Objectionable Posting: You Make The Call...

[+OzGuff]

If folks feel the need to say yet more about what may, or may not, be "objectionable" in a cache log perhaps a new, but more general, topic could be opened to discuss the broader issues, rather than focusing on this one particular cache?

MrsB: This sounds like a great idea! But I will let others take the initiative...

 

Not even Groundspeak is safe when their rulings differ from his opinions. "Groundspeak HAS spoken, but that doesn't mean that their decision is the correct one." And, "It would be interesting to know if the decision that the "photo" in question was not a violation of the TOU was made by a Groundspeak minion with no input from higher ups, or if the decision was handed down from the top. (Or at least from somewhere closer to the top.)" Does this not indicate that the OP regards the GS staff as just a bunch of flunkies?

Atrus: You may read the above and inject venom into my words; I interpret it as me not agreeing with the decision handed down by Groundspeak. And the "minion" reference comes from the Groundspeak representative who contacted me with their decision; the Forum Title on his GC.com profile page was "Groundspeak minion". And as Snoogans pointed out, Groundspeak employees are often referred to as "lackeys". There was no disrespect directed at anyone at Groundspeak.

 

I know Oz a little and think he likes to stir the pot and push buttons, I've seen it too much to think otherwise. I think that at least played a part in this.

[Deleted some stuff.]

For Pete's sake, would the OP just request it's closure and let it drift off the front page...until the next controversy?

ND: Guilty as charged. But I had actually decided to bring the "photo" to the attention of Groundspeak representatives before I discovered who uploaded it. Knowing who it was might have made me smile a little though, but it wouldn't have changed my decision to report the "photo". And I agree that this thread needs to be closed, and it will. But I will leave it open just in case anyone wants to respond.

 

... a slick sneaky race-card smear campaign.

Don: As the assumed manager of the "slick sneaky race-card smear campaign" let me remind you what the issue here is -- the objectionable nature of the "photo" uploaded by that "good man". Issues between he and I, or even you and I, are not at issue here. (Were they contributing factors? Likely. But I digress.) But let us assume for a minute that my actions were as you described and my entire aim was to besmirch the good name of that "good man". Do my actions in any way, shape, or form change the fact that he uploaded a "photo" that showed him to be lacking in racial sensitivity?

 

Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread! The rational, cogent arguments made by many of you were enjoyable to read.

 

For my final word on this entire situation, please see posts #101, #141, #166, #205, #231, #261, #275, and #294. There really isn't more I can add.

 

I will leave the thread open for another day or so just in case anyone wants to try to get us to an eighth page.

[+BlueDeuce]

eh...nevermind.

Edited November 14, 2009 by BlueDeuce

[+WRASTRO]

Had to take out comment since BD took out the picture.

Edited November 14, 2009 by WRASTRO

[+BlueDeuce]

Had to take out comment since BD took out the picture.

 

Lord knows I wouldn't want to stray too far from the topic.

[+WRASTRO]

Had to take out comment since BD took out the picture.

 

Lord knows I wouldn't want to stray too far from the topic.

I object! What topic?

[+mrbort]

For every one of you who is offended at that cartoon, you really need to get a life, get something exciting going and stop worrying about some picture on the internet.

 

absolutely uncalled for.

 

I find the photo insensitive for the following reasons:

 

1) historically, a denigrating caricature of the "lesser black man" has strongly featured prominent lips and bulging eyes.

 

2) while maybe unintentional, this photo perpetuates the dated and ugly mentality that the caricatures in 1) represent.

 

This reaction has nothing to do with the subject of the caricature. I would actually find it MORE inappropriate had it been of some other, less notable black person. Portrayal of giant lips and bulging eyes are some of the most common of period racially charged illustrations. The reason that this is different than McCain as whatever that is or Arnold as an alien is that there is no historical baggage that gues with the latter two portrayals.

