Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[itisnotlogical]

You know, Bernie Sanders. That... great enemy of... animal rights...?

[Frumple]

The ones claiming responsibility appear to have stated what they were trying to do, according to some other articles covering the incident. Apparently Sanders doesn't sufficiently oppose inhumane animal farming conditions for that particular group, and they were hoping to (somehow) convince Sanders to take a harder stance on the subject. Which I guess is something of a fair cop... pretty sure none of the candidates give too much of a shit about that subject. Some (and Sanders more than most, near as two seconds of googling could tell), but not all that much.

[Shadowlord]

They appear to think all animal farms are factory farming. No exceptions!!

Authorities have not yet released the name of the child who tumbled into the Gorilla World exhibit Saturday afternoon, nor have they identified his parents. But the Internet doesn’t care about these sorts of formalities.

A mob of online parenting critics mobilized over the holiday weekend, lambasting a nameless figure they were convinced had neglected her child inside the zoo Saturday and was to blame for the events that transpired. Then on Sunday, a woman claiming to be the preschooler’s mother took to Facebook in a desperate attempt to defend herself.

“God protected my child until the authorities were able to get to him. My son is safe and was able to walk away with a concussion and a few scrapes… no broken bones or internal injuries,” the woman wrote on Facebook, according to People magazine. “As a society we are quick to judge how a parent could take their eyes off of their child and if anyone knows me I keep a tight watch on my kids.”

She added: “Accidents happen…”

While some news outlets named the woman, others, including The Washington Post, unable to verify that she was the mother in question, are not.

People wasted little time responding to the woman’s Facebook post with hateful comments, forcing her to eventually remove it altogether, People magazine reported. They then found the Facebook page for a preschool where a woman by the same name works, records show. They blasted that next, according to news reports, forcing the school to delete its page, too.

Other women who share her name on social media received threatening messages intended for her, attacks that called her “scum,” “a really bad mother” and a “f****** killer.”

“that animal is more important than your s*** kid,” one man messaged.

Another woman wrote: “u should’ve been shot.”

At times, the barrage of insults were racially charged, reported the Cincinnati Enquirer.

By Monday, the threats grew so intense that Cincinnati police felt compelled to act.

“Even though they’re not direct death threats, we’re going to reach out to the mother and let her know what’s going on, if she doesn’t know already,” police spokesman Lt. Steve Saunders told the Enquirer. “We’re going to keep her in the loop. We’re going to err on the side of safety for her and her family.”

There's more if you follow the link.

Do they think they are going to accomplish something good by flaming her everywhere like this? Have they no sense of decency?

[sluissa]

The ones claiming responsibility appear to have stated what they were trying to do, according to some other articles covering the incident. Apparently Sanders doesn't sufficiently oppose inhumane animal farming conditions for that particular group, and they were hoping to (somehow) convince Sanders to take a harder stance on the subject. Which I guess is something of a fair cop... pretty sure none of the candidates give too much of a shit about that subject. Some (and Sanders more than most, near as two seconds of googling could tell), but not all that much.

Sanders has already shown he responds to people being asses and interrupting his speeches after the whole BLM thing. So they probably figured they could do the same thing. Get some attention and lip service anyway.

They appear to think all animal farms are factory farming. No exceptions!!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Authorities have not yet released the name of the child who tumbled into the Gorilla World exhibit Saturday afternoon, nor have they identified his parents. But the Internet doesn’t care about these sorts of formalities.

A mob of online parenting critics mobilized over the holiday weekend, lambasting a nameless figure they were convinced had neglected her child inside the zoo Saturday and was to blame for the events that transpired. Then on Sunday, a woman claiming to be the preschooler’s mother took to Facebook in a desperate attempt to defend herself.

“God protected my child until the authorities were able to get to him. My son is safe and was able to walk away with a concussion and a few scrapes… no broken bones or internal injuries,” the woman wrote on Facebook, according to People magazine. “As a society we are quick to judge how a parent could take their eyes off of their child and if anyone knows me I keep a tight watch on my kids.”

She added: “Accidents happen…”

While some news outlets named the woman, others, including The Washington Post, unable to verify that she was the mother in question, are not.

