Jump to content

Objectionable Posting: You Make The Call...


OzGuff

Recommended Posts

Here are a few articles that might make for interesting reading.

 

Michael Cavna, The Washington Post, Washington DC, January 28 2009, "Read Obama's Lips: Cartoonists Deal In Bizarre Caricature"

 

Greg Peck, GazetteXtra.com, Janesville WI, October 15 2009, "Complaint on caricature sparks nationwide discussion"

 

The second is especially interesting as it includes the opinions of a number of members of the National Conference of Editorial Writers on a similar Obama caricature.

 

My guess is that uploading the "photo" in question was more politically-motivated than anything, but with undertones of racial insensitivity. And my guess is that some of the responses in this thread were also politically-motivated, and some also with undertones of racial insensitivity. To be clear, I believe one can be racially insensitive without being racist or being a racist. An inadvertent slip of the lip -- pun intended -- could be racially insensitive but not indicative of racism.

 

Is the "photo" funny? To some, unequivocally yes. To some, yes -- but only in the same way that we might laugh or smile at any photo/cartoon containing exaggerated features. To others, no. To still others, hell no. Was it Atrus' intent to provide racist propaganda for the geocaching community to peruse? I think not. Did his actions show a certain degree of racial insensitivity. I think so. A photo/cartoon/joke does NOT have to be universally loathed in order to rise to the level of objectionable. And as a far smarter individual than I has said previously in this thread, "The fact that this lively discourse exists proves that the photo is objectionable."

 

Apropos of nothing, it was President Lincoln who said, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

Link to comment

Caricatures by definition distort features of the target. The idea that someone is protected from caricaturization because of his or her pigmentation is frightening to me.

 

Besides, I don't recall these cartoons of Condi Rice getting much criticism from the left. It is apparently OK as long as the target is a black Republican (these were printed in major media outlets)

 

<SNIP>

To which cache pages were those pictures posted? If they were not posted to a cache page, your point is irrelevent. If they were, I would recommend that they were removed, also.
Link to comment

Here are a few articles that might make for interesting reading.

 

Michael Cavna, The Washington Post, Washington DC, January 28 2009, "Read Obama's Lips: Cartoonists Deal In Bizarre Caricature"

 

Greg Peck, GazetteXtra.com, Janesville WI, October 15 2009, "Complaint on caricature sparks nationwide discussion"

 

The second is especially interesting as it includes the opinions of a number of members of the National Conference of Editorial Writers on a similar Obama caricature.

 

My guess is that uploading the "photo" in question was more politically-motivated than anything, but with undertones of racial insensitivity. And my guess is that some of the responses in this thread were also politically-motivated, and some also with undertones of racial insensitivity. To be clear, I believe one can be racially insensitive without being racist or being a racist. An inadvertent slip of the lip -- pun intended -- could be racially insensitive but not indicative of racism.

 

Is the "photo" funny? To some, unequivocally yes. To some, yes -- but only in the same way that we might laugh or smile at any photo/cartoon containing exaggerated features. To others, no. To still others, hell no. Was it Atrus' intent to provide racist propaganda for the geocaching community to peruse? I think not. Did his actions show a certain degree of racial insensitivity. I think so. A photo/cartoon/joke does NOT have to be universally loathed in order to rise to the level of objectionable. And as a far smarter individual than I has said previously in this thread, "The fact that this lively discourse exists proves that the photo is objectionable."

 

Apropos of nothing, it was President Lincoln who said, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

 

I can't believe this argument not only is about the accurate portrayal by caricatures, but that it whittles down to big lips are racist, but big ears are game. Gee I hope there isn't some long lost race of humans hidden somewhere in the forests of Asia or jungles of Africa that all have bigger than average ears- that would be another one artists will have to avoid in future if the tribe ever got discovered.

 

I mean seriously - is this where we've gotten to as a society that caricatures, even bad ones, now have to conform to some popular consensus on which facial feature is more accurately exaggerated?

 

Once again, I must ask, who defines the standard of what is normal? Why is it that thin lips are acceptable in caricatures... all things being equal shouldn't drawings of overly thin and overly big lips be banned? Make certain that all lips are approximate average size to the face and that artists can no longer get away with drawing a line for a mouth?!

 

Really? :lol:

Link to comment

If the original poster of this thread found the picture I uploaded to be so offensive, why did he not come directly to ME first? Well, because, you might say we have “issues” with each other and have mutually agreed not to be friends. Our “differences” go back many years and span several instances.