 

I dislike any rebuttal to this that "people need to grow a thicker skin" etc... If something is offending people en masse, perhaps the person who posted it, if blessed with good conscience, should examine what he/she wrote. To those who try to dictate to others what should or should not be offensive: dictating to others the emotions that they should feel is insensitive at best; people feel things because they do... saying that a reaction or feeling is "wrong" is absolutely the worst type of emotional totalitarianism. I respect your disagreement with my feelings but absolutely don't respect any dictation of how anyone else should feel. This applies to the "get over it" crowd, the "grow a thicker skin" crowd among others. This may not be a popular post but I don't care; it's not okay to dictate to others how to feel about something.

[knowschad]

I have to admit that this has been one of the most thought-provoking threads that I have seen here. I am not a PC kind of guy, and have frequently stated that there is nowhere in the Bill of Rights that states that we Shall Not Be Offended. But the arguments that this particular picture goes beyond being offensive, into the territory of racism is also very persuasive to me, as are some of the more general arguments about racism. About all I can say at this point is that I may have some reprocessing to do, and that I hope I'm not alone in that. Lots and lots of good points being made on both sides here.

[Clan Riffster]

If something is offending people en masse, ...

If something is not offending "en masse", should the same degree of acrimoniousness be applied? Obviously, this picture is not offensive to all, so it fails to meet your "en masse" criteria. I'd have to go back and count to see the percentages, but the number of folks wringing their hands over this are definetely less than 100%.

[+waypointazoid]

If folks feel the need to say yet more about what may, or may not, be "objectionable" in a cache log perhaps a new, but more general, topic could be opened to discuss the broader issues, rather than focusing on this one particular cache?

MrsB: This sounds like a great idea! But I will let others take the initiative...

 

Not even Groundspeak is safe when their rulings differ from his opinions. "Groundspeak HAS spoken, but that doesn't mean that their decision is the correct one." And, "It would be interesting to know if the decision that the "photo" in question was not a violation of the TOU was made by a Groundspeak minion with no input from higher ups, or if the decision was handed down from the top. (Or at least from somewhere closer to the top.)" Does this not indicate that the OP regards the GS staff as just a bunch of flunkies?

Atrus: You may read the above and inject venom into my words; I interpret it as me not agreeing with the decision handed down by Groundspeak. And the "minion" reference comes from the Groundspeak representative who contacted me with their decision; the Forum Title on his GC.com profile page was "Groundspeak minion". And as Snoogans pointed out, Groundspeak employees are often referred to as "lackeys". There was no disrespect directed at anyone at Groundspeak.

 

I know Oz a little and think he likes to stir the pot and push buttons, I've seen it too much to think otherwise. I think that at least played a part in this.

[Deleted some stuff.]

For Pete's sake, would the OP just request it's closure and let it drift off the front page...until the next controversy?

ND: Guilty as charged. But I had actually decided to bring the "photo" to the attention of Groundspeak representatives before I discovered who uploaded it. Knowing who it was might have made me smile a little though, but it wouldn't have changed my decision to report the "photo". And I agree that this thread needs to be closed, and it will. But I will leave it open just in case anyone wants to respond.

 

... a slick sneaky race-card smear campaign.

Don: As the assumed manager of the "slick sneaky race-card smear campaign" let me remind you what the issue here is -- the objectionable nature of the "photo" uploaded by that "good man". Issues between he and I, or even you and I, are not at issue here. (Were they contributing factors? Likely. But I digress.) But let us assume for a minute that my actions were as you described and my entire aim was to besmirch the good name of that "good man". Do my actions in any way, shape, or form change the fact that he uploaded a "photo" that showed him to be lacking in racial sensitivity?

 

Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread! The rational, cogent arguments made by many of you were enjoyable to read.

 

For my final word on this entire situation, please see posts #101, #141, #166, #205, #231, #261, #275, and #294. There really isn't more I can add.

 

I will leave the thread open for another day or so just in case anyone wants to try to get us to an eighth page.

 

Yep, your works done here pal.

 

Everybody that knows the principle characters back home all agree that this one just might be known as the signature song you'll be remembered by. You really did your best work, and should be proud. I don't know how you can top it, unless you work up an implication of pedophilia against your next victim.

