Clean up after your dog

August 11, 2005 9:44 AM

Dog Poo Girl: "A woman and her dog are riding the Seoul subways. The dog poops in the floor. The woman refuses to clean it up, despite being told to by other passengers. Someone takes a picture of her, posts it on the Internet..."
posted by starscream (104 comments total)

That is not her middle finger... is it?
posted by dhoyt at 9:51 AM on August 11, 2005

Sorry that this is old news now, I just learned of this today.

I kinda feel sorry for her though, especially after reading about the backlash she's experienced and a (possible) quote from here in the wiki.
posted by starscream at 9:56 AM on August 11, 2005

Wow, now THAT is how I would like to be remembered throughout history.
posted by Emperor Yamamoto's Eggs at 9:57 AM on August 11, 2005

It's dangerous territory, but really: when someone is so egregriously anti-social (in that sociopathic sense), there needs to be some sort of accounting for it. "Dog-poo-girl" will almost certainly think twice about being such a selfish reprobate next time around.

That, or she'll give up on humanity and pull a mass murder.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:58 AM on August 11, 2005

I can't believe that this isn't a double.
posted by Kwantsar at 10:01 AM on August 11, 2005

I can't believe it's not butter
posted by Debaser626 at 10:04 AM on August 11, 2005

Wow, nice, what a legacy! I'd love to shame some people who don't clean up after their dogs in my neighborhood. Nothing like leaving the house and finding a nice big steaming pile on my new front lawn.

Earlier this week some jerk let his dog crap in the middle of the gate to the path and didn't pick it up. Its ridiculous.

People who are negligent in caring for their animals, including cleaning up after them, should have those animals taken away from them.
posted by fenriq at 10:06 AM on August 11, 2005

I can't believe that this isn't a double.

Me neither... but I did separate searches for 'dog' and 'poo' and got no hits ;)

Unless I'm being completely daft & blind today....
posted by starscream at 10:06 AM on August 11, 2005

It was more common in the old days, but there are places where social deviants are accused of witchcraft.
posted by ALvard at 10:08 AM on August 11, 2005

fenriq - I feel your pain. My apartment complex had the same problem with inconsiderate pet owners, and it got so bad that management started giving out 50 dollar rent credits to those who they randomly "catch" picking up after their animals, and enforcing a 250 dollar fine for those fouling the area. The amount of waste has declined considerably since then.
posted by Emperor Yamamoto's Eggs at 10:11 AM on August 11, 2005

I looked at the floor in the picture. It's definitely not butter.
posted by hal9k at 10:16 AM on August 11, 2005

Well, I don't have a problem with this at all. She behaved like an inconsiderate creep so she deserves a little humiliation. It's just a sad fact that some people are so up their own arses that they simply don't get good civics until they're made to understand just how much breaches of it piss other people off.
posted by Decani at 10:18 AM on August 11, 2005

They should have just rubbed her nose in it and swatted her with a newspaper.
posted by Pollomacho at 10:22 AM on August 11, 2005

it smells bad just looking at that picture
posted by cpchester at 10:22 AM on August 11, 2005

The woman screwed up, but the punishment does not fit the crime. This will live with her forever now. The passengers on the train had to smell dog shit for a ride.

This seems like something analogous to cutting off a hand for petty theft: too much punishment for the offense committed.

[And please DO NOT imply I am defending what she did: I'm not. I, too, have to deal with jackasses that won't clean up after their pets, even when they crap in my yard. And jackasses who throw beer bottles out the window in an outdoor park, etc, and really despise that behavior.]

The people Schneier quotes are correct. This is a scarlet letter 'A.' There's something very, very disturbing about this form of vigilante "justice."
posted by teece at 10:23 AM on August 11, 2005

I disagree because it seems to me that the modern, urban anonymity is exceptional in human history and does more harm than good. Reputation is a very important component in regulating social behavior.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:26 AM on August 11, 2005

If her humiliation is limited to the blogosphere, then I say it's fine, but if people come up to her and say "hey, you're the dog shit girl!" then yes, we do have a problem, and whoever took the picture and posted it on the web is accountable. I know what it's like to be accepted or rejected on the internet, and I've gotten worked up about it, but even if everyone on the internet hated me, it wouldn't really matter because there's stil the real world out there. On the other hand, most of the Koreans I know take the internet very seriously, and she might even feel like her life is ruined. I think whoever posted the dog-shit-picture should also be obligated to pass around some nice pictures of her.
posted by Citizen Premier at 10:29 AM on August 11, 2005

The passengers on the train had to smell dog shit for a ride.