People wasted little time responding to the woman’s Facebook post with hateful comments, forcing her to eventually remove it altogether, People magazine reported. They then found the Facebook page for a preschool where a woman by the same name works, records show. They blasted that next, according to news reports, forcing the school to delete its page, too.

Other women who share her name on social media received threatening messages intended for her, attacks that called her “scum,” “a really bad mother” and a “f****** killer.”

“that animal is more important than your s*** kid,” one man messaged.

Another woman wrote: “u should’ve been shot.”

At times, the barrage of insults were racially charged, reported the Cincinnati Enquirer.

By Monday, the threats grew so intense that Cincinnati police felt compelled to act.

“Even though they’re not direct death threats, we’re going to reach out to the mother and let her know what’s going on, if she doesn’t know already,” police spokesman Lt. Steve Saunders told the Enquirer. “We’re going to keep her in the loop. We’re going to err on the side of safety for her and her family.”

There's more if you follow the link.

Do they think they are going to accomplish something good by flaming her everywhere like this? Have they no sense of decency?

This is normal. Violent uninformed internet mobs get a message into their heads because they only follow the people they agree with and never have any conflicting viewpoints presented to them. They think they're in the right and nobody would dare disagree with them unless they're a evil villain. This combined with the relative ease of sending an angry message over the internet with little or no threat of repercussion and you've got this. This is prevalent everywhere, but takes the groups that were already outspoken and radical and gives them an easier avenue to push their message to a wider base.

Most of these people sending angry messages would never dare take time out of their week to go to a protest rally and stand on the street against something. They'd never dare be seen in public with a radical group and have their face associated with it, but they're more than happy to send an anonymous message.

Face it, it's just the rest of the world catching up to what 4chan discovered years ago.

[Vilanat]

It all comes down to an agreement or not of a simple formula: do Human>Animal?

[Frumple]

It... really kinda' doesn't. Much of the outrage towards the mother is for her letting the kid get in the enclosure at all, more than anything else involved. More a case of human incompetence < animal, and should be punished accordingly when it gets animals in a situation they have to be killed or injured, for those ones.

All the inappropriate vitriol aside, they've got a damn good point so far as that goes. Shitty (perhaps only temporarily, who knows) parent got their kid nearly killed and an animal outright. Generally we levy some kind of penalty against junk like that. Looks like folks are going the public shaming instead of legal route, but *shrugs*

[Loud Whispers]

SHAME

[Zangi]

People can't have nice things for years on end when they have children.

[Vilanat]

It... really kinda' doesn't. Much of the outrage towards the mother is for her letting the kid get in the enclosure at all, more than anything else involved. More a case of human incompetence < animal, and should be punished accordingly when it gets animals in a situation they have to be killed or injured, for those ones.

All the inappropriate vitriol aside, they've got a damn good point so far as that goes. Shitty (perhaps only temporarily, who knows) parent got their kid nearly killed and an animal outright. Generally we levy some kind of penalty against junk like that. Looks like folks are going the public shaming instead of legal route, but *shrugs*

In regards to justifying the rage, I think it is. the much of the anger belong to the complete majority opinion of Human > Animal so they naturally focus on the mother's negligence. i don't think its these people who singed those petitions. with those it's like when parents who forget their baby in a car and the baby gets saved at the last second gets raged by the internet, if it doesn't get saved, the comments are more in line, but you can still find some nasty remarks even amidst the parents grief. the fact that an Endangered Animal got killed, even though it was justified (in their minds), only allow the Mob.Net to morally excuse themselves for getting enraged at the woman's negligence.

Let's run a theoretical scenario: A woman neglect to watch her kid and that kid runs straight in the path of an incoming car. the driver can't see the kid nor see the crowd signals. you got a sniper rifle, and for argument sake, shooting the driver will save the kid. will you take that shot? i think that the majority will not take the shot, for several reasons, the first reason is that shooting an innocent human being to save another is morally wrong and the second reason is that realistically, most people wont be able to take that shot at a man even if they intellectually think it's justified in this case.

