Facebook and sheep mentality

[dyn]

OK, what is wrong with this picture?

fb_censorship.png

Most of you probably thought something like Hitler ... Nazis ... wrong, bad, Holocaust. That's nice, you are following your programming like a good obedient sheep.

In reality nothing is wrong with the picture of Adolf Hitler, even more, at time this picture was taken he was "Man of the Year" according to Time magazine. I don't care about his career and WW2, what i see more and more at various social networking sites is how sheeple will try to enforce their conformist views on anyone who is not one of the herd, like they are. Many agree online social networking may ruin your real life, however biggest danger is how it reduces your individuality and self-determination to nothing more than mimicking what others do, always trying not to upset anyone -- unless you rebel, which means you will get warnings, account restrictions and ultimately a ban. You decide which path is best for you.

Be different! Stay away from the herd.

[Apocalypse]

i dont FB for that reason. They try to censor everything. Nor do I tweet. And why would i want to broadcast myself to the world.

[craij]

Why don't you ask the Jewish community if they think its an offensive picture?
Or, better yet, ask the Germans.

May be "programming" for "sensitive" Americans.

One thing is clear though, Facebook is for knobs.

[SD]

I'm not a huge fan. I do have a FB account but I'm not surgically attached to it like a lot of people are. I know plenty of fools who can't leave it alone for more than 10 mins at a time. About a year ago I had to impose a ban on cell phones at work because some of the admin staff wouldn't stop facebooking. They got rather upset about it too, just shows how pathetic some people are.

[VAT]

because the views of adolf are most up to date and therefore dangerous for the current business.
incidentally FB is kids´stuff!

[dyn]

Why don't you ask the Jewish community if they think its an offensive picture?
Or, better yet, ask the Germans.

May be "programming" for "sensitive" Americans.

One thing is clear though, Facebook is for knobs.

That's irrelevant. Supporting free speech is exactly about the opposite -- to defend it even when you disagree with it. You don't need to defend popular speech, like politically-correct crap you see on TV. Free speech is something which escapes many people, because it may look offensive at first, and they are so busy with that offensive stuff they don't see 2 steps ahead. Which is what makes them sheeple, programmed to react to certain images or words in predictable ways.

I'm not a huge fan. I do have a FB account but I'm not surgically attached to it like a lot of people are. I know plenty of fools who can't leave it alone for more than 10 mins at a time. About a year ago I had to impose a ban on cell phones at work because some of the admin staff wouldn't stop facebooking. They got rather upset about it too, just shows how pathetic some people are.

I had discussion with AG about something similar a year ago. Like with free speech, i also advocate freedom of information, no matter where and for what purpose. If someone wants to browse social networking sites and exchange information about where to get the best sushi, that's his or her choice. If they get unemployed or suspended because of this, they will learn from it, if not that's their problem as well. Warning or two before this happens is OK, restricting information to make them more productive is something i disagree with.

[dyn]

because the views of adolf are most up to date and therefore dangerous for the current business.
incidentally FB is kids´stuff!

I agree, what is most prohibited is actually most effective and truthful. They allow others to criticize them, to make silly conspiracy theories about them, but they will go crazy if you mention something which is prohibited for public to discuss. Why do they fear it so much, that is the question! I know one thing -- only liars need to protect their version of history with threats of punishment, social isolation and various restrictions. Truth needs no defense.

[SD]

Why don't you ask the Jewish community if they think its an offensive picture?
Or, better yet, ask the Germans.

May be "programming" for "sensitive" Americans.

One thing is clear though, Facebook is for knobs.

That's irrelevant. Supporting free speech is exactly about the opposite -- to defend it even when you disagree with it. You don't need to defend popular speech, like politically-correct crap you see on TV. Free speech is something which escapes many people, because it may look offensive at first, and they are so busy with that offensive stuff they don't see 2 steps ahead. Which is what makes them sheeple, programmed to react to certain images or words in predictable ways.

I'm not a huge fan. I do have a FB account but I'm not surgically attached to it like a lot of people are. I know plenty of fools who can't leave it alone for more than 10 mins at a time. About a year ago I had to impose a ban on cell phones at work because some of the admin staff wouldn't stop facebooking. They got rather upset about it too, just shows how pathetic some people are.

I had discussion with AG about something similar a year ago. Like with free speech, i also advocate freedom of information, no matter where and for what purpose. If someone wants to browse social networking sites and exchange information about where to get the best sushi, that's his or her choice. If they get unemployed or suspended because of this, they will learn from it, if not that's their problem as well. Warning or two before this happens is OK, restricting information to make them more productive is something i disagree with.

I know what you're saying, but endlessly facebooking when they're supposed to be working is something I disagree with! I only ever enforced that rule when people (usually female admin staff) were being excessive with it. I don't care if someone wants to send the odd text or take the odd call or check FB sometimes, I do that my self, but I don't think being basically addicted to some social networking site to the point where you need to use it all the time even in work is good for anybody.

[Apocalypse]

I'm not a huge fan. I do have a FB account but I'm not surgically attached to it like a lot of people are. I know plenty of fools who can't leave it alone for more than 10 mins at a time. About a year ago I had to impose a ban on cell phones at work because some of the admin staff wouldn't stop facebooking. They got rather upset about it too, just shows how pathetic some people are.