 

Aha! Now it all becomes clear....

 

Try to keep on topic folks. Is the picture objectionable or not?

 

Maybe read between the lines of the original post and the topic of this thread should be "Is it okay to publicly parade someone on a family forum as a racist without informing them first so that they can defend themselves?"

 

Im not going to say whether or not I think the picture is racist because I dont think thats the issue. The underhanded nature of this thread is a far worse crime than posting a caricature of a president.

If the picture is so offensive to you, why make a thread about it linking everyone to the image? You are just getting more people to see it.

 

I think this post may be the most accurate one out there. It's no secret that Atrus and Ozguff don't exchange Christmas cards and that works fine for both of them. A quick email through Groundspeak asking either the cache owner or the person logging the picture the question about it being an objectionable photo would have gone over a lot better than dragging it onto a public forum. At least both parties would have had a chance to address the issue before it was turned into a widespread public debate. Asking if something is objectionable is like asking what you think makes the perfect hamburger. 100 people will give you 100 different opinions and, in their minds, they are all right. As for violating the TOS, I wouldn't think so. If Groundspeak says it doesn't, then it doesn't and that pretty much ends the discussion being that they are the final decision maker on things of that matter.

 

I found the picture Atrus posted no less offensive than THIS picture. I saw that and it scared the bejeebus out of me! LOL! Seriously, if you(meaning anyone and not singling out one person) were offended by the caricature, then put the cache on your ignore list. We have enough eggshells in life to walk on.

Edited by Team_Bucky
Link to comment
Briansnat, the many photos of W that went around portraying him as a chimp made me uncomfortable.
But did you rail against it for three pages, calling the creator of the image a racist?

No? Why not? Because a Caucasian can't be the victim of racism?

Perhaps he didn't rail against those for three pages simply because no one posted them to cache pages (or he wasn't made aware of it).

 

This thread is not about whether any specific picture is more upsetting that another picture. It is about whether or not the posting of the referenced picture to a cache page violates the TOS.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

[sarcasm Mode On] ChannelFadge and Team_Bucky have finally exposed the truth. The aim of this entire thread was to "out" a closet racist. [sarcasm Mode Off] (BTW, I do not think that Atrus is a closet racist, nor that the "photo" is racist per se. What I think is that the "photo" is objectionable to me -- and apparently many others -- and that by uploading it Atrus showed a lack of racial sensitivity, thus violating the Terms of Use.)

 

However, it is a fair question. Why didn't I just ask the poster and/or the cache owner if they would delete the "photo"? The simple answer is that based on my dealings with these two individuals I was pretty sure that they would answer in the negative. So I went further up the food chain directly to Groundspeak. I accepted Groundspeak's decision but asked if they minded me taking the issue to the forums, not for a reversal but to check the larger community's feelings.

 

My original post in this thread includes the line, "Two reasonably intelligent folks could agree to disagree here." I stand by that statement; those of you who feel that the "photo" is not objectionable are entitled to your views. But your views don't make the "photo" any less objectionable to those who DO see it as objectionable.

 

I am glad that the person responsible for uploading the "photo" to Geocaching.com eventually added his three or four cents. It did make for an interesting read.

 

And to continue my course on racial sensitivity, click here to read an article from CNNPolitics.com titled "Obama as witch doctor: Racist or satirical?".

Link to comment

However, it is a fair question. Why didn't I just ask the poster and/or the cache owner if they would delete the "photo"? The simple answer is that based on my dealings with these two individuals I was pretty sure that they would answer in the negative. So I went further up the food chain directly to Groundspeak. I accepted Groundspeak's decision but asked if they minded me taking the issue to the forums, not for a reversal but to check the larger community's feelings.

I think the original question you asked about the caricature of Obama was a very fair question, BUT... by going straight to Groundspeak and then to the forums with this, you took away any opportunity for either the cache owner or the poster to quietly rectify the situation outside of public view, if they felt the situation warranted it. At least give someone an honest chance to respond to a situation first instead of going over their head and then letting them find out about it secondhand like this. That's what us barefoot hillbillies call rude. If you disagree with them at that point, then go to a higher authority, but give other people the courtesy to address issues you have with them FIRST. That's just basic human consideration.

Link to comment

Ain't freedom of speech grand? It's most often interpreted to mean "You have the 'right' to say anything you want as long as I agree with it!" :lol:

There are no freedom of speech protections on a commercial website or forum.

