Jump to content

Objectionable Posting: You Make The Call...


OzGuff

Recommended Posts

i am actually less worried about overt and extreme racism than i am about subtle acts that may be passed off as no big deal. the dehumanizing or devaluing of a class of people is the object of both kinds, and while we may all agree that cross-burning zealots with rebel flags tattooed on their faces are beyond the limits of what's acceptable, it's not so easy to identify harmful stereotypes in smaller doses.

 

have a look at how the irish or the jews or the italians were cartooned and stereotyped (and sometimes still are) and see if that maybe is transparently unfair.

 

then have a look at how blacks are still cartooned as "darkies", subtly sending the message that they're not on the same level with whites.

 

the images of black people with the big ears and huge lips, the dim expression are all remains of a white culture's attempt to put a whole race back into a subservient role.

 

even if you look at accents, you see that black and white dialects formed in the american south for the sole purpose of distinguishing a dominant race from a subservient one. black men not using the fawning child-like speech of the slave could face heavy consequences for speaking with the accent of the white landed class.

 

those race-based accents stay with us today.

 

while there may be no real hostility behind the cartooning, it's still loaded with historical bias and isn't appropriate anymore.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

just as an oh-by-the-way:

 

how would you describe the race of this man?

 

Thierry_Henry_2008.jpg

 

is he

 

a ) black?

b ) african-american?

 

 

 

 

 

if you said "african-american" you're wrong. he's thierry henry, and he's from a paris suburb.

he's not anything-american; he's french.

Edited by flask
Link to comment

It makes no difference what any of us think of that photo.

If the cache owner thinks it qualifys as a funny picture, than the person gets the second smiliey.

 

Second Smiley? Is there a second log that gets signed?

 

Can I hand out extra smileys for long and descriptive logs then? Lets say... a smiley for every 10 words. Yeah, that's the ticket. And 10 extra smileys if the cache log makes me laugh.

Link to comment

It makes no difference what any of us think of that photo.

If the cache owner thinks it qualifys as a funny picture, than the person gets the second smiliey.

 

Actually it does matter what we think. And if it continues I'll have more to say about it.

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment

 

the images of black people with the big ears and huge lips, the dim expression...

 

my thoughts, it is the big lips that make it offensive cause it plays to the stereotype.

 

If the picture posted was a typical Obama caricature that portrays him with humongous Dumbo ears, then my reaction would have been a shrug of "what is politics doing in a log?" but it wouldn't be "why racism in a log?!" I don't think big ears is a stereotype of black people, as far as I know. If you type "Obama Caricature" into google images, you would see lots of cartoonists draw him with big ears. fine. throw in the cross eyes too. not racist.

 

But its the big lips that make this image cross the line. Obama doesn't even have big lips but it is a racial stereotype so therefore this is the image the logger choose to communicate to us that he is racist.

 

An inoffensive way of caricaturing Sarah Palin might be to make fun of her big wide smile, fine. Offensive might be something strictly feminine cause now its crossing the line to be offensive to all women.

 

So, in this case, it is not Obama that Groundspeak is saying needs a thicker skin, it is blacks/African-_____cans that Groundspeak is saying need thicker skins, although that is not what they said...

Link to comment

 

the images of black people with the big ears and huge lips, the dim expression...

 

my thoughts, it is the big lips that make it offensive cause it plays to the stereotype.

 

If the picture posted was a typical Obama caricature that portrays him with humongous Dumbo ears, then my reaction would have been a shrug of "what is politics doing in a log?" but it wouldn't be "why racism in a log?!" I don't think big ears is a stereotype of black people, as far as I know. If you type "Obama Caricature" into google images, you would see lots of cartoonists draw him with big ears. fine. throw in the cross eyes too. not racist.

 

But its the big lips that make this image cross the line. Obama doesn't even have big lips but it is a racial stereotype so therefore this is the image the logger choose to communicate to us that he is racist.

 

An inoffensive way of caricaturing Sarah Palin might be to make fun of her big wide smile, fine. Offensive might be something strictly feminine cause now its crossing the line to be offensive to all women.

 

So, in this case, it is not Obama that Groundspeak is saying needs a thicker skin, it is blacks/African-_____cans that Groundspeak is saying need thicker skins, although that is not what they said...

 

What stereotype? I've never heard of a stereotype of black people with big lips, I know black people who have normal size lips.... or is it just you saying all black people have big lips?

 

And anyway what exactly does big lips mean.... how does that harm anyone? I mean one time I got a cartoonist picture done and my friend told them to draw a big nose* on it. The cartoonist did -- so was he being racist against me? Or was he kind of trying to single me out for something -- no it was just an attempt at injecting humour -- crap attempt but there you go.

 

I don't see anything racist in creating caricatures with exaggerated features - that is the point isn't it?

 

OK on the subject of putting a caricature of a politician in this cache log, well I think they shouldn't have done that - in fact it is slightly political and the log should be deleted.