That's hardly accurate. Do you think it evaporated or something? I imagine it was a nuisance for most of a day or until someone cleaned it up or the train was taken out of commission to be cleaned. Perhaps the Seoul subway system has a method of getting a person with a mop and cleaning materials onto an in-service train but I doubt it's convenient.
posted by dobbs at 10:30 AM on August 11, 2005

I wish that kind of behavior always got that kind of comeuppance. What a better world we would have.

side anecote: I took care of my folks' 130 pound dog a couple of months ago. I took her for a walk, she crapped (in the middle of a private park dedicated to the victims of 9/11/01), I reached into my pocket and got the plastic bag that I had been carrying for three successive walks where she didn't go. No big deal, I picked up the feces in the ba and disposed of them.

Hour later, the dog asks to go out again. And 10 minutes in, she walked to the edge of someone's lawn and shat a monster. But I hadn't grabbed a new bag. So I picked up a big, hot pile of dog crap with the single used tissue in my pocket and carried it 3/4 mile back to my house. Now I have OCD and can't stop washing my hands.

So now I feel very strongly that anyone who can't clean up after their dog should be at least be imprisoned. Maybe executed if they can be charged with some sort of federal statute because we don't have the death penalty here.
posted by Mayor Curley at 10:32 AM on August 11, 2005

So this would be the modern version of throwing someone into the stocks for all to see, right? Oh, maybe there are fewer opportunities to beat them up or throw stones, but the breadth of exposure here surely makes up for that.
posted by Mercaptan at 10:35 AM on August 11, 2005

I heard about this months ago. I'm shocked it wasn't on here then, as it seems prime MeFi material :-)
posted by clevershark at 10:36 AM on August 11, 2005

In Soviet America, the dog poo takes a picture of YOU!
posted by jmccorm at 10:37 AM on August 11, 2005

So the girl was being a b*tch and someone took a picture. I don't have a problem with that. If she wants consideration from others, she had better start granting it herself.
posted by clevershark at 10:38 AM on August 11, 2005

I can't spare a moment for the dog-shit boy
I won't lend another hand to the worm girl of Hanoi
Don't deplete my oxygen for the guy who's turning blue
But ask me, and I'll do anything for you
posted by wakko at 10:42 AM on August 11, 2005

This is actually a hot new Asian fetish. The guy who took the picture paid Dog Poop Girl to do it. She probably regrets it now - that is until the dough from "Dog Poop Girls™, Vol. 1" starts rolling in.

Turn it around like an inside-out baggie, Dog Poop Girl!
posted by hellbient at 10:42 AM on August 11, 2005

If you knew my girlfriend this would make a lot of sense: pretty girls aren't responsible for things like this.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 10:48 AM on August 11, 2005

Yeah, pretty girls don't poo, and neither do their dogs.
posted by hellbient at 10:52 AM on August 11, 2005

This seems like something analogous to cutting off a hand for petty theft ...

Surely you see the difference between actually harming someone and simply distributing information about their actions, yes?

If you take a picture of me publically doing something, you aren't harming me. If what I do in the picture paints me in a bad light, whose fault is that... mine, or the picture's?
posted by odinsdream at 10:52 AM on August 11, 2005

I'm not sure how I feel about all this. Tabloid journalism has muckraked shame files as a kind of sport in the past but the difference here is the shelf life. You're a bastard for your social indiscretion on prime time for a day and then you are redeemed. But this is permanent. I think I lean towards what teece said. It's out of proportion despite her being wantonly offensive.

Any lawyers around? What say you as to these vigilante keyboarders? Is there a line that must be crossed before victimization becomes a compensable event? Does the public miscreant have to suffer actual losses or..?
posted by peacay at 10:53 AM on August 11, 2005

So this would be the modern version of throwing someone into the stocks for all to see, right?

No, this is the modern version of gossip.

Ethereal Bligh's got it: Reputation is a very important component in regulating social behavior.
posted by selfmedicating at 10:55 AM on August 11, 2005

This is public humiliation ... one way to enforce social norms.
It's just that the public sphere has gotten much larger in the last 20 years.
posted by Dillenger69 at 10:55 AM on August 11, 2005

So this would be the modern version of throwing someone into the stocks for all to see, right?

Again... do you see the difference between physically arresting someone and placing them in a stressful (arguably torturous) position for hours, days, or weeks... and distributing information about their real actions?
posted by odinsdream at 10:56 AM on August 11, 2005

This sort of incident proves the value of Wikipedia. ¿How long do you think it’ll take for the Encyclopaedia Brittanica to have a “dog poop girl” entry?
posted by signal at 10:58 AM on August 11, 2005

Whenever I think of poo it only makes me feel sad
'cause poo deserves better, and once i was it
But somehow my good intestines just got up and shit.
posted by joecacti at 10:59 AM on August 11, 2005

I find this an interesting case because it is so clearly anti-social. While I understand the concerns for personal privacy and the fear of vigilantism, I (as well as most people who have commented) don't have much problem with this. I mean, really. She let her dog crap on the subway and didn't clean it up. I'm fully in favour of public humiliation for this. Why shouldn't she be held responsible for this for the rest of her life?