True, but we're not talking law here, we're talking about what is acceptable satire and caricature. My point is that some will find it acceptable, some won't. Those who don't will contest the poster's 'right' to post it.

Link to comment

[sarcasm Mode On] ChannelFadge and Team_Bucky have finally exposed the truth. The aim of this entire thread was to "out" a closet racist. [sarcasm Mode Off] (BTW, I do not think that Atrus is a closet racist, nor that the "photo" is racist per se. What I think is that the "photo" is objectionable to me -- and apparently many others -- and that by uploading it Atrus showed a lack of racial sensitivity, ...

 

That's just it. There should be no such thing as racial sensativity. The very act of being hyper sensative about race is a form of racism.

 

In my daily life, I don't give a ratts behind about any one race, nor do I care to be 'sensative' to it. It's enough that I respect the people I work with.

 

That lets me think Kuwunzaa is a contrived artificial waste of time as a holiday, but at the same time respect the person who chooses to honor it by understanding that it has value to them, and that it's value is what they bring to it, not what I think about it.

 

Politically I do think it's a big deal. I listened for years that "we could never elect a Black President" and then the racial rift causing press had to eat crow when we elected black. The press of course labled Obama as black. Until they told me I actually didn't think he was black. He looked like the typical mutt and I might have guessed a Meditterianian background. The press did more digging than I would have done on his race. But what do I know? I'm told I'm racist for no better reason than I'm presumed white. I'm told I'd never vote black, histpanic or whatnot, yet nobody seems to mind the "races" tend to vote as a block while the "whites" vote all over the board. Race tends to bring out the knee jerk reactions and the double standards. Personally I'd much prefer that "MY RACE" was the recepient of the one drop rule. Then we would all be Celtic even if someone was 99.99999% Something else.

 

If that face is offensive then you really should be picking up the banner for any other kind of face that didn't belong to the person logging the cache.

Link to comment

After reading the "defense" from the poster of the photo, I am even more convinced (if that is possible) of the objectionable nature of that photo.

Defense? I made no defense in my prior post. It is YOU who has deemed it my "defense." Either you find the image objectional or you do not. How is the objectionability of an image made greater (or lessened) simply by reading something else?

 

Altrus, I don't know you. But if you choose to stick with the photo and your response to the criticism of said photo, I can say that I am glad that I don't know you.

I find it amazing how thorougouly you have analyzed me, without ever having met me, and knowing absolutly nothing about me. You, Sir, are genius and should not be wasting your time posting in the Geocaching forums. And, BTW, I too, am glad that you don't know me.

 

To all of you posters who claim to be so offended by this picture and paint Atrus as racist and bigoted, without even knowing him, I say...shame on you all! But that is YOUR OPINION...NOT FACT! And, you are most certainly entitled to your OPINION. However, racism and bigotry, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. One should first look in the mirror at ones'self before applying labels to another. To simply call one a racist or bigot, does not make it so. And that is FACT!

 

Actually, my initial thought was he was simply...well...simple, not understanding what he had done. Then he posted his "white pride" manifesto several posts before this one, admitting he was racist, setting aside all doubt to his intent in posting the picture.

Obviously, Sir, you did not READ my reply, where I specifically said, I am NOT racist or bigoted. It is YOU who has decreed my reply to be a "'white pride' manifesto," which in itself seems to me to be a racist statement. Perhaps Dear Dora is correct in saying that before calling someone ELSE a racist, one should take a good look in the mirror at themselves first.

 

I am amazed at how many people who have never met me, and know absolutely nothing about me have analyzed my "intent" in posting a picture to a cache page. I was looking for a FUNNY face to post to a geocache of the same name. Any sitting president is always target for ridicule, especially if you do not agree with his policies. I went to Google images, and typed in, Obama funny faces The picture I used was the second one that showed up. I thought it was funny, (because I disagree with his policies) and the LAST thing that entered my mind was, "racist." And, why is it that anyone who disagrees with this president, soley on principles alone, is automatically labeled a racist? There was no racial agenda whatsoever, on MY part, and it is only from those who need to look in the mirror at themselves, that I am being accused of having such an agenda.

 

well, i see the reinforcements are arriving.

 

by reinforcements, of course, i mean the personal friends of the racist photo poster, who are suspect, and those who have little wit and less understanding.

Once again, I am in total amazement at how someone who has never met me or Dear Dora, can with such dinifitive authority declare me a, "racist photo poster" and deem Dear Dora as having, "little wit and less understanding." Typically, when someone has run out of intelligent content to add to a lively debate, the personal character attacks are dragged out. They do little more than to render anything else said by the poster to be considered irrelevant. Well done!