 

But it's political and that's all -- no racism in it. Frankly I think anyone who sees racism in this picture are the one's creating the stereotype...

 

*my nose is average size which made the picture dumb, should have gone for my puffy cheeks.

 

ETA: Obama is not black by the way. At least, he's only half black, he's also half white.

Edited by _TeamFitz_
Link to comment

 

the images of black people with the big ears and huge lips, the dim expression...

 

my thoughts, it is the big lips that make it offensive cause it plays to the stereotype.

 

If the picture posted was a typical Obama caricature that portrays him with humongous Dumbo ears, then my reaction would have been a shrug of "what is politics doing in a log?" but it wouldn't be "why racism in a log?!" I don't think big ears is a stereotype of black people, as far as I know. If you type "Obama Caricature" into google images, you would see lots of cartoonists draw him with big ears. fine. throw in the cross eyes too. not racist.

 

But its the big lips that make this image cross the line. Obama doesn't even have big lips but it is a racial stereotype so therefore this is the image the logger choose to communicate to us that he is racist.

 

An inoffensive way of caricaturing Sarah Palin might be to make fun of her big wide smile, fine. Offensive might be something strictly feminine cause now its crossing the line to be offensive to all women.

 

So, in this case, it is not Obama that Groundspeak is saying needs a thicker skin, it is blacks/African-_____cans that Groundspeak is saying need thicker skins, although that is not what they said...

 

What stereotype? I've never heard of a stereotype of black people with big lips, I know black people who have normal size lips.... or is it just you saying all black people have big lips?

 

And anyway what exactly does big lips mean.... how does that harm anyone? I mean one time I got a cartoonist picture done and my friend told them to draw a big nose* on it. The cartoonist did -- so was he being racist against me? Or was he kind of trying to single me out for something -- no it was just an attempt at injecting humour -- crap attempt but there you go.

 

I don't see anything racist in creating caricatures with exaggerated features - that is the point isn't it?

 

OK on the subject of putting a caricature of a politician in this cache log, well I think they shouldn't have done that - in fact it is slightly political and the log should be deleted.

 

But it's political and that's all -- no racism in it. Frankly I think anyone who sees racism in this picture are the one's creating the stereotype...

 

*my nose is average size which made the picture dumb, should have gone for my puffy cheeks.

 

ETA: Obama is not black by the way. At least, he's only half black, he's also half white.

 

not familiar with the historical record, are you?

 

nor the concept of the octaroon?

 

ave me some trouble. do your homework. know your history.

Link to comment
You are right....Obama is just as white as he is black. So why does everyone say he is the first Black to be elected President. Did his White Half not win????? :huh:

 

would his white half been allowed to drink at the white water fountain?

 

edit: realized I'm getting off-topic here, almost thought this is the OT forum. On topic - the image is objectionable to me. I gave my opinion above why I thought so. If someone else did has not heard of the stereotype that I referred to, fine. It is up to the offended to educate us on what offends them. I once took a knot tying class taught by an African-American Bosun. someone in the class made a noose and hung it up, to show off his skill I think, a little humor as well. doubt he was out to offend anybody. I think of the Wild West, not the KKK when I see a noose. But the Bosun made it clear, politely, that there are people who are offended by nooses.

All I can say is that my reaction to that Obama image is different and more offending to the typical big ear parody I usually see. That's all I can say.

Edited by majormajor42
Link to comment

Hmm... I want to try something.

 

I'M OFFENDED BY THIS THREAD... ERGO I THINK IT SHOULD NOW BE LOCKED

 

Threads cause offence to many people, especially those who get flamed, so since threads like this cause offence it should be locked.

 

Anyone who doesn't acknowledge my feelings on this matter or my personal offence is obviously a forum bigot.

 

:huh:

Link to comment

My original post said that I found something "objectionable". The words "racist" and "racism" were never used by me. And the Terms of Use do not use those words either. In order to be consider a violation of the Terms of Use the content must be "...racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity". The content doesn't have to rise to the level of racism in order to violate the Terms of Use. Racial and ethnic insensitivity would also seem to qualify.

 

I have enjoyed reading the opinions of all!

 

And to keep this post on-topic, I do find the "photo" objectionable. It may not be racist per se but it is definitely racially insensitive.

Edited by OzGuff
Link to comment

I had thought that I'd either heard or read somewhere that it is actually illegal to caricature a sitting president. Is this true? I am sure that there is someone on here smarter than me and in the know about such things.

 

For the record, no. I do not object to the picture. I have my own reasons.

Link to comment

I had thought that I'd either heard or read somewhere that it is actually illegal to caricature a sitting president. Is this true? I am sure that there is someone on here smarter than me and in the know about such things.

 

For the record, no. I do not object to the picture. I have my own reasons.

 

If that were true there would be a lot of political cartoonists in prison. Have a look in any news paper and you are likely to find at least one caricature of the sitting president.

Link to comment

If it is against the rules, Wouldn't the publisher have picked up on this and denied the cache?

