Sun Dec 8, 2013, 05:23 PM

Le Taz Hot (22,271 posts)

WARNING: There is a current thread that contains a graphic image:

A post within this thread: F*#k you Michael Vick, you dog killing asshole (Foles FTW!)

Contains a horrible graphic image of an abused animal.

21 replies, 2723 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

21 replies	Author	Time	Post
WARNING: There is a current thread that contains a graphic image: (Original post)	Le Taz Hot	Dec 2013	OP
Thank you! That would have ruined my day!	Happyhippychick	Dec 2013	#1
I and others have asked and asked and asked people not to do that	Le Taz Hot	Dec 2013	#2
The image is graphic.	darkangel218	Dec 2013	#3
Agreed -	TBF	Dec 2013	#4
I am an animal lover of the first magnitude	Le Taz Hot	Dec 2013	#5
As far as I remember he served his sentence	malaise	Dec 2013	#10
Sometimes people suck	madokie	Dec 2013	#6
Kick	Le Taz Hot	Dec 2013	#7
thanks for the warning	Liberal_in_LA	Dec 2013	#8
I opened the thread before I saw your warning -	kiva	Dec 2013	#9
I don't care anything about Michael Vick	lpbk2713	Dec 2013	#11
Had trashed the thread already, just on principle, but thanks anyway	quinnox	Dec 2013	#12
TOS.	Agschmid	Dec 2013	#13
Yep, it looks like they dropped that part, and said you can't post those in the first place	quinnox	Dec 2013	#14
I agree.	Agschmid	Dec 2013	#16
Ok. Would you be offended if I was offended by the graphic image represented by	madinmaryland	Dec 2013	#15
This has nothing to do with being "offended."	Le Taz Hot	Dec 2013	#17
What condition are you referring to? Please explain, as I did not know what you are referring to.	madinmaryland	Dec 2013	#18
It's a hypersensitivity to graphic images.	Le Taz Hot	Dec 2013	#19
Unfortunately, the jury let it stand:	Ptah	Dec 2013	#20
Well, thank you for whoever alerted.	Le Taz Hot	Dec 2013	#21

Response to Le Taz Hot (Original post)

Sun Dec 8, 2013, 05:30 PM

Happyhippychick (8,379 posts)

1. Thank you! That would have ruined my day!

Reply to this post

Response to Happyhippychick (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 8, 2013, 05:34 PM

Le Taz Hot (22,271 posts)

2. I and others have asked and asked and asked people not to do that

but the pleadings go unheeded. The last time I started a thread about this issue it was suggested that instead of DU, I switch to AOL.

Sometimes compassion and understanding are hard to find even on a so-called "liberal" board. (sigh)

Reply to this post

Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 8, 2013, 05:42 PM

darkangel218 (13,985 posts)

3. The image is graphic.

But what MV did should not be brushed under the carpet, but rather reminded and warned of.

( not me who posted the said pic, I just understand why it was posted.)

Reply to this post

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 8, 2013, 06:04 PM

TBF (31,869 posts)

4. Agreed -

Better if a post has a warning in the title but I understand the anger towards Vick.

Reply to this post

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 8, 2013, 06:08 PM

Le Taz Hot (22,271 posts)

5. I am an animal lover of the first magnitude

and will never forget the description of what he did to those animals. But there is an actual condition having to do with hypersensitivity to graphic images. From what I've read approximately 10% of the population suffers from this. When we see a graphic image it stays with us FOREVER. It's like it runs over and over and over in our heads and there's no way to stop it and there's no way to "just get over it." I'm just pleading for people to post a WARNING if they feel compelled to include such graphic imagery.

You have compassion for animals, can't you find compassion in your heart for those of us that suffer from this condition?

Reply to this post

Response to darkangel218 (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 8, 2013, 07:11 PM

malaise (256,754 posts)

10. As far as I remember he served his sentence

What more do you want?

Reply to this post

Response to Happyhippychick (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 8, 2013, 06:13 PM

madokie (51,076 posts)

6. Sometimes people suck

when they do that without a warning.

Reply to this post

Response to Le Taz Hot (Original post)

Sun Dec 8, 2013, 06:23 PM

Le Taz Hot (22,271 posts)

7. Kick

Reply to this post

Response to Le Taz Hot (Original post)

Sun Dec 8, 2013, 06:26 PM

Liberal_in_LA (44,397 posts)

8. thanks for the warning

Reply to this post

Response to Le Taz Hot (Original post)

Sun Dec 8, 2013, 07:09 PM

kiva (4,373 posts)

9. I opened the thread before I saw your warning -

and thanks for posting it, I hate coming on pics like that unexpectedly - but (happily) didn't see the photo...I don't know if the OP took it down, which would be good, or if I've simply adblocked stuff from that source (which happens often) so the photo didn't open.