 

I guess we'll just have to wait and see in the next episode of:

 

OZGUFF REPORTS-YOU DECIDE

All the dirt that's fit to sling!

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

Don: As the assumed manager of the "slick sneaky race-card smear campaign" let me remind you what the issue here is -- the objectionable nature of the "photo" uploaded by that "good man". Issues between he and I, or even you and I, are not at issue here. (Were they contributing factors? Likely. But I digress.) But let us assume for a minute that my actions were as you described and my entire aim was to besmirch the good name of that "good man". Do my actions in any way, shape, or form change the fact that he uploaded a "photo" that showed him to be lacking in racial sensitivity?

 

OzGuff, why do you keep using weasel words? You're not second guessing yourself - you are the possessor of that knowledge. Either you knew/realised it was Atrus and decided to bring it to the forums or you didn't.

 

 

absolutely uncalled for.

 

I find the photo insensitive for the following reasons:

 

1) historically, a denigrating caricature of the "lesser black man" has strongly featured prominent lips and bulging eyes.

 

Oh good, someone brought up the eyes. Where on this image were Obama's bulging eyes? Once again, it is under the veil of attacking racism we have someone injecting stereotypes into the equation.

 

Those who didn't see this image as racist, are those who most likely those who don't hold a stereotypical view of black people.

 

Those who hold a stereotypical view of black people, are immediately going to see racism in caricatures such as this.

 

It's really that simple...

 

...and you can deny it all you want, but it is an image of black people that you hold in your head and that is why you are able to recognise this image that you see.

 

Yep, your works done here pal.

 

Everybody that knows the principle characters back home all agree that this one just might be known as the signature song you'll be remembered by. You really did your best work, and should be proud. I don't know how you can top it, unless you work up an implication of pedophilia against your next victim.

 

I guess we'll just have to wait and see in the next episode of:

 

OZGUFF REPORTS-YOU DECIDE

All the dirt that's fit to sling!

 

I think waypointazoid says it all, I'll be watching out for posts from OzGuff in future.

[+mrbort]

Those who didn't see this image as racist, are those who most likely those who don't hold a stereotypical view of black people.

 

Those who hold a stereotypical view of black people, are immediately going to see racism in caricatures such as this.

 

It's really that simple...

 

...and you can deny it all you want, but it is an image of black people that you hold in your head and that is why you are able to recognise this image that you see.

 

It's really not that simple. The reason I recognize the elements of historical stereotype in an image like this is because I happen to know some of the history of American racial stereotypes. Similarly I would recognize historically stereotypical images of some other ethnicities without holding that image in my mind to typify them. These mental images are not images of the ethnicity, instead they are typifications of the historical stereotypes.

 

I don't pretend to know the intent of either the creator of the image or the poster. I was merely trying to explain why this image has prompted enough similar recognition to fuel seven pages of posts. By fuel I mean provide part of the discussion, not all of it. And when I said "en masse" earlier (to respond to Riffster), I meant a significant enough fraction of the forum community to help propel the topic to this length. Turns out I misused "en masse." My bad and thanks for pointing it out, Riffster.

 

I'm not calling anyone racist for defending this image but instead was trying to place in context why others see it as insensitive. So if you still think I hold stereotypical views of certain ethnicities, there is probably nothing I can say to change your mind. I know what's in my mind and feel no compulsion to debate it further or justify myself.

 

Edit: clarity.

Edited November 14, 2009 by mrbort

[+terrkan78]

I dislike any rebuttal to this that "people need to grow a thicker skin" etc... If something is offending people en masse, perhaps the person who posted it, if blessed with good conscience, should examine what he/she wrote. To those who try to dictate to others what should or should not be offensive: dictating to others the emotions that they should feel is insensitive at best; people feel things because they do... saying that a reaction or feeling is "wrong" is absolutely the worst type of emotional totalitarianism. I respect your disagreement with my feelings but absolutely don't respect any dictation of how anyone else should feel. This applies to the "get over it" crowd, the "grow a thicker skin" crowd among others. This may not be a popular post but I don't care; it's not okay to dictate to others how to feel about something.