I do not understand why people think that time drains away the responsibilities people have for their actions. Perhaps I haven't thought this through clearly, but I don't see why the mistakes you make shouldn't follow you. I mean, your successes do, right? People have the right to privacy, but does that extend to other people not having the right to know if you are a social miscreant?

I think this will become much more prevalent in the future; people will be held to stricter social standards because of the ubiquity of cameras. I already wish there was a place I could send pictures of cars running red lights; the number of idiot drivers who get away with things because there are no cops around drives me mad. I suspect social systems will adjust to this; people will check each other's social record automatically, and will know to let people have some slack for things they did 10 years ago, when they were teens.

The truly worrying thing here is the specter of such public shaming being applied to more... ambiguous breakages of social norms. Public shaming of gay partners holding hands in the street? But the internet has taught me that you can find a support group for anything, and for every group of loonies who puts up an I hate fags site, there's another that will make a magical animated gif wonderland of hot man on man action. So I'm thinking it'll all work out ok.

Wow I'm in a rambling mood.
posted by freedryk at 11:00 AM on August 11, 2005

For pity's sake. It's in precisely this way that I became known, to my eternal and inescapable shame, as "Spooge-on-the-Lectern Boy." You try living down a commencement wank when everyone has video cameras.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:01 AM on August 11, 2005

According to the post article, people on the street recognized her afterward by her bag and dog because her hair obscured her face. From the photo I'd have trouble picking her out of a crowd of Korean women with similar hair styles, so that would be my advice: "Change your hair style." Most people will forget her name after a week or so -- it's not like she's a Japanese pop star or an American politician -- but they might well recall who she is if they associate the photo with her name. Getting a perm, say, would cut that short.

She might also avoid taking her dog on the subway for a while, and if she must do so letting it poop (and cleaning it up) before she gets on the train. Another purse might help too.

And if that's really her un-retouched middle finger she's a mutant. It's twice as long as normal.

Now: I think posting her photo was acceptable, but posting more personally identifying information -- or even looking for it -- was going overboard. It's like stabbing somebody for stepping on your foot in a crowd and not saying "Excuse me" (if s/he's even aware s/he's done it). If you're that vindictive please go find your own Pacific island.

Major Curley, please tell me you're kidding, or that there were no trash cans near by with old newspapers in them. I'd have spent five minutes looking for something better than a single used issue, and I'm so "davy".

(Hi Bukvich! Let me guess: "In the French Quarter the poop would be human," right?)
posted by davy at 11:03 AM on August 11, 2005

Right meme, wrong tool.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 11:03 AM on August 11, 2005

Obviously, she did a very inconsiderate thing. But come on. Did she really deserve to become this lambasted and fucked-with? To have her personal life and details scrutinised, investigated, publicised and ridiculed? Essentially none of the people pointing the finger in these discussions were even there, but everyone assumes she was doing it out spite, 'sociopathy', etc.

Is it really so unlikely that you might freak out at the prospect of getting down on the floor in front of a train-load of people who are shouting at you, scooping up dog-shit with no way to carry it, and might just run away instead if the train came to a stop? She may have made a bad call, but these internet bullies have cruelly and obsessively gone too far in lambasting her, in my opinion.

Mayor Curly is trolling once again, and it doesn't surprise me at this point.
posted by Drexen at 11:04 AM on August 11, 2005

I think this is hilarious, especially on the "be with her forever" tip. The internet has a collective memory of about three years. After that, she'll be someone who was famous for doing something stupid once.
If she wants to redeem her image, she should call a newspaper and go around cleaning up dog shit for a day. That'd be a nice human interest story that someone would run on page eight of the local section, and would trickle into her Wikipedia entry. Then everyone on the net could pat themselves on the back and return to masturbating.
posted by klangklangston at 11:07 AM on August 11, 2005

I think its a mistake to say she "let her dog poop" on the subway. No dog I know asks permission before it squats one out. Not that she shouldn't have cleaned it up but I don't think she had a choice in where her pooch pooped.
posted by fenriq at 11:08 AM on August 11, 2005

Put it another way: I'm sure most of you know either directly or indirectly how genuinely upset/depressed some people can get, right or wrong, over flame-wars even on some backwater, irrelevant forum or IRC channel. This girl become the subject of an internet-wide flame-fest directed unanimously at her, and also became identified to probably more people than she's met in her life as 'dog-poop girl'.

The people on that part of the subway train had to endure one more bad subway smell for the duration of their journey. Of course I can see why people would get angry, but as I say, this is an almost childishly vindictive revenge.
posted by Drexen at 11:17 AM on August 11, 2005

People should be allowed to take any pictures they want in a public place, and post them as they wish. There's nothing wrong with this (and I'm surprised that so many people have problems with this, but had no problems with the celeb stalking/snarking sites posted here a few days ago).