 

However, to set the record straight, we (Atrus & myself) have MANY dear and wonderful friends from more varied races, backgrounds, ethnic persuations, religious beliefs, locales, etc. than space here would permit.

Space here is, however, probably sufficient for an answer to my question above, which I will repeat here for convenience: Among your many friends who might define themselves as "persons of color", exactly how many have you shown that picture to, while smiling and saying "hey, check this out, pretty funny huh?".

The truth of the matter and to speciffically answer your question, the opportunity of showing that picture to ANYONE has not arrisen. But more importantly, it puzzles me why you (who accuse me of being racicst) would make the question a racist one, by adding the qualification that the friends in question be "of color?" Here's your mirror! handmirror.gif

 

The TITLE of this thread is, "Objectionable Posting: You Make The Call..." It would therefore be impossible for anyone to claim that they had no control over the choice to view this image or not. Every person who posted to this thread had to READ the TITLE, then take a voluntary and deliberate action to check it out for themselves, and form their own opinion. ("You Make The Call...") The origional poster of the thread even so graciously provided a direct link to the picture, to provide the opportunity for everyone else to view it, and perhaps be just as offended as he was. He provided the link, but no one put a gun to anyone's head and forced them to follow it. So, why then DID so many follow a link that WARNED and TOLD them they may be offended? ... and then complain about it?

 

Once again, it all boils down to your own personal opinion. ("You Make The Call...") If you are fearful of being offended by something, then you should not look at it, listen to it, or go anywhere near it. No one has the right to impose their own personal opinions on everyone else, simply because THEY are offended. In today's world, no one can say anything without it offending someone. So, just to be safe, no one should ever say anything any more. Right???

 

 

Link to comment

...My guess is that uploading the "photo" in question was more politically-motivated than anything, but with undertones of racial insensitivity. And my guess is that some of the responses in this thread were also politically-motivated, and some also with undertones of racial insensitivity. To be clear, I believe one can be racially insensitive without being racist or being a racist. An inadvertent slip of the lip -- pun intended -- could be racially insensitive but not indicative of racism....

 

Maybe we aren't so far apart on race. When I watched Gran Torino and my kids asked me if he was racist I said No. He didn't make inadvertant slips of the lip it was all intententsional, but he payed respect where due and didn't let his stereo types get in the way of giving folks a fair shake. It was family on both 'sides" (there were no sides between him and his neighbor) that were less than worthy folks in their differnet ways.

 

Outside the cache the characture would serve well as a way to spark debate and discussion. That is a worthy goal and certainly not a racist thing in itself.

Link to comment
The truth of the matter and to speciffically answer your question, the opportunity of showing that picture to ANYONE has not arrisen.

Well actually, yes it has. You posted it to a Web site, under circumstances which specifically suggested that you found it amusing. That enables anyone who knows your Geocaching nickname to form an opinion as to what you consider funny (and also, I might add, your ability to follow simple directions, since the cache page specifically called for a self-portrait).

 

My question is, given that you apparently don't believe that anyone would find this picture genuinely offensive, and that anyone who claims to find it offensive is some kind of woolly liberal politically-correct troll, are you prepared to test that by asking, in real life, your numerous friends whose skin pigmentation approximately matches the photo, what they think of it? After all, if you're right, they'll surely say "Wow, that's one funny picture!".

Link to comment

I find it a little insensitive but certainly not the problem. I'm a little shocked at the amount of cachers who actually posted the face as a second find rather than a log. I find that much more unethical than the political face itself. But to go as far as notify Groundspeak I would say leave it be, to each is thier own (Don't like, Don't do it).

Link to comment

[sarcasm Mode On] ChannelFadge and Team_Bucky have finally exposed the truth. The aim of this entire thread was to "out" a closet racist. [sarcasm Mode Off] (BTW, I do not think that Atrus is a closet racist, nor that the "photo" is racist per se. What I think is that the "photo" is objectionable to me -- and apparently many others -- and that by uploading it Atrus showed a lack of racial sensitivity, ...

 

That's just it. There should be no such thing as racial sensativity. The very act of being hyper sensative about race is a form of racism.

That argument could certainly be easily used to allow anyone to say or do any racist thing. After all, anyone who calls them on it are being too 'racially sensitive', right?
Link to comment

...are you prepared to test that by asking, in real life, your numerous friends whose skin pigmentation approximately matches the photo, what they think of it? After all, if you're right, they'll surely say "Wow, that's one funny picture!".