 

mrbort, well said and much appreciated

[+BadAndy]

Objectionable? It's apparent that some here feel that it is....and some don't.

Racist? Again, some feel it is and others don't.

 

Worthy of banishment from GS's pages? Nope.

 

A few years ago when a moderator chose a name that I found to be highly objectionable, I contacted him and GS with my concerns. Both replied that since there was no intent to offend anyone and it was kinda funny, the name was ok. Basically...My own dislike of the name was mine to deal with (grow a thicker skin).

 

Same rule applies here.

[+the_bell_dingers]

Wow! a whole day of no posts!

 

I guess its not controversial or racist anymore!

[+KBI]

Wow! a whole day of no posts!

 

I guess its not controversial or racist anymore!

And it's been over a week now since this controversy flared up, yet the picture remains.

 

Apparently nobody with delete power is offended.

[4wheelin_fool]

It's racist, racially insensitive, and politically divisional, but it does not rise to the level of something which someone should step in and censor, probably due to politics.

 

If it was the picture in this news article, then it is something that definitly should be censored.

 

Good quote from the middle school mother that complained in the above news article:

 

"Racism is usually so subtle. To have it so blatant is what is so shocking," she said. "Hopefully, we can all learn from this and move forward in a positive way - for everyone, not just the black kids or the Hispanic kids or the Jewish kids or the other subgroups ... We need some peace and understanding. I don't want hate."

[+rjb43nh]

Whether Atrus is a racist or not isn't in question-res ipsa loquitur. This whole incident could have been taken care of if Atrus had just followed the cache owners request and posted a photo of himself.

 

[4wheelin_fool]

Whether Atrus is a racist or not isn't in question-res ipsa loquitur. This whole incident could have been taken care of if Atrus had just followed the cache owners request and posted a photo of himself.

 

 

You know, I was tempted to do that 6 pages ago, but I resisted..

[+nericksx]

 

I find the photo distasteful because it doesn't do anything to promote geocaching in any kind of positive light. It's a lightning rod for controversy, rather than an example we'd be able to use in demonstrating why geocaching is an excellent activity... 1) which land managers should allow us to pursue across the areas of their stewardship; 2) which allows friends and families to get outdoors and play a game across the landscape while leaving politico-controversy behind; 3) which is a useful tool for encouraging kids to explore the geoterrain around them rather than the game console in front of them; 4) which builds a sense of 'community' among cachers worldwide...

 

 

It's distasteful, insulting, etc., etc., etc.... and not worse than I've seen in the Post, not worse that what is said on talk radio, etc. My issue is how it portrays the caching community. No it shouldn't be removed by the "powers that be" because I'm more pro-free-speech than I am anti-idiotic-inflammatory-pictures. I just wish that we were all above that kind of crap.

 

I remember when my neighbor's boys were younger, the way that she would encourage them to decipher what is appropriate from what is not, was by asking: "would you show it to the bishop?" Would you want this image printed in a brochure about geocaching? No? Then don't upload it.

[+bittsen]

It's distasteful, insulting, etc., etc., etc.... and not worse than I've seen in the Post, not worse that what is said on talk radio, etc. My issue is how it portrays the caching community. No it shouldn't be removed by the "powers that be" because I'm more pro-free-speech than I am anti-idiotic-inflammatory-pictures. I just wish that we were all above that kind of crap.

 

I remember when my neighbor's boys were younger, the way that she would encourage them to decipher what is appropriate from what is not, was by asking: "would you show it to the bishop?" Would you want this image printed in a brochure about geocaching? No? Then don't upload it.

 

Some people just can't help themselves when it comes to matters of poor judgment.

 

Fortunately, I am convinced that the good geocachers outweigh the bad ones. I am confident that most geocachers would not do anything that could hurt the activity they appear to enjoy.

 

And then there are the rest who just can't help themselves.