Now, if the nasty stuff had been photoshopped in, this woman would have a more legitimate complaint.
posted by washburn at 11:26 AM on August 11, 2005

Reputation is a very important component in regulating social behavior.

Thus, public shaming is an excellent deterrent to anti-social behavior. In my university days I did some research into shaming as a socialization method in the far East; it's extremely prevalent throughout the history of Japan, for instance. If you want to be part of the village, you'll abide by the village's rules of conduct.

Someone should start a public-shaming website for all the line (que)-cutters of the world.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:32 AM on August 11, 2005

Hmm... yes, I hadn't thought of this in the context of a flame war. I suppose the problem, then, is that there are no social restraints on shaming and defamation online. In real life, it's hard to be verbally abusive to people, because you have to deal with them being upset, and you have to deal with looking like an asshole. So the problem is not that people recorded what she did, but that they went way overboard with it and turned it into a witch hunt.

Well. This is a problem with no easy solution. How do you stop internet goons from being internet goons?
posted by freedryk at 11:33 AM on August 11, 2005

Mayor Curly is trolling once again, and it doesn't surprise me at this point.

Holy shit! I was kidding, not trolling. As in, I don't seriously believe that people who let their dogs crap without cleaining it should be executed. I do feel emotionally that they (and all other perpetrators of "up yours!" crimes) should be publicly with explosives or wildcats, but I know that this is not in practice an appropriate course of action.

Davy-- there aren't any barrels where I took the dog. How I wish there were. I walked by a couple of sewer grates, but I figured at that point I was already holding dog feces and I might as well dispose of it in the way that we generally deem appropriate.
posted by Mayor Curley at 11:36 AM on August 11, 2005

"Ethereal Bligh's got it: Reputation is a very important component in regulating social behavior."

I also agree with this. My first thought on reading the FPP was, "Whoa, minus 10,000 Whuffie for her!"

And C_D, how about a shaming site for all the people who back up traffic on our highways by:

* not leaving enough room in front of them for people to merge in smoothly?

* realizing they are about to miss their exit, and try to cut across from the far left lane?

* have their car alarms set to ultra-sensitive, so they go off every time someone closes a car door within 50 feet?

Oh, the possibilities.
posted by zoogleplex at 11:43 AM on August 11, 2005

Consider the thought experiment: someone posts a picture of a fat black woman on the 7 line throwing a greasy box of half eaten chicken wings onto the floor. What would be the cries of the masses?

The is vindictiveness, but it is because she is a pretty young girl, and there are many who resent her.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 11:45 AM on August 11, 2005

Ahhh, another lovely cyberlynching. Perhaps Dog Poop Girl will end up in the same unmarked mass grave as Laura K. Pahl!!
posted by MaxVonCretin at 11:46 AM on August 11, 2005

Holy shit! I was kidding, not trolling.

Then you need to work on your presentation. But hey, here I am starting a flame-fest of my own. Apologies all round.
posted by Drexen at 11:47 AM on August 11, 2005

zoogleplex:

* brake for NO KNOWN EARTHLY REASON.
posted by Emperor Yamamoto's Eggs at 11:52 AM on August 11, 2005

Okay, one last serious point to redeem myself: public shaming (á la stocks) is bad because it invariably comes to involve snap judgements, assumptions based on prejudice rather than evidence, and mob mentality in general, as well as promoting the mechanisms of revenge and guilt-about-trivia/ephemera, which historically speaking have tended to suck.
posted by Drexen at 11:53 AM on August 11, 2005

She's kinda cute.
posted by delmoi at 11:59 AM on August 11, 2005

Surely you see the difference between actually harming someone and simply distributing information about their actions, yes?

Surely you saw my use of the word analogous, right odinsdream? (No one denies a thief committed a crime; but many civilizations think it barbaric to chop a hand off for that crime. I feel it is barbaric to tell the whole country of South Korea that this woman is evil, and brand her "Dog Poop Girl" for one transgression. Those situations are analogous; not the same).

And there was certainly harm done to the woman here, simply not physical harm.

It's the degree of the punishment that is the problem to me, and the completely capricious nature in which it could be applied. Vigilante shaming, while certainly effective, is not good, just, or right.
posted by teece at 12:06 PM on August 11, 2005

People should be allowed to take any pictures they want in a public place, and post them as they wish.

amen. it's not like someone took a night-vision picture of her thru her bedroom window, this event took place IN PUBLIC, so it's PUBLIC DOMAIN. She humiliated herself by acting rude and disgusting in the public eye.
posted by TechnoLustLuddite at 12:07 PM on August 11, 2005

The girl has experienced nothing more than what people in small towns have always experienced. To wit, the spread of gossip about one's behaviour.