Reply to this post

Response to Le Taz Hot (Original post)

Sun Dec 8, 2013, 07:13 PM

lpbk2713 (42,051 posts)

11. I don't care anything about Michael Vick

... so I wasn't likely to click on it.

But I'm glad you were considerate enough to post a warning just the same.

Reply to this post

Response to Le Taz Hot (Original post)

Sun Dec 8, 2013, 07:14 PM

quinnox (20,600 posts)

12. Had trashed the thread already, just on principle, but thanks anyway

Dog threads are an 'auto-trash' for me.

But its a requirement to use a graphic warning label when posting disturbing images, too many seem to think its optional or can be done out of "being nice", they need to read the terms of service.

Reply to this post

Response to quinnox (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 8, 2013, 07:25 PM

Agschmid (28,749 posts)

13. TOS.

So if you are referencing this...

Don't post "shock content" or porn.

Do not post or link to extreme images of violence, gore, bodily functions, pain, or human suffering for no purpose other than to shock and disgust. Do not post or link to pornography.

It says nothing about putting a warning in place. I get that it might be nice to do but it is hardly a requirement as you suggest. And I do not feel that the image was placed there for "no other purpose than to shock of disgust".

I would suggest that if you feel the image violates the TOS that you alert on said image.

Reply to this post

Response to Agschmid (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 8, 2013, 07:31 PM

quinnox (20,600 posts)

14. Yep, it looks like they dropped that part, and said you can't post those in the first place

It used to say you should put a warning, but looks like it was changed, now it says you can't post those kinds of images at all.

I think people should alert on images that meet this criteria, and let duers know it is not permitted.

Reply to this post

Response to quinnox (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 8, 2013, 07:34 PM

Agschmid (28,749 posts)

16. I agree.

If someone feels it violates the TOS, that is the right time to alert or ask the poster to remove the images.

Reply to this post

Response to Le Taz Hot (Original post)

Sun Dec 8, 2013, 07:31 PM

madinmaryland (64,338 posts)

15. Ok. Would you be offended if I was offended by the graphic image represented by

your avatar?

Reply to this post

Response to madinmaryland (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 8, 2013, 08:12 PM

Le Taz Hot (22,271 posts)

17. This has nothing to do with being "offended."

I'm sorry you CHOOSE not to understand and that you CHOOSE not to have compassion for those of us who suffer from this condition.

Reply to this post

Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 8, 2013, 08:17 PM

madinmaryland (64,338 posts)

18. What condition are you referring to? Please explain, as I did not know what you are referring to.

Which is why I referred to being offended. Some may find your avatar irrationally graphic, while others may find a picture of a wounded animal irrationally graphic.

Reply to this post

Response to madinmaryland (Reply #18)

Sun Dec 8, 2013, 08:36 PM

Le Taz Hot (22,271 posts)

19. It's a hypersensitivity to graphic images.

I explained it in one of the posts above. I've no idea what the rest of your post means. Mine is a simple request, if you're going to post pictures of tortured animals, babies, individuals, gory content, please put a "Graphic" warning label in the Subject Line.

Reply to this post

Response to Le Taz Hot (Original post)

Sun Dec 8, 2013, 08:42 PM

Ptah (32,166 posts)

20. Unfortunately, the jury let it stand:

At Sun Dec 8, 2013, 04:26 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

Because of this...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4149881

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS:

There is no need for gratuitous photos. They make DU suck.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sun Dec 8, 2013, 04:42 PM, and voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This is what it looks like, for the Vick apologists.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: Graphic photos should at least have a warning. And tho jurors don't uphold the TOS, there is a clause that says not to post graphic photos "for no purpose other than to shock and disgust."
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Should've put a GRAPHIC warning before the post, but a photo in this thread had to be expected.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It is a shocking post, but to diminish the enormity of his actions by hiding their consequence is a poor policy. Of the available options listed in the alert, only 'otherwise inappropriate' seems to apply and I feel that within context the image is appropriate. A case might be made for 'insensitive', but again I would err on the side of informing the reader rather than hiding the consequences of dog fighting. Were there a mechanism for warning the reader and requiring a click to show the image, I might support the suggestion that it be used.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: At first I was going to leave it, so people could see the consequences of his actions, but thinking of pet lovers here, I'm voting to hide.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

Reply to this post

Response to Ptah (Reply #20)

Sun Dec 8, 2013, 08:51 PM

Le Taz Hot (22,271 posts)

21. Well, thank you for whoever alerted.

It was worth a try. I didn't Alert because I would have had to look at the picture longer. That is the honest-to-goddess reason.

Reply to this post

General Discussion (Forum)