[+nericksx]

O

M

G

 

I just read a couple more pages of this thread. I didn't realize that it's some crazy regional beef. I wonder if the picture poster would be offended if I said, "well whadda you expect? It's friggin' North Carolina! Thank goodness I live on the other side of the country!"

 

Thinking about that other thread about places in the U.S. NOT to cache....

[Clan Riffster]

I wonder if the picture poster would be offended if I said, "well whadda you expect? It's friggin' North Carolina! Thank goodness I live on the other side of the country!"

Probably not. The picture poster doesn't seem as "delicate" as some in this thread.

At most, he might wonder if you had some repressed dislike for North Carolina...

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

 

(With apologies to Zombies who may be offended by this image.)

[+baloo&bd]

Probably not. The picture poster doesn't seem as "delicate" as some in this thread.

At most, he might wonder if you had some repressed dislike for North Carolina...

 

I'm sure someone would explain it to him.

[+Snoogans]

 

(With apologies to Zombies who may be offended by this image.)

 

Well now... What about all the mummies you offended by calling the mummy in the picture a zombie?

 

Please know your undead better before commenting on them. M'kayyy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Geeze I crack myself up.

[+Castle Mischief]

O

M

G

 

I just read a couple more pages of this thread. I didn't realize that it's some crazy regional beef. I wonder if the picture poster would be offended if I said, "well whadda you expect? It's friggin' North Carolina! Thank goodness I live on the other side of the country!"

 

Thinking about that other thread about places in the U.S. NOT to cache....

 

Dude. Not helping.

[+Laineybug]

O

M

G

 

I just read a couple more pages of this thread. I didn't realize that it's some crazy regional beef. I wonder if the picture poster would be offended if I said, "well whadda you expect? It's friggin' North Carolina! Thank goodness I live on the other side of the country!"

 

Thinking about that other thread about places in the U.S. NOT to cache....

 

Dude. Not helping.

 

 

Not helping is exactly what this thread is doing. This has turned into a huge p*ssing contest and I would like to ask, WHERE ARE THE MODERATORS? Is this really what they want the great forums to be? Some of you worry about a picture posted on a worldwide site but you'll bash a man YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW on a worldwide site! The people that have no problem with the picture have just as much rights to it staying as those that want it gone. PERIOD! It's a wash.

 

The reason this thread is so long is because the same handful of people keep posting because they like to see themselves talk.

 

Someone else requested this thread be closed and so do I. What has been said has been said. The picture will NOT be deleted so its time to MOVE ON!

Edited November 16, 2009 by Laineybug

[+ThePetersTrio]

Not helping is exactly what this thread is doing. This has turned into a huge p*ssing contest and I would like to ask, WHERE ARE THE MODERATORS? Is this really what they want the great forums to be?

 

Not to state the obvious here but if the moderators closed down every thread that turned into a "p*ssing contest" there would be very little to read. Not to mention the fact that for every person wanting this thread closed there is another wanting it to continue. Talk about a lose/lose situation for the moderating team.

 

I frankly give the mods kudos for allowing the discussion/debate/"p*issing contest" to continue. Free speech is a good thing. If the thread bothers people, they don't have to click on it and read it.

[+Maingray]

O

M

G

 

I just read a couple more pages of this thread. I didn't realize that it's some crazy regional beef. I wonder if the picture poster would be offended if I said, "well whadda you expect? It's friggin' North Carolina! Thank goodness I live on the other side of the country!"

 

Thinking about that other thread about places in the U.S. NOT to cache....

 

Apologies to NC please, otherwise I kill this puppy! And I'm glad you live on the other side of the country too

 

More serious... silly stereotypical posts like this quoted one are really unhelpful. Yes this is (essentially) a regional spat about a picture that clearly would split opinion and be controversial, but I dare you to find any forum for any region in any hobby to not have silly spats. NC has a vibrant, caring and close community of cachers, there is nowhere else I'd rather cache and live. I'm the current president of the state org, and I travel across the state extensively and know most of the cachers here.