If you don't want people talking about you behind your back, don't be an asshole in front of them.

It has always been this way and will always be this way.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:09 PM on August 11, 2005

Social performance art on a Korean subway, now playing for 15 minutes on our side of the planet.

Cameras for everyone, everyone in front of a camera—and before a worldwide audience—and we may actually create Isaac Asimov's The Dead Past. At least the government will have an opportunity to intervene as the good guys.

Prepare your photons to be assimilated, World Citizen...
posted by cenoxo at 12:16 PM on August 11, 2005

I'm with fenriq that she didn't "let her dog poop" on the subway floor. Looking at the runny consistency of the poo I wonder if the dog had diarrhea and that both it and the owner were incapable of preventing the incident.

Yes, she should have cleaned it up but I can easily imagine that the embarrassment might have had her running off the train at the first opportunity. She doesn't deserve the witch hunt.
posted by ceri richard at 12:19 PM on August 11, 2005

The girl has experienced nothing more than what people in small towns have always experienced. To wit, the spread of gossip about one's behaviour.

Are you kidding me? The girl was publically eviscerated worldwide for doing something foolish. There were people who didn't know her or suffer in any way from what she did digging up information on not only her past private life but her parents. There were people who didn't know her or suffer in any way from what she did calling for her suicide. I am on the other side of the planet and I know what she did. If you think that this is what has always happened in small towns or that it is an appopriate punishment for what she did (really- digging up dirt on her parents?) then remind me to never visit your town.
posted by LeeJay at 12:27 PM on August 11, 2005

What does Laura K. Pahl think about this?
posted by schyler523 at 12:33 PM on August 11, 2005

Ridiculous to say that the person who took the picture and posted is accountable or responsible for her shaming, excessive or not.

Public action - whether committed in front of 40 or 4,000 - is something we are responsible for. The person who documents our actions is not responsible for them.

I'm zero tolerance on this one. If you don't want everyone to know about something you did, then do it in private. Period.
posted by luriete at 12:42 PM on August 11, 2005

Has this what the Internet's become? Shit patrol?
posted by [insert clever name here] at 12:42 PM on August 11, 2005

Some people posting here in favor of passive-aggressive vigilante actions sound uncomfortably close to the guy on my block who made a habit of calling the police to tattle on his neighbors for minor infractions. At the block party the other day, we were all talking about how little we missed him now that he's gone to plague some other neighborhood. Not every law needs to be enforced all the damn time, many people are fine with a little harmless lawbreaking, and we don't appreciate self-appointed-cops.

For example, I have 6 chickens. That's 3 more than the law allows in Portland. My neighbors don't care, which I know because I asked them. However if the tattle-tale still lived on my block, I'd never be able to "get away" with having fresh eggs for my family.

All that notwithstanding, it is true that people really should clean up their animals' feces. That's just gross. :)
posted by Invoke at 12:43 PM on August 11, 2005

I'm with fenriq that she didn't "let her dog poop" on the subway floor. Looking at the runny consistency of the poo I wonder if the dog had diarrhea and that both it and the owner were incapable of preventing the incident.

Yes, she should have cleaned it up but I can easily imagine that the embarrassment might have had her running off the train at the first opportunity. She doesn't deserve the witch hunt.

The more I think about the situation, the more I agree with this sentiment. It seems pretty clear that the dog had diarrhoea and could not be controlled.

If there is any anti-social element to it, it's that she didn't (apparently) make an attempt to clean up what was on the floor. I mean, even dropping a few tissues over it, as half-hearted as that is, would be something. But then again, it is a terribly embarrassing thing to happen, especially in such an enclosed environment, and I don't much blame her for getting away at the nearest opportunity.

As for the person who took the photo and published it online? I don't (s)he was being unreasonably malicious in what (s)he did, but (s)he didn't think really think of the situation from both perspectives before acting.

And another thing: this event hardly calls for a comparison to those selfish asshole dog owners who pretty much force their pets to shit indiscriminately on the pavements. From my own experience with family pets, I know that most animals would rather go somewhere private and out of the way: it's the owners who train them to shit on the path. They should get points on their pet licenses.
posted by macdara at 12:46 PM on August 11, 2005

it would only be passive aggressive if no had told her to pick it up, then posted a picture...
posted by schyler523 at 12:47 PM on August 11, 2005

It is passive-aggressive since the vigilante is almost certainly not the person who confronted her. He or she simply "got even" in a way which the offender could not avoid or effectively respond to.
posted by Invoke at 12:55 PM on August 11, 2005

People get carried away because this case is so simple, Invoke. Well, keep encouraging the behavior, and the cases won't be simple.