They just did the same thing where my wife works. employees were pissed she said.

[dyn]

As i said before, they will learn to be more responsible if you only trust them a bit. Fencing everything is only good for sheep, and it will produce more of the same. You cannot expect your company to have enthusiastic employees after you restrict their freedoms. Ask idiots @ ex-Soviet Union & ex-communist bloc why everything fell apart. Not that they know, they think everybody worked against them, but in reality it is because of the same thing -- you restrict what people can do, and they will restrict the power of your organization or even the entire country. America became strong because it respected individual freedom, something they are forgetting now, this is why it will become weaker. Leaders they have don't know this, which is even more depressing.

Any responsible individual will know when to quit FB or YT and do their job. Blocking access is just wrong, because you assume you know better than them, and those in agreement with you will actually be less productive. Why? It's very simple, there is no motivation to do more than required when freedom is restricted. This is information age, and information must be free -- it is the only way information survives, which in turn is crucial for the survival of this society.

[dyn]

I'm not a huge fan. I do have a FB account but I'm not surgically attached to it like a lot of people are. I know plenty of fools who can't leave it alone for more than 10 mins at a time. About a year ago I had to impose a ban on cell phones at work because some of the admin staff wouldn't stop facebooking. They got rather upset about it too, just shows how pathetic some people are.

They just did the same thing where my wife works. employees were pissed she said.

Of course they are pissed, anyone who is not a sheep would be upset. Especially when they see that same admin who blocked their access is surfing the web himself and discussing stupid crap with other admins, or downloading latest games from The Pirate Bay. Double standards all the time. At some companies you even see admins bragging how much faster they can download warez, after they installed filters for other employees.

Correct way is to allow people to use phones/internet and simply tell them you don't care if they are online as long as they do their job. Sounds simple, however anyone responsible will see they cannot spend hours online and finish what is required of them. On the other hand, if they are online now and then it just makes them happier and even more productive later. People need to relax and "escape" from boring jobs and stupid bosses, or else they start to hate that company and everyone involved with it.

[craij]

That's irrelevant. Supporting free speech is exactly about the opposite -- to defend it even when you disagree with it. You don't need to defend popular speech, like politically-correct crap you see on TV. Free speech is something which escapes many people, because it may look offensive at first, and they are so busy with that offensive stuff they don't see 2 steps ahead. Which is what makes them sheeple, programmed to react to certain images or words in predictable ways.

Maybe the banning wasn't due to finding it offensive but rather that they just didn't want such a dick on their network.

[dyn]

It was removed because it was reported by someone else. Needless to say, i am not communicating with that person anymore.

[craij]

Programming? So imagery of rape is not bad? Imagery of starving entire populations is not bad? Imagery of burning people alive is not bad?

What you are calling programming is called educating by others. And history education associates that image with mass genocide.

[dyn]

This is not about Adolf et al. It is about taking your freedoms away, one bit at a time, and in this particular case -- realization how little you can trust sheeple online. I mean, if someone is your "friend" and then reports your harmless picture -- what kind of a friend is that? Worthless traitor, who would reveal anything else if under pressure.

[craij]

I see that your point is about freedom but it is not sheep mentality to want to remove Adolf Hitler from your website. They may feel as though they do not want to support the actions of Hitler in any way and showing a likeness of him gives him a little more visibility.

[AG]

...it is not sheep mentality to want to remove Adolf Hitler from your website. They may feel as though they do not want to support the actions of Hitler in any way and showing a likeness of him gives him a little more visibility.

first, on stupidbook, the offended-in-question could choose to a) not look at the offensive content, b) hide the offending user's posts, c) unfriend and/or block the user. the offended would be making decisions to change their own environment — not tattling and forcing *the other person* to change *theirs*.

second, while you may not like what it represents, a mere portrait of hitler is not offensive.

third, stupidbook isn't anonymous. it may be over the internet, but these are relationships-by-request. if a "friend" is so upset by something like that to the point they need to make facebook administrators modify your account, to what extent are they an actual friend anyway?

[VAT]

thus it´s obvious: adolf is an rolling stone...

[dyn]

Perhaps problem is not how to convince people not to be sheepish, but how to organize them regardless of their level of awareness. No wonder each developed civilization produced secret occult societies -- it is very hard to discuss anything really powerful with mundane people, who can't or refuse to comprehend it. So, perhaps problem is not in "waking people up", but in this flawed notion how we are all equal. If anything, we are not elitist enough.

[craij]

ag, i definitely agree on all accounts. i especially agree that the friend in question is no friend at all. but, even though i am neither jewish (nor any other race/creed raped by hitler) nor on fagbook, i can understand a company owner's/administrator's decision to not support something. it's their right.

dyn, just because individuals may not agree with you, that doesn't make them mundane, idiots or sheep.

[dyn]

You need to understand this is not about my views and others agreeing with them or not. That's not the point. Problem is people are being manipulated in various ways, and they will force anyone non-conformist to behave like they do, something you can see on social networks very often.

It is universal problem, sometimes this can go into extremes and anyone who is not "one of them" is endangered, hence the need to establish various secret societies, either because they needed to survive or they were tired of explaining basic stuff to those who refuse to understand it. Not all of those are stupid, but generally they are behaving that way, especially when in crowds.