Drama in r/pics when some users claim it's patronizing to use "disabled" in the title and others disagree (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
31 ups - 6 downs = 25 votes
38 comments submitted at 17:05:21 on Sep 3, 2013 by Joraiem
Drama in r/pics when some users claim it's patronizing to use "disabled" in the title and others disagree (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
31 ups - 6 downs = 25 votes
38 comments submitted at 17:05:21 on Sep 3, 2013 by Joraiem
I normally hate the /r/pics titling circlejerk, but this post really wasn't too bad or anything.
Some people will get upset at everything.
I believe the gripe is valid though. It gets grating when such titles show up every day.
My [insert relative/S.O] did so and so for [insert disabled patron]. The problem is people will gobble that trite shit up and will turn around self righteously and rail against politicians who do the same thing.
Common argument being "well at least he/she is doing some good" which is utter bollocks. The people being helped are not zoo animals waiting for "your" alms and a self congratulatory announcements.
>people will gobble that trite shit up and will turn around self righteously and rail against politicians who do the same thing.
That really seems off-topic, and not related to the drama or submission.
>The people being helped are not zoo animals waiting for "your" alms
Wtf dude, no one is calling disabled people animals or acting like they're beggars. The post literally just said "here's my wife with a disabled kid". These people went out of their way to bring a bit of happiness to sick children, and people are seriously getting upset that they called a disabled kid disabled? "Disabled" isn't a slur.
No it's on topic. Pandering behaviour is accepted only when it's a none celebrity or regular folk doing it.
> Wtf dude, no one is calling disabled people animals or acting like they're beggars. The post literally just said "here's my wife with a disabled kid". These people went out of their way to bring a bit of happiness to sick children, and people are seriously getting upset that they called a disabled kid disabled? "Disabled" isn't a slur.
I was making a hyperbolic analogy. What's the difference between that title and /r/aww titles filled with "Just saved this cat from a dumpster" type bullshit? None what so ever.
> These people went out of their way to bring a bit of happiness to sick children, and people are seriously getting upset that they called a disabled kid disabled? "Disabled" isn't a slur.
Which brings me back to the common argument I stated before. You can do your good deed. Posting it with that bullshit title makes it seem like it was done to score "good person" points instead of it being handled as a common act of decency. Be a good person for yourself not for others.
I completely agree that I hate those "heartfelt" posts with a sob story in the title. /r/pics is especially bad with these kinds of posts, "My autistic brother just got dumped by his fundie gf, here's a pic of his shoes".
But in this case, the title directly related to the pictures.
>instead of it being handled as a common act of decency.
This wasn't a "common act of decency", stuff like this hardly happens. Since it's pretty unique, I think it made for a good submission.
>Be a good person for yourself not for others.
The whole point of Reddit is to share content with others. Sure, it's karma whoring. But 90% of the content on reddit is because people are karma-whoring. Even people who post "good" content are doing it to get upvoted and seen by a lot of people. Hell, I do it.
Aww come on buddy, you gotta admit, taking pictures with disabled kids while in some costume is extremely common. I have no problem with it. It just feels exploitative to announce it to the world. Feels like artificial show of empathy.
>taking pictures with disabled kids while in some costume is extremely common
... Not sure if you're being sarcastic, if not, how many pictures do you exactly have of you and a kid in a "costume"?
Uh what?! I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about the concept of costumed person takign picture with a sick/dying/disabled kid.
But you're specifically saying: "taking pictures with disabled kids while in some costume is extremely common".
And I don't agree with that being "extremely common", I mean I've seen it before, but it's not exactly something I'm tired of seeing.
It is extremely common. How do you want me to gauge it for you?
>The problem is people will gobble that trite shit up and will turn around self righteously and rail against politicians who do the same thing.
That's because people have a reason to be cynical about politicians. Somebody who's trying to get attention on Reddit is simply trying to get attention, but a politician is hoping to wield power as a part of government.
And people have a reason to be cynical about the intent of others. If your sole reason for doing good deeds is to get pat on the backs from others then it kinda negates the altruistic sentiment since the people being "helped" are more or less being exploited.
>If your sole reason for doing good deeds is to get pat on the backs from others then it kinda negates the altruistic sentiment since the people being "helped" are more or less being exploited.
Someone helping you without expecting anything in return is "exploiting you"? Do you read the stuff you type?
Further, I don't think anyone's motives are completely pure. For instance, Mother Theresa and other christian helpers probably did good to get into heaven. Maybe Bill Gates gives money because he enjoys being the #1 philanthropist around. Maybe when I give some money to a homeless person, I'm hoping to alleviate my conscience. Do our motives have any bearing on how much good resulted from our actions? Nope.
In fact, what I would like is that people compete with philanthropy to get pats on the back, instead of competing by buying bigger cars than their neighbors.
> Someone helping you without expecting anything in return is "exploiting you"? Do you read the stuff you type?
Did YOU read what I typed? I'm not against the act itself. I'm against what comes next. Broadcasting it to the high mountains about what a selfless person you are. That's where my gripe lies. It's a culture westerners love so dearly, that's why I'm getting downvoted.
> Further, I don't think anyone's motives are completely pure. For instance, Mother Theresa and other christian helpers probably did good to get into heaven. Maybe Bill Gates gives money because he enjoys being the #1 philanthropist around. Maybe when I give some money to a homeless person, I'm hoping to alleviate my conscience. Do our motives have any bearing on how much good resulted from our actions? Nope.
There is no black and white to this situation. You can be a good person to alleviate your conscience. That's you. Turning it into a public pr banner is fucking disgusting in my opinion and that is all too common. It's like all those "white adventure" posts. There was a post the other day about a guy who went to ghana. His headline was "I just bought this kid a soda, he said it was the best day of his life".
A fucking lie and trumped up bullshit to elicit sympathy. That is where my argument lies.
HEY REDDIT, I WAS A GOOD PERSON TODAY!!! WE DID IT REDDIT!! WE SAVED THIS HOMELESS PEOPLE!!! CONGRATS REDDIT, BOSTON BOMBERS IS THIS GUY!!!
There is an epidemic of hero worshiping bullshit and attention seeking mentality that seems to do more harm than good. If you're being nice to someone because you want to score PR poins, politician or not, you can fuck right off.
Does that seem reasonable to you?
Yeah, it's reasonable. I just argued in favour of that. Because being shallow about being good is just about the best shallow you can be.
I understand. My apprehension is probably a reflection of the culture where I'm from. Different values and all.
Which one?
I was raised in Africa. Currently in Canada now though. I mean I've seen enough of the false charity to kind of become weary of the whole "charity" posts, especially on /r/pics
My point is that I don't have a reason to care if most random Redditors are being genuine or not. I do have a reason to care if my local political candidates are.
> My point is that I don't have a reason to care if most random Redditors are being genuine or not. I do have a reason to care if my local political candidates are.
And my point is that it doesn't matter. In both cases people are being exploited.