But let's go where this leads. Say I snap a phone-cam pic of the guy that parked horribly, and include his license plate, and post it on my blog. Why the hell not? Guy's a prick! For whatever reason, it gets seen far and wide (maybe I link it on VigilantesRUs.com). Next thing you know, somebody takes it upon themselves to find out where the guy lives and key his car. Or break a window. Or his boss chooses someone else for promotion, because he reads the blog identifying the guy, and lets it confirm some preconceived bias he already had that the guy was a jerk. Whatever.

And then you find out, the guy you shamed didn't even do anything wrong -- it was the last parking spot left, and it was actually the asshole next to him that parked wrong. He had no choice but to park badly to fit in the spot.

For every case or two where the person in question is an actual jerk, there's probably one where the person in question isn't.

Sure, in small towns, it's always been this way, as five fresh fish points out. So the fuck what? It's also always been used to ruin peoples lives, either by mistake or by intentional malice, for those that didn't deserve it, as well as an actual enforcement of social norms. This kind of vigilante justice is often very overblown, and is rarely subject to anything resembling a rational thought process. Guilt is presumed from the get-go. And even when the vigilante's target is actually guilty, there is never any consideration given to whether the social "justice" meted out fits the severity of the transgression.

I don't like people that disrespect others like this woman did. But when everyone has a camera phone, and feels free to go on an internet jihad against anyone that pisses them off, I don't think we'll like the world we construct that way. I guarantee you everyone of us on this board has done something that really pissed somebody else off.
posted by teece at 1:00 PM on August 11, 2005

LeeJay writes "The girl was publically eviscerated worldwide for doing something foolish."

Do you even know what "eviscerated" means? It means having one's viscera (internal organs) removed from one's body, preferably while one is still alive to witness it (if briefly). If you think having millions of web surfers, 99.9999% of whom will never see this woman (knowingly or not) even once in their whole lifetime, going "tsk tsk" from behind their monitors is the same as being eviscerated, I really have no choice but to call you a drama queen.
posted by clevershark at 1:02 PM on August 11, 2005

What I don't get is that she did nothing because she was embarassed? Dogs poop, it happens, if she'd just gotten the dog from the dog shop and didn't know they occasionally crapped but that doesn't seem to the be case.

My dog embarasses the hell out of me when she'll squat in an awkward place (no, no pooping in the middle of the street) but it doesn't mean I'll ignore the offending poo.

And the poor dog, it had to crap with all those people staring and thinking terrible things about it. It must have had to go quite badly.

But I still think the girl could have and should have done something about it instead of stony silence and panicked flight away.

It would have been nice to see her have to scoop crap up as community service for her crime of littering.
posted by fenriq at 1:08 PM on August 11, 2005

clevershark, I think LeeJay meant she was metaphorically eviscerated since the reality of evisceration is quite alot messier than one little dog's sloppy ploppy.
posted by fenriq at 1:08 PM on August 11, 2005

Some thoughts:
1) Since when are dogs allowed on the subway (other than seeing eye dogs)
2) She must know that her dog is not "potty trained" so why is she taking him on the subway? Was this just a random "shit and run" by poochie? Seems unlikely.
3) How was she supposed to clean that mess with one kleenex, it would have soaked right through it. Then what?
4) If she routinely does annoying things like this, then perhaps the punishment is fair. If this is the only time she was so inconsiderate, then it isn't fair. The problem is, the picture taker and the many bloggers have no way of knowing. There's a reason we go through the painfully boring process of reviewing facts submitted pursuant to rules of evidence in a court of law. Even with those rules, mistakes are made. Without them, it's chaos and mob rule.
posted by Outlawyr at 1:09 PM on August 11, 2005

Really fenriq? You don't say... Tell us more!

[I just don't know how I can be more sarcastic without resorting to an emoticon here.]
posted by clevershark at 1:11 PM on August 11, 2005

This is what free speech is all about. Theoretically, one can post a picture, even if the idea is to shame, because the subject hasn't been shamed unless viewers think she has acted shamefully -- and that's what's open for debate. This very discussion proves the value of the market place of ideas. The 1st Amendment works. Let's not mess with it. (And anyway, she should be ashamed.)
posted by Toecutter at 1:12 PM on August 11, 2005

I'm 100% with the free-speechers. It might not be polite or courteous, but it certainly should be allowed. You do something in public, it's fair game for the public record.

Say I snap a phone-cam pic of the guy that parked horribly, and include his license plate, and post it on my blog. ... Next thing you know, somebody takes it upon themselves to find out where the guy lives and key his car. Or break a window. Or his boss chooses someone else for promotion, because he reads the blog identifying the guy, and lets it confirm some preconceived bias he already had that the guy was a jerk. Whatever.

All those actions in response to your posted image are unethical and mostly illegal. Your post was not.