 

I had a snappy answer all ready about how skin color doesn't automaticly equate to the race you seem to be implying. I've got that covered in my own family thanks to the genetic lottery.

 

Then I realized that I wouldn't bother to show that to anyone because I don't actually care enough about it one way or the other.

 

The picture I'm about to post just now is about roads...

Link to comment

To my good buddy Oz,

 

Further proof that we sometimes think alike....

 

A little over a year ago I found TB that offended my wife.... The TB was a replica of a Darkie Figurine from the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

 

25532_200.gif

 

I started a thread in a hidden local forum to discuss the issue my wife had, in private, and among friends.

 

Let me explain that I wasn't offended by this item. Still ain't by the item itself. My mom had been an antique dealer who made a great deal of money selling the real McCoy and not replicas. She sold them mainly to guess who...? Black people who collected them. That explanation did nothing to UNoffend my wife who is of a different race than me and has suffered racial stereotyping.

 

When I dug a little further into the history of this TB I discovered/perceived some intent to provoke so I emailed the owner who basically did the same as Atrus is doing...... Just in private. :lol:

 

So Oz, while we are on the subject are YOU or anyone else offended by this TB?

 

My answer is yes ONLY because it upset my wife AND because I perceived and still do an intent to provoke from the owner.

 

BTW- I believe that this post is ON topic given that the subject is objectionable postings / racial / in the geocaching context.....

Link to comment

[sarcasm Mode On] ChannelFadge and Team_Bucky have finally exposed the truth. The aim of this entire thread was to "out" a closet racist. [sarcasm Mode Off] (BTW, I do not think that Atrus is a closet racist, nor that the "photo" is racist per se. What I think is that the "photo" is objectionable to me -- and apparently many others -- and that by uploading it Atrus showed a lack of racial sensitivity, ...

 

That's just it. There should be no such thing as racial sensativity. The very act of being hyper sensative about race is a form of racism.

That argument could certainly be easily used to allow anyone to say or do any racist thing. After all, anyone who calls them on it are being too 'racially sensitive', right?

Think in terms of a spectrum from Sensative to Charged. What you described sounds like what I would call racially charged.

 

Sensative in my own thinking is overcompensating out of concern. Example:

Over Sensative Type: "Why don't you hold the meeting where you proposed, and over there where we have hispanics"

Me: "Because this location is in the center of the impact area and the travel time is the same for everyone."

 

Sensative Type: "You should publish this in spanish as well"

Me: "How do you know we need spanish, and not Shoshoni?"

Sensative Type: "um...we looked at the census".

Me: "ok but how did you determine that the tribes read english and the hispanics don't?"

 

That last one is really about the presumptions made by the sensative types as opposed to trying to meet the real goal.

Link to comment

Snoogans:

 

Racial stereotyping demeans us all. However, had I seen this TB I likely would have let out a short laugh. (I am also prone to racial insensitivity at times.) Not sure if I would have contacted the TB owner. Possibly so as the TB is more likely to be seen by kids in a cache -- "Mom, why is that lady holding a watermelon?" -- than the uploaded "photo" on the cache page.

 

It is unlikely that I will change anyone's mind about the "photo", but if I make someone think a little longer before saying something or writing something or uploading something, good.

 

BTW, you are still my hero.

Link to comment

Snoogans:

 

Racial stereotyping demeans us all. However, had I seen this TB I likely would have let out a short laugh. (I am also prone to racial insensitivity at times.)

 

That's exactly what I did. I was taken aback by my wife's reaction to it given that she's Asian and not Black.

 

Not sure if I would have contacted the TB owner.

 

I wouldn't have either but my spider sense went off when I did some digging. It was partially confirmed after contact.

Link to comment

Too funny... a bunch of white folks arguing over who is a racist or what is a racist caricature in an almost entirely white community of geocachers... look around at geocaching events, the attendees are about 99.5% white, all falling over themselves with "Who me? No, I'm not a racist!"

 

We can't tell from screen names, so has even one black person weighed in and stated that they find the caricature racist and / or objectionable?

 

Did the gay community object to this caricature? How is it different than accentuating a racial stereotype?

 

039_02.jpg

Link to comment

Too funny... a bunch of white folks arguing over who is a racist or what is a racist caricature in an almost entirely white community of geocachers... look around at geocaching events, the attendees are about 99.5% white, all falling over themselves with "Who me? No, I'm not a racist!"