 

Funnily enough, all the NC cachers involved in this dispute are ALL REALLY NICE PEOPLE, and everyone really need to rise above this.

Edited November 16, 2009 by Maingray

[+OzGuff]

Funnily enough, all the NC cachers involved in this dispute are ALL REALLY NICE PEOPLE, and everyone really need to rise above this.

Even me? ;-) [This was related to the being nice not the rising above.]

 

I was planning on requesting that the thread be closed, but then decided to just let it sink slowly out of sight. That didn't work, but it eventually will.

 

I have been amazed at the tenor of this thread. In the main folks have been reasonably respectful in their arguments and comments. With a topic this divisive forum goers have done a good job of expressing their opinions without getting (too) personal.

 

The point behind my original question is moot, and was likely moot from the get go. The cacher who posted the "photo" will likely never delete the photo, either because he doesn't see any problem with it OR he would hate for OzGuff to "win". The cache owner will likely never delete the "photo" for the same reasons. And Groundspeak will likely never delete the "photo" because they don't want to have to monitor every image uploaded to their servers.

 

I was heartened to read that at least ONE participant in this thread has reappraised their thoughts on the subject. There is hope...

 

Edited to add the square parenthetical statement in my first paragraph.

Edited November 17, 2009 by OzGuff

[+Mudfrog]

O

M

G

 

I just read a couple more pages of this thread. I didn't realize that it's some crazy regional beef. I wonder if the picture poster would be offended if I said, "well whadda you expect? It's friggin' North Carolina! Thank goodness I live on the other side of the country!"

 

Thinking about that other thread about places in the U.S. NOT to cache....

 

Dude. Not helping.

 

 

Not helping is exactly what this thread is doing. This has turned into a huge p*ssing contest and I would like to ask, WHERE ARE THE MODERATORS? Is this really what they want the great forums to be? Some of you worry about a picture posted on a worldwide site but you'll bash a man YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW on a worldwide site! The people that have no problem with the picture have just as much rights to it staying as those that want it gone. PERIOD! It's a wash.

 

The reason this thread is so long is because the same handful of people keep posting because they like to see themselves talk.

 

Someone else requested this thread be closed and so do I. What has been said has been said. The picture will NOT be deleted so its time to MOVE ON!

 

Not specifically on topic but,,, why is it time for everyone to move on? If you feel that it's time for you to move on, then by all means, go for it. It's very easy, Don't click on this thread's title!

 

We all have our opinions on various geocaching related subjects and discussing them here is exactly what these forums are for. Everyone has the same options, to start a thread, to read, to reply, and to ignore. This is not being thrown in anyone's face and no one if forcing anyone to read it. The thread will go away when interest is lost. In the meanwhile, why would you care of it's existence or let it bother you in any way?

[+Renegade Knight]

...The reason that this is different than McCain as whatever that is or Arnold as an alien is that there is no historical baggage that gues with the latter two portrayals....

 

Racism is in part carrying all that baggage with you. Best you not transfer it to others who have no such concerns and thus no stereotypes clouding their vision.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I was heartened to read that at least ONE participant in this thread has reappraised their thoughts on the subject. There is hope......

 

If the guy was trying to be a jerk, that speaks for itself. If we look at the picture from our own point of reference, you get different points of view. But the photo being posted in that cache by that finder can't ever be separated from his intent. If I had to make the call that's what I'd look at. That's different than removing it because some of the audience was offended by their own thoughts and stereotypes.

[+Castle Mischief]

...The reason that this is different than McCain as whatever that is or Arnold as an alien is that there is no historical baggage that gues with the latter two portrayals....

 

Racism is in part carrying all that baggage with you. Best you not transfer it to others who have no such concerns and thus no stereotypes clouding their vision.

 

This is not the same thing as invalidating the feelings of other people. You don't get to decide what is hurtful to another person and you don't get to decide that their hurt doesn't matter.

 

I'm reminded of two kids in the sandbox- one punching the other while telling him "that didn't hurt, stop crying".