We come to this discussion, like the mother shown in her comments, with an assumption that it is ok to shoot an innocent animal, at its own territory only to save a human being. that formula is wrong, in my opinion, and even though i know it is wrong, i, like many others, was raised completely indoctrinated to believe humans are superior to animals (not for religions reasons since i was raised an atheist) so i still believe it was good to shoot the animal to save that kid. if i believe so, even though i intellectually can't find a reason to justify it, imagine the frustration the enlightened ones have when trying to teach us that Animal = Human. i don't think a calm and reasonable debate could suffice here, especially considering the religious tendencies people have in America (In Which Man is God's last and best creation). i can completely understand their rage.

That the kid got in the enclosure thanks to his mother neglect, that the gorilla is an endangered specie, that there was a very good chance the gorilla wouldn't have killed the kid and that the woman shown a complete lack of care for the gorilla and just excused herself and thanked god for saving her child only means that for some people in this specific case it managed to temporarily shift to Human < Animal and perhaps could raise awareness to that underlining issue.

The sad irony here is that there is a bigger chance the woman could sue the Zoo and win rather than the Zoo sue her and win. if she sues the Zoo and wins, the court basically says, Human > Animal, even though Human is a mindless herd animal without any need for self responsibility.

[Shadowlord]

So Trump just said: "You're a sleaze because you know the facts, and you know the facts well."

[Antioch]

Well that gorilla story sure made everyone on the internet retarded (no wait it already was the internet).


People want to lynch the mother without even knowing what happened. It takes like what 2 seconds for a child to slip between/over a fence? Sometimes shit simply happens, and unfortunately this shit was very sad.

[smirk]

So Trump just said: "You're a sleaze because you know the facts, and you know the facts well."

Hah, wow. I thought you were paraphrasing, but that is verbatim. Amazing.

[Frumple]

People want to lynch the mother without even knowing what happened. It takes like what 2 seconds for a child to slip between/over a fence? Sometimes shit simply happens, and unfortunately this shit was very sad.

It's true that sometimes shit simply happens. Someone letting their kid close enough to a fence and unrestrained (i.e. picked up or somethin') and untended enough to slip through isn't something that simply happens, y'ken?

There may be distractions or emergencies or whatnot that explain it, but it was shit that could have been prevented (pretty easily -- if your kid's that small, keep your hands on 'em or in a stroller if you're letting them near anything potentially dangerous) and it's pretty difficult to excuse that, particularly when it ends up like this case did.

Definitely a bit too much vitriol from some folks, though, as per usual. Doesn't have anything in particular to do with the internet, though... people are just kinda' like that. You would have had similar (if less easily accessed) responses if it had been pre-internet and in a newspaper. Some folks just like to feel and/or act outraged...

Should spend some time going over old letters to the editor and whatnot, really. It's almost fascinating how little some things have changed with the advent of the 'net. Easier to get to, but human psychology only changes so much.

[Criptfeind]

People want to lynch the mother without even knowing what happened. It takes like what 2 seconds for a child to slip between/over a fence? Sometimes shit simply happens, and unfortunately this shit was very sad.

It's true that sometimes shit simply happens. Someone letting their kid close enough to a fence and unrestrained (i.e. picked up or somethin') and untended enough to slip through isn't something that simply happens, y'ken?

I mean, you say that. But spending a whole day at the zoo with your kid grabbed or on a leash or whatever seems a lot stranger to me then the idea that some accident could and do happen. Because I mean. That's what you're saying right? She should have literally had the kid in her grasp at all times throughout the whole day. Or at least whenever they are anywhere near fences or whatever.

Edit: To be clear, I'm not saying that she didn't do anything wrong. Just that. You know. "Hey, we don't know what happened. Maybe there should be some investigation" seems pretty reasonable, and honestly accidents happen even when you're trying to be a reasonably good parent. 

[Frumple]

Anytime they were near an open fence, sure, if there were any reasonable doubt the kid would try to slip through (and... there pretty obviously was, 'cause it actually happened). Or in a stroller or somethin', if they're small enough. Eyes on and arms reach, otherwise, or something equivalent. Hand holding is a thing, yeah?

Personally pretty distinctly remember having parents do just that for me in similar situations, when I was young and stupid enough to try to go through fences. Hand holdin's a pretty decent low-key way to stop kids from killing themselves, from what I recall.