Say I discover some critical information that the president of the United States had evidence falsified to enter the country into an illegal occupation and I write a story about it. I even include a digital photo of the damning document. The President is impeached and resigns in shame. Later it turns out that the Vice President forged the President's name and the President had no idea of the indentifiable crimes. OH MY GOD!!! DAMN THAT HALF-BAKED VIGILANTE!!!

You do something in public and it's public. Don't expect privacy outside of your home or your belongings. If you walk around naked, be prepared for strangers to see your dong or cooch. That's life.
posted by mrgrimm at 1:44 PM on August 11, 2005

Outlawyer: In Toronto at least dogs and other pets are allowed on the streetcars, subways and buses. It's up to the driver to refuse them though during peak hours.
posted by LukeyBoy at 1:45 PM on August 11, 2005

Do you even know what "eviscerated" means? It means having one's viscera (internal organs) removed from one's body, preferably while one is still alive to witness it (if briefly). If you think having millions of web surfers, 99.9999% of whom will never see this woman (knowingly or not) even once in their whole lifetime, going "tsk tsk" from behind their monitors is the same as being eviscerated, I really have no choice but to call you a drama queen.

Thank you for the lesson. I'd refer you to the definition of "hyperbole" but I'm sure you already know what it means, what with your extensive vocabulary and all. Substitute whatever word makes you feel better. And as far as drama queen goes? Eh, I'll take it. I've been called worse. If it means not wanting to encourage what happened to this woman then so be it.

And I can't stand people who don't clean up after their pets.
posted by LeeJay at 1:45 PM on August 11, 2005

I'm not sure I get your point then, clevershark. You knew LeeJay was talking about a metaphorical evisceration and still left a stinky little snark? What's the point of that? Just feeling feisty today?

Toecutter, First Amendment rights to US citizens have a very, very hard time stretching all the way to Korea and Korean citizens.
posted by fenriq at 1:46 PM on August 11, 2005

Was it one of them cloned dogs? Bad Snuppy!
posted by kirkaracha at 1:51 PM on August 11, 2005

Major Curley: "...but I figured at that point I was already holding dog feces..."

Ah, I could tell so many stories that started this way.

And, I had the same thought as Outlawyr: Dogs are allowed on the subway? But I've also had the following thoughts when I lived in Palo Alto: "Dogs are allowed in Starbucks?", "Dogs are allowed in Bloomingdales?", "Dogs are allowed in the office?" etc...
posted by mullacc at 2:55 PM on August 11, 2005

schyler523: What Who does has Laura K. Pahl paid to think about this?

Fixed that for you.
posted by quantumetric at 3:15 PM on August 11, 2005

I guarantee you everyone of us on this board has done something that really pissed somebody else off.

But most of us would take pains not to commit selfish acts in public if we knew this would happen. I like this approach a lot.
posted by Mayor Curley at 3:27 PM on August 11, 2005

Three points, fenriq:

1. Obviously the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution is not law in Korea. My point was that we shouldn't have a knee jerk reaction to ban this kind of post, say, here in the USA.

2. The picture was "published" in the USA (where I saw it) via the internet and so the 1st Amendment is relevant to any discussion of whether such posts should be allowed, which brings me to my third point . . .

3. This discussion has been about balancing individual privacy rights and the right of free speech implicit to public shaming in light of the internet. So I'm not sure I get the point of your previous comments other than that dog poop can be an inconvenience, and with that I agree.
posted by Toecutter at 4:40 PM on August 11, 2005

If a dog bites somebody, we don't shoot the owner.

So, if a dog shits on the subway, I say shoot the dog!

That would both act as a great deterrent on dog owners,
while at the same time, reducing the number of useless
shit factories that walk the city streets spreading
roundworm, cryptospiridium, e coli bacteria and
toxoplasmosis.

Not to mention yapping at your ankles and nuzzling your
crotch.

Perhaps we could ban fox hunting and legalize dog hunting
instead?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:56 PM on August 11, 2005

The woman screwed up, but the punishment does not fit the crime. This will live with her forever now.

No it won't. Except for a few relatives and close friends. People have short memories.

Who can remember the name of the woman who wrote an email saying how nice some fella's cum tasted? And he sent it to five of his buddies. And then it went around the world. Remember her name? Remember what she looks like? It was a huge internet meme at the time.

15 minutes of fame and all that.


(FWIW, I'm on the "she deserved it" side of the argument.)
posted by uncanny hengeman at 4:59 PM on August 11, 2005

legalize dog hunting instead

Maybe she was justing waiting for the right excuse to serve the pooch up for dinner. After all, isn't "dog" a culinary tradition in South Korea?
posted by ericb at 5:03 PM on August 11, 2005

I recall the ban on dog meat that was imposed in South Korea "...before the 1988 Seoul Olympics as a result of government fears that the country would suffer from bad publicity. But for many, tradition is more important than sticking to the letter of the law..." [BBC News]
posted by ericb at 5:07 PM on August 11, 2005

PLZ, O mighty int0rnets, grant me this one wish before I die:

Can you somehow arrange for Mahir and dog-poo-girl to go out on a date? It's a meme match made in heaven heck.