 

We can't tell from screen names, so has even one black person weighed in and stated that they find the caricature racist and / or objectionable?

 

Did the gay community object to this caricature? How is it different than accentuating a racial stereotype?

 

039_02.jpg

 

Why would the gay community object? I can't even tell who that is supposed to be a caricature of...Dick Cheney?? Is he gay? What does ballet dancing have to do with being gay?

Link to comment

I know a few ballet dancers. Some are gay, some are not.

I too cannot see who that is supposed to be a caricature of.

 

Back OT, the posting of the pic to the cache page does violate the TOU in my personal opinion, and shouldn't have been posted. But the argument that the correct term is Negro says far more about this issue than the random selection of an image from a google search.

Link to comment

[sarcasm Mode On] ChannelFadge and Team_Bucky have finally exposed the truth. The aim of this entire thread was to "out" a closet racist. [sarcasm Mode Off] (BTW, I do not think that Atrus is a closet racist, nor that the "photo" is racist per se. What I think is that the "photo" is objectionable to me -- and apparently many others -- and that by uploading it Atrus showed a lack of racial sensitivity, ...

 

That's just it. There should be no such thing as racial sensativity. The very act of being hyper sensative about race is a form of racism.

That argument could certainly be easily used to allow anyone to say or do any racist thing. After all, anyone who calls them on it are being too 'racially sensitive', right?

Think in terms of a spectrum from Sensative to Charged. What you described sounds like what I would call racially charged.

 

Sensative in my own thinking is overcompensating out of concern. Example:

Over Sensative Type: "Why don't you hold the meeting where you proposed, and over there where we have hispanics"

Me: "Because this location is in the center of the impact area and the travel time is the same for everyone."

 

Sensative Type: "You should publish this in spanish as well"

Me: "How do you know we need spanish, and not Shoshoni?"

Sensative Type: "um...we looked at the census".

Me: "ok but how did you determine that the tribes read english and the hispanics don't?"

 

That last one is really about the presumptions made by the sensative types as opposed to trying to meet the real goal.

Wouldn't every racist defend himself with "you're being too sensitive" no matter how charged his behavior was?
Link to comment

...So Oz, while we are on the subject are YOU or anyone else offended by this TB?

 

My answer is yes ONLY because it upset my wife AND because I perceived and still do an intent to provoke from the owner....

 

If the provocation failed because nobody cared would it continue? Nope. Most would slink away like a cache maggot without an audience. Some few...are more persistant.

 

You mention racial stereotyping. We all stereotype all kinds of things (including government ineptitude). By itself it's not a problem. It's a tool that lets us make decisions in life. It helps if they are accurate. Even if it's wrong it's not a problem if the person doing it (which is all of us) is able to recognize when the stereotype ends and the real person begins.

 

That said, I can see them in action and because of my presumed race, I get specific responses from all kinds of folks based on what those presumptions. Race, Class, Job, Grooming, Dress all have stereotypes that come with them held by each other Race, Class, Job, and such. Case in point. A Hispanic who upon hearing me say that I would hire a qualified illegal alien because it's so hard to find the legal talent I need was, offended on behalf of the illegal aliens they knew and I should take sensitivity training. WTF?

 

Then again in reverse. Before the internet came along as it is the University I attended had a network and via messaging on that network I met three ladies who lived in Anchorage. I got their number and called them up when I was in town. The only restaurant I saw near where I was staying was a friend chicken joint. They knew where it was so we arranged to meet there. Once we did, they admitted they thought I was Black. I don’t see this as a ‘bad’ use of stereo type. They were honest with what they thought, they were willing to meet me when they thought I was Black, and didn’t back out when they learned I wasn’t. Not as obvious was that they didn’t hold a stereotype that Blacks don’t go to college because they are lazy.

 

The stereotypes I love to play with are the ones held by class. When folks ask what I do, I always give them the generic answer and see what specifically they assume I do. They use cues based on my dress and talk and circumstances. Then they treat me accordingly. It’s in my nature to manipulate those cues. Mostly I mess with yuppie types.

 

To answer your question about the TB. My first thought was "What's a Polynesian doing with watermelon? They don’t grow that on the islands. Oh, that’s probably supposed to look black because of the watermelon. Heck if they needed watermelon to make the lady look black they aren't that good because she looks Samoan to me. Now I'm wonderng if that's really a lady or they are worse than I thought" Not that I know what a Samoan really looks like. I’ve only met a few. There’s those stereotypes again…

Link to comment
Too funny... a bunch of white folks arguing over who is a racist or what is a racist caricature in an almost entirely white community of geocachers... look around at geocaching events, the attendees are about 99.5% white, all falling over themselves with "Who me? No, I'm not a racist!"