 

Likewise, you don't get to brandish images that are offensive to other people(s) and then boast about how better, tougher, and thicker skinned you are than them because you aren't offended and not come across as a little bit disingenuous.

 

Some white people aren't offended by black stereotype. Hooray. Stop the presses. In other news some Muslims aren't offended by Christian stereotypes. Let's have an equality parade and pat ourselves on the back.

[Clan Riffster]

You don't get to decide what is hurtful to another person

But you do get to decide if you are going to let the pseudo-guilt of another affect your actions. For instance, I am personally greatly offended by castles, and the application of castle based imagery. Castles speak of Feudal times, when only a select few were considered human enough to warrant any sort of consideration for rights and/or feelings. The rest were serfs, subject to the whims of those who owned the castles. My ancestors were brought to America as indentured servants, (a subtle form of slavery), yet they were happy to trade one set of shackles for another, as it meant they escaped the Lords who took their lives and wives whenever they wished, without consequence. Protesting the actions of those behind the cold, stone walls resulted in frustration at best, torture and murder at worst.

 

And yet, even though every time I see your avatar I'm reminded of those branches of my family tree cut short by brutality, I won't ask that you edit it, as I believe that you had no intention of offending me with such an image.

[+baloo&bd]

But you do get to decide if you are going to let the pseudo-guilt of another affect your actions. For instance, I am personally greatly offended by castles, and the application of castle based imagery. Castles speak of Feudal times, when only a select few were considered human enough to warrant any sort of consideration for rights and/or feelings. The rest were serfs, subject to the whims of those who owned the castles. My ancestors were brought to America as indentured servants, (a subtle form of slavery), yet they were happy to trade one set of shackles for another, as it meant they escaped the Lords who took their lives and wives whenever they wished, without consequence. Protesting the actions of those behind the cold, stone walls resulted in frustration at best, torture and murder at worst.

 

Back on topic;

 

This is not a matter of "pseudo-guilt", pc, etc. One only needs to read Post #101 and the intent of the pic becomes clear.

 

People can choose to be apologists for this type of behaviour, however it does not change the fact that its intent was racist in nature and needs to be recognized for what it is. Even if the OP has a feud with the person with the problem, it does not change that.

 

While it is their choice to make, and I understand they do not want to get into monitoring every pic, by not taking action GS is ultimately condoning this type behaviour which is disappointing at best.

[Clan Riffster]

by not taking action GS is ultimately condoning this type behaviour which is disappointing at best.

Groundspeak has taken no action against Castle Mischief for his highly objectionable avatar, ultimately condoning his behavior.

I'm not disappointed.

[+KBI]

But you do get to decide if you are going to let the pseudo-guilt of another affect your actions. For instance, I am personally greatly offended by castles, and the application of castle based imagery. Castles speak of Feudal times, when only a select few were considered human enough to warrant any sort of consideration for rights and/or feelings. The rest were serfs, subject to the whims of those who owned the castles. My ancestors were brought to America as indentured servants, (a subtle form of slavery), yet they were happy to trade one set of shackles for another, as it meant they escaped the Lords who took their lives and wives whenever they wished, without consequence. Protesting the actions of those behind the cold, stone walls resulted in frustration at best, torture and murder at worst.

Back on topic ...

I found Clan Riffster’s post to be firmly on topic. And soundly reasonable. And very insightful.

 

The original post asked whether readers of this thread find the image objectionable. CR made it clear via his analogy that such personal offense lies only within the offendee, NOT within the image itself.

 

Clan Riffster – and his friends – have just as much reason to be offended by images of castles and things that remind him of ugly chapters in his ancestry as black people and their friends have to be offended by the same kinds of images.

 

Whether a person chooses to let such a thing offend him is a personal decision – but that decision is a FREE decision. It is NOT controlled by the image.

 

If our culture is to ever have any hope of moving beyond the angst of racial bigotry, we must stop encouraging these overreactions to such meaningless things. When a bully makes you cry you’ve given him exactly what he wants. Ignore the bully instead and he will soon go away.