"I kiss you!"

"I'm not cleaning that up."

"I kiss you!"

"I'm still not cleaning that up."

"But I kiss you!"

...and so on.
posted by sfslim at 5:34 PM on August 11, 2005

PeterMcDermott, you can hunt my dog if I can hunt you. But I get to go first.
posted by The Monkey at 5:54 PM on August 11, 2005

How was she supposed to clean that mess with one kleenex, it would have soaked right through it. Then what?

Think "tubgirl."

Actually, don't.

Oops. Too late.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:04 PM on August 11, 2005

Ah screw it, talking about shite is more fun than free speech stuff anyway: I once made tub girl someone's Windows wallpaper. Comedy gold.
posted by Toecutter at 6:29 PM on August 11, 2005

I almost never quote the Bible, but you can't improve on this:

"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
posted by mono blanco at 7:00 PM on August 11, 2005

quantumetric writes "schyler523: What Who does has Laura K. Pahl paid to think about this?

"Fixed that for you."

Thanks.
posted by schyler523 at 7:38 PM on August 11, 2005

why are we all policing each other anyway? i say this is ripe for a slippery slope downward spiral. and it's endless. ugh!
posted by brandz at 8:07 PM on August 11, 2005

i think many of you don't understand human nature very well ... this time it's news ... the next time, it won't be as big a story ... somewhere around the 100th time, it'll be "yawn, so what?"

people just aren't going to be all that interested in keeping track of what thousands of minor social violators have done or what they look like ... in fact, if this incident had happened in the usa, would have people bothered to find out who she was, track her down and call her dogpoogirl to her face?

probably not
posted by pyramid termite at 8:50 PM on August 11, 2005

I doubt anything can be done about this sort of thing, except to learn a lesson. If you misbehave, there is now a chance that your misbehavior is the world's business.
posted by maxsparber at 9:21 PM on August 11, 2005

As commented above, this behaviour is 'clearly antisocial'.
If she had taken responsibility for her pet, she would not have got in to this situation. People who have pets (or children) and do not take on all the reponsibilities that entail can be said to be failing to provide adequate care.
Hopefully, this incident will be widely enough reported to help to change the behaviour of other dog owners.

Whether or not the internet can/should be used to shame people into adhering to societal norms is a separate question.
posted by asok at 6:36 AM on August 12, 2005

Consider this scenario: the next time an inconsiderate moron takes a pooch with diarrhea into an enclosed public area and refuses to clean up the inevitable mess, somebody holds up a camera phone and says "Remember Dog Shit Girl?", what will the reaction be?

(Personally, I think scraping the steaming pile up with the edge of a newpaper and smearing it in her hair would have been pretty effective, too, but that's just my skewed idea of justice.)
posted by Enron Hubbard at 7:02 AM on August 12, 2005

From the outcry of some here, one would think she'd been Bernard Goetz'd.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:14 AM on August 12, 2005

What in the hell is the hub-bub about? Shamed? Bullshit. In 2005? people know no shame. This is best thing that ever happened to her.

That chick will probably get her own reality show with her and that fucking annoying Amarossa. Each episode they out "snotty" each other while they dog sit for Paris Hilton as she's out "accidentally" cutting Bukakke videos.

I bring my dog to work. He is fixture in the neighborhood. Quite a celeb. But I have found people attempting to shame me FOR picking up my dog's shit.

So one time when a car load of sorority type suburban chicks pointed and laughed "Hey. Is that your lunch?" I smiled and tossed it in through the sun roof of their car.
posted by tkchrist at 3:41 PM on August 12, 2005

this is the kind of thing that can only happen in a very specific environment. If everybody was a cameraphone Ranger, the net would be awash in pictures of assholes. If nobody cared about what was done, there wouldn't be an outcry and no links. Only in cases where the act is outrageous enough, yet rare enough can this type of thing happen.
posted by Megafly at 3:46 PM on August 12, 2005

I smiled and tossed it in through the sun roof of their car.

I'm cracking up replaying the scene. Love it! Good for you!
posted by ericb at 3:47 PM on August 12, 2005

Dosen't look like mustard ?
posted by zouhair at 4:55 AM on August 13, 2005

I smiled and tossed it in through the sun roof of their car.

you did absolutely nothing.
posted by jimmy at 8:32 AM on August 13, 2005

Oh. Jimmy.
posted by tkchrist at 2:08 PM on August 13, 2005