 

We can't tell from screen names, so has even one black person weighed in and stated that they find the caricature racist and / or objectionable?

 

Did the gay community object to this caricature? How is it different than accentuating a racial stereotype?

 

039_02.jpg

 

That would be Carl Rove. He was well known for his attempts to dance around the truth.

Link to comment

...Wouldn't every racist defend himself with "you're being too sensitive" no matter how charged his behavior was?

 

I have no idea since I'm not talking about folks who are the kind of racist that spawned the need for the civil rights act. I'm talking about the ones who rode that pendulum of change all the way through to the other side. You could call it Separate but equil imbalance if you will.

 

The one side is anti, the other side is pro, neither side is promoting equality (though the pro side think they are), and neither is neutral which you would think is the goal.

Link to comment
That would be Carl Rove. He was well known for his attempts to dance around the truth.

 

Thanks for clearing up the mystery for me - now if I could only figure out what the heck a ballet-dancing Carl Rove has to do with gay people...

 

I guess I'm starting to suspect yet another stereotype (based on ignorance probably) at play... :)

Link to comment

... But the argument that the correct term is Negro says far more about this issue than the random selection of an image from a google search.

 

It could speak to the guys age. When I was a kid that was the correct term any self respecting non predjudiced person would use. About the time the term prejudiced shifted to racism the right term was black. Then when things shifted again it was African American. Then I met my Boer friend and she made me laugh at the assumption that African American was black.

Link to comment
That would be Carl Rove. He was well known for his attempts to dance around the truth.
Thanks for clearing up the mystery for me - now if I could only figure out what the heck a ballet-dancing Carl Rove has to do with gay people...

 

I guess I'm starting to suspect yet another stereotype (based on ignorance probably) at play... :)

I thought it might have been Barney Frank.
Link to comment
That would be Carl Rove. He was well known for his attempts to dance around the truth.
Thanks for clearing up the mystery for me - now if I could only figure out what the heck a ballet-dancing Carl Rove has to do with gay people...

 

I guess I'm starting to suspect yet another stereotype (based on ignorance probably) at play... :)

I thought it might have been Barney Frank.

 

Is he a ballet dancer?

Link to comment

Why would the gay community object? I can't even tell who that is supposed to be a caricature of...Dick Cheney?? Is he gay? What does ballet dancing have to do with being gay?

Sorry... I was trying to be funny... as in 'if I was gay and somebody said that this guy was one of us I KNOW I'd be ticked' but I guess it didn't work... sorry if it offended.

Link to comment

Why would the gay community object? I can't even tell who that is supposed to be a caricature of...Dick Cheney?? Is he gay? What does ballet dancing have to do with being gay?

Sorry... I was trying to be funny... as in 'if I was gay and somebody said that this guy was one of us I KNOW I'd be ticked' but I guess it didn't work... sorry if it offended.

 

I'm not offended - just trying to figure out what the connection between "gay" and a political figure in a ballet tutu is all about. Still not seeing it. Sorry.

Link to comment
That would be Carl Rove. He was well known for his attempts to dance around the truth.
Thanks for clearing up the mystery for me - now if I could only figure out what the heck a ballet-dancing Carl Rove has to do with gay people...

 

I guess I'm starting to suspect yet another stereotype (based on ignorance probably) at play... :)

I thought it might have been Barney Frank.
Is he a ballet dancer?
No, but he's gay. And the description above the picture said something about it being a caricature of a gay person. And the caricature sort of reminded me of Barney Frank.
Link to comment
That would be Carl Rove. He was well known for his attempts to dance around the truth.
Thanks for clearing up the mystery for me - now if I could only figure out what the heck a ballet-dancing Carl Rove has to do with gay people...

 

I guess I'm starting to suspect yet another stereotype (based on ignorance probably) at play... :)

I thought it might have been Barney Frank.
Is he a ballet dancer?
No, but he's gay. And the description above the picture said something about it being a caricature of a gay person. And the caricature sort of reminded me of Barney Frank.

 

No - the description above the picture said exactly this:

 

Did the gay community object to this caricature?

 

Again the question is - why would "the gay community" object at all?

 

What does the picture have to do with ANYONE being gay?