 

You don't get to decide what is hurtful to another person

Correct.

 

It is up to that person to choose how to react to the perceived insult. See "bully" comment above.

[+OzGuff]

Or (some/most/all/a few) of those claiming those who find the "photo" objectionable are thin-skinned liberals who need to grow a pair might have issues of racial insensitivity themselves. I'm starting to think that President Carter got it right.

 

Now that I have finished smearing half of the posters to this thread, let me get back on topic.

 

The log with the "photo" that started this thread has been archived. Whether it was the original poster, the cache owner, or Groundspeak I do not know. The responsible party has my thanks.

 

If folks would like to take the idea behind this thread to one where the topic can be discussed in a more general manner -- hopefully devoid of the personal snipes -- be my guest.

 

Thanks again to all who participated. It was illuminating.

 

Can someone close this thread?

[+thedeadpirate]

OZGUFF WON!!!! OZGUFF WON!!! OZGUFF WON!!!

 

I'm glad someone finally archived that post so people can stop smearing a person we know nothing about for actions we know not the reasoning behind.

 

I'd rather OzGuff be forced to do his own dirty work.

[+Snoogans]

OZGUFF WON!!!! OZGUFF WON!!! OZGUFF WON!!!

 

I'm glad someone finally archived that post so people can stop smearing a person we know nothing about for actions we know not the reasoning behind.

 

I'd rather OzGuff be forced to do his own dirty work.

 

Is okay if I think of it as common sense/discression that won???

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

<snip>

(With apologies to Zombies who may be offended by this image.)

 

Well now... What about all the mummies you offended by calling the mummy in the picture a zombie?

 

Please know your undead better before commenting on them. M'kayyy.

 

 

I'm sorry but that's just undeadist!

 

It's quite obvious that mummies are only called so because they have been embalmed in bandages and are over 4000+ years deader than zombies - but they are both undead.

 

I think you're being slightly undead insensitive in not realising this historical significance.

 

[+KBI]

Or (some/most/all/a few) of those claiming those who find the "photo" objectionable are thin-skinned liberals who need to grow a pair might have issues of racial insensitivity themselves. I'm starting to think that President Carter got it right.

So when a person dares to suggest that the combatants in silly name-calling games should learn to ignore old worn-out insults and move on, and allow the underlying discomfort to wither and die instead of passing it on to the next generation – that means that person is being insensitive?

 

Sorry, I don’t follow you there. Jimmy Carter either.

 

Keeping the hate boiling does nothing but ensure its survival. When we learn to roll our eyes and move on instead of taking up arms and continuing the exchange, we will eliminate it. Forever.

 

History is full of ethnic-group pairs who lived for generations hating each other. It goes all through recorded history, and it’s reasonable to assume it was always there before writing was invented. A few of those tribal animosities are still around, but most of them are gone, and will never return.

 

So how do we get rid of the few we still have? By continuing to fight them out, or by letting them die?

 

I wish I could remember where I read this, but there is a great quote I once saw. Some people were debating whether there could ever be a guaranteed way to put a permanent stop to the Arab/Israeli fighting in the Middle East. The winning idea came from the guy who said "separate the children from the adults for one generation."

 

I don’t know about you, but I refuse to teach my kids to continue this silliness. They understand the sticks-and-stones doctrine, and they know how to apply it.

Edited November 18, 2009 by KBI

[+Snoogans]

<snip>

(With apologies to Zombies who may be offended by this image.)

 

Well now... What about all the mummies you offended by calling the mummy in the picture a zombie?

 

Please know your undead better before commenting on them. M'kayyy.

 

 

I'm sorry but that's just undeadist!

 

It's quite obvious that mummies are only called so because they have been embalmed in bandages and are over 4000+ years deader than zombies - but they are both undead.

 

I think you're being slightly undead insensitive in not realising this historical significance.

 

 

Edited November 18, 2009 by Snoogans

[Keystone]

Closing thread at OP's request, as well as the application of the badly bruised equine doctrine.