to push guilt onto a matter that doesn't warrant any.
And as for the comment that this should not be on Facebook, well this opens a whole new can of worms.
The Internet and social media is an open market. For good or for bad the reason that the Internet exists today is due to its openness. You cannot pick and choose what is right and what is wrong. You cannot have it both ways. Either you allow everything or you allow nothing.
With regards to Facebook, if you find something offensive then make your comment and stand by your argument. If you don't wish to read the thread or the images that go with it then simply move along. There are a billion threads on Facebook, go to another. Simple.
Well in the end it looks like the post was removed. No doubt it was by the learned woman putting pressure on my friend and placing her in an awkward situation which is sad in itself.
I seemed to have ranted a bit here and with no real comedic effect but it was something I needed to get off my chest.
If you want cats all day long on the Internet then crawl back under your uneducated shell.
A good friend of mine posted a picture of her new man on Facebook whilst they were off sunning themselves on holiday. It was a nice, regular photo in typical holiday fashion of him, sitting down, wearing a t-shirt, baseball cap and sporting a great little grey haired goaty. So far, so good.
It struck me straight away that there was an instantly recognisable likeness to a well known celebrity, unfortunately that celebrity happened to be the one and only Gary Glitter.
In true jovial fashion I quickly retrieved an image of Mr Glitter from the Internet and posted to the thread indicating the likeness.
For a short time that was it. Nobody mentioned it. Nobody commented on the likeness but it was quite obvious.
Then out of the blue a comment was posted from a friend of my friend staying that she thought my photo post was entirely inappropriate and warranted no mirth.
It appeared that she had completely missed the point I was making. For some reason me posting a picture of the disgraced King of Glam appeared to indicate to her that I was in fact promoting pedophiles or was in fact implying that my friends new boyfriend was linked to peodophillia in some way. The shear obvious fact that the man had a resemblance to a specific image of somebody had eluded her.
Assuming that she was either joking or deluded, I liked her post and replied that given the clear fact that my post had in some way rattled her cage I would be happy to send her a Mat Costin fanzine and badge.
Then the strangest thing happened. The friend of my friend messaged me direct. She launched into a mini tirade on how she was not one to comment on behalf of whose status it was but that my photo was entirely wrong and that Facebook was no place for this. She then suggested that she herself had been the victim of a pedophile. Again the message seemed to imply I was in some way a champion to the pedophile cause.
My response was simply that she had misjudged the reasoning as to why the photo was posted and that it was solely on the basis of a facial likeness, not based on the pedophile element of the celebrity.
The direct messaging ended and she left a final comment about not wanting to have an argument with a "sick idiot". I told her that "sick idiot" was this month's special phrase and that she would now also receive a signed photo of me with her fanzine pack.
I think that the point I'm trying to make here is how easy it is for somebody on Facebook to make assumptions without first checking the facts. This in turn leads to an obscure discussion with people we do not even know debating social media etiquette.
If my friends boyfriend had grown a little black moustache then I would have posted a picture of Hitler. The photo would be a reference to a facial likeness not a promotional link to the fact he slaughtered millions of people. I would not be promoting Nazi standards.
If my friends boyfriend had put on weight, squinted and wore khaki clothing then no doubt a picture of Pol Pot would have adourend the status due to the resemblance, not because I am a secret admirer of the Cambodian dictators beliefs in ritually slaughtering the educated.
Therefore it stands to reason that if you grow a grey goaty, wear a t-shirt and a baseball cap and that your facial features seem similar, then a link to Gary Glitter would be made. It is not a promotion of what pedophiles do. It is not an endorsement. It is a comparison on a purely physical level and to think otherwise would be foolish.
I am aghast that somebody who I do not even know has the audacity to judge me and not consider the reasoning behind the post. To not see the glaringly obvious and read something deeper into something that simply is not there is a very blinkered and shallow way of looking at life.
If she was indeed telling the truth with regards to past encounters with a sexual predator then of course I am sorry for what she has gone through, but as I don't know her from Adam it could of course be an attempt to try to push guilt onto a matter that doesn't warrant any.
And as for the comment that this should not be on Facebook, well this opens a whole new can of worms.
The Internet and social media is an open market. For good or for bad the reason that the Internet exists today is due to its openness. You cannot pick and choose what is right and what is wrong. You cannot have it both ways. Either you allow everything or you allow nothing.
With regards to Facebook, if you find something offensive then make your comment and stand by your argument. If you don't wish to read the thread or the images that go with it then simply move along. There are a billion threads on Facebook, go to another. Simple.
Well in the end it looks like the post was removed. No doubt it was by the learned woman putting pressure on my friend and placing her in an awkward situation which is sad in itself.
I seemed to have ranted a bit here and with no real comedic effect but it was something I needed to get off my chest.
If you want cats all day long on the Internet then crawl back under your uneducated shell.