Link to comment

IT IS NOT RACIST!!! IF A BLACK GUY PUTS UP A PICTURE OF A WHITE GUY MAKING A FUNNY FACE, IS THAT RACIST? NO.

ON THE OTHER HAND IF A WHITE MAN POSTS A PICTURE OF A BLACK MAN MAKING A FUNNY FACE, PEOPLE WILL CALL IT RACIST.

 

 

GET OVER THE RACE ISSUE!!!!!! PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE NO MATTER WHAT RACE, COLOR, OR CREED. WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER!

Link to comment

What does the picture have to do with ANYONE being gay?

I apologized in post #187 for a bad joke that went awry... Let's leave it at that, okay?

 

Yes, I know. I read your post and replied to it. The quote above was in response to Mushtang's post.

 

It is fine to "leave it at that" however, I think we both know what the real issue is here. :)

Link to comment

If you folks would like to discuss TheAlabamaRambler's "issue" with gay ballet dancers I suggest you start a new thread in the Off-Topic Forum.

 

For the rest of us please try to stay on topic -- whether or not the uploaded "photo" was objectionable. Thanks.

Link to comment
What does the picture have to do with ANYONE being gay?
I apologized in post #187 for a bad joke that went awry... Let's leave it at that, okay?
Yes, I know. I read your post and replied to it. The quote above was in response to Mushtang's post.

 

It is fine to "leave it at that" however, I think we both know what the real issue is here. :angry:

It sounded to me like the real issue of your posts is that you were trying your hardest to pick a fight.

 

OMG! Someone thinks a caricature of a man in a tutu might bring up the idea that the man is gay! Well SHAME on THEM. Right? :)

Link to comment
I still feel that the photo doesn't belong on a website I pay money to keep running.
That's certainly your choice to feel that way, and since you don't run the web site and can't get it removed, you always have the option to stop being a member of the web site. People vote with their wallets all the time.

 

I am still also dismayed that there is someone handing out smileys if you post a caricature picture of the US president that may, or may not, be racist.
There are folks that get additional smileys for all kinds of stuff: non-published caches near events, visiting a cache twice to show a friend, accidentally finding a cache years later and not remembering it, finding it again after the owner moves it and then posts that all finders are welcome to find it a second time, etc. I hope you're also dismayed over these as well, because they all effect you exactly the same amount.
Link to comment

 

I am still also dismayed that there is someone handing out smileys if you post a caricature picture of the US president that may, or may not, be racist.
There are folks that get additional smileys for all kinds of stuff: non-published caches near events, visiting a cache twice to show a friend, accidentally finding a cache years later and not remembering it, finding it again after the owner moves it and then posts that all finders are welcome to find it a second time, etc. I hope you're also dismayed over these as well, because they all effect you exactly the same amount.

 

Those all sound like visits to a cache or geoaching event.

 

Surely, you aren't comparing them.

 

If this is what Groundspeak/Geocaching is coming to, I am going to stop recommending it.

Link to comment
I am still also dismayed that there is someone handing out smileys if you post a caricature picture of the US president that may, or may not, be racist.
There are folks that get additional smileys for all kinds of stuff: non-published caches near events, visiting a cache twice to show a friend, accidentally finding a cache years later and not remembering it, finding it again after the owner moves it and then posts that all finders are welcome to find it a second time, etc. I hope you're also dismayed over these as well, because they all effect you exactly the same amount.
Those all sound like visits to a cache or geoaching event.
Yes, those are all visits to either geocaches or to cache events. That's what I was trying to describe.

 

Surely, you aren't comparing them.
I am. And stop calling me Shirley.

 

If this is what Groundspeak/Geocaching is coming to, I am going to stop recommending it.
It's not what it's coming to, it's where it's been for YEARS. When I went to my very first Event Cache way back in '03 I was told to find a few additional caches which were hidden around and I could sign them and then log the Event multiple times. I was new, so I thought it was how it was done, so I did it. Later I read more about the practice in these here forums and formed my opinion that this practice wasn't something I wanted to do anymore (but it didn't bother me if others did it).

 

I've also heard of cachers that brought friends caching and took them to caches they'd already been, but instead of logging their visit as a note they used Found It because they didn't know otherwise. It happens. It's not new.

 

All the examples I gave (and I'm sure there are more) are examples of getting an additional smiley at a cache, and none of these things that other people do reduce the amount of fun that I have playing the game. Do they really bother you enough to reduce your fun?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...