Not if the cache page was changed after it was published.

Note that the picture is on an uploaded log, not the cache page. Perhaps the cache owner hasn't seen it (many COs lose interest in their "cute" extra log stuff after a short time). Perhaps the CO thinks it's funny and not objectionable. Perhaps the CO does think it's objectionable, but doesn't want to get into a bust-up with the logger.

Link to comment

I had thought that I'd either heard or read somewhere that it is actually illegal to caricature a sitting president. Is this true? I am sure that there is someone on here smarter than me and in the know about such things.

 

For the record, no. I do not object to the picture. I have my own reasons.

 

no, it is not true. were you abroad your tenth grade year, or did you just sleep through it?

 

i'm interested by the odd phrasing you use about "your own reasons". you don't happen to have a rebel flag tattooed on your face, do you?

Link to comment

 

 

The cacher who posted the pic looks like this according to his profile. Since we have met, (and coincidentally hail from the same home town but are a few years apart in age) I can verify that this is an accurate representation of what Atrus looks like, and not the image that was uploaded. 9c930f6a-ae70-4c54-b9ef-2621df5ed71f.jpg

 

Now, THERE'S a funny face! Why did he go to all that trouble of creating that unfunny one?

:huh:

Link to comment

Well, I think the cache owner could delete the second smiley if the finder isn't President Obama. Not sure if he's into geocaching or not....

The CO's rules for getting that second smiley include "You must take a photo of yourself and upload it.." and "It must be a close up shot, so hold the camera 9 - 12 inches from your face."

I don't think a second smiley is right...can you upload a pic with another type of log?

Link to comment

just as an oh-by-the-way:

 

how would you describe the race of this man?

 

Thierry_Henry_2008.jpg

 

is he

 

a ) black?

b ) african-american?

 

 

 

 

 

if you said "african-american" you're wrong. he's thierry henry, and he's from a paris suburb.

he's not anything-american; he's french.

 

Sexy!

 

yeah, that crossed my mind.

Link to comment

Well, after two solid days of this very active thread hovering at the top of the board index ... the photo is still there.

 

I’d say that answers the question of whether Groundspeak finds it sufficiently offensive.

You are aware, however, that the Groundspeak staff doesn't work on the weekends, right?

 

...and that they seemed to want some kind of poll, which would mean a discussion and sufficient data collection.

Link to comment

I had thought that I'd either heard or read somewhere that it is actually illegal to caricature a sitting president. Is this true? I am sure that there is someone on here smarter than me and in the know about such things.

 

For the record, no. I do not object to the picture. I have my own reasons.

 

no, it is not true. were you abroad your tenth grade year, or did you just sleep through it?

 

i'm interested by the odd phrasing you use about "your own reasons". you don't happen to have a rebel flag tattooed on your face, do you?

 

Why must you insult everyone in most of your posts? Were you bullied in school and are now trying to get even?

I only notice it because you post a lot and the majority of your posts are insulting to others. I hope it makes you feel good.

 

But it makes you look small....and sad...

 

On Topic: I do not find it offensive because it isn't racist. It is a caricature. nothing more... people pay good money at Disney land to have such pictures drawn.

 

Ive seen pics of Bush that made him look like an ape... racist? no... a caricature...

 

Grow some skin and let it go. Do you want to be moderated to death?

 

Think for yourself, learn from others when you can and ignore those you don't want to learn from.

 

Do not let silly things on the internet be the guide of your moral compass.

Link to comment

I had thought that I'd either heard or read somewhere that it is actually illegal to caricature a sitting president. Is this true? I am sure that there is someone on here smarter than me and in the know about such things.

 

For the record, no. I do not object to the picture. I have my own reasons.

 

no, it is not true. were you abroad your tenth grade year, or did you just sleep through it?

 

i'm interested by the odd phrasing you use about "your own reasons". you don't happen to have a rebel flag tattooed on your face, do you?

 

Why must you insult everyone in most of your posts? Were you bullied in school and are now trying to get even?

I only notice it because you post a lot and the majority of your posts are insulting to others. I hope it makes you feel good.

 

But it makes you look small....and sad...

 

 

really.

 

you went through four thousand of my posts to compile that kind of data?

 

how very sweet of you.

 

i don't know why you little people assume i sent my seventh grade year in other people's gym lockers.

 

i was too busy going to parties.

 

but what i did accomplish was to draw you out and shed more light on the topic, which is what i wanted.

 

so thanks.

Link to comment

just as an oh-by-the-way:

 

how would you describe the race of this man?

 

Thierry_Henry_2008.jpg

 

is he

 

a ) black?

b ) african-american?

 

 

 

 

 

if you said "african-american" you're wrong. he's thierry henry, and he's from a paris suburb.

he's not anything-american; he's french.

 

Sexy!

 

yeah, that crossed my mind.

 

mmmhmmm! Crossed mine too!

 

I appreciate the dialogue on this subject. While I do not find the picture to be racist I do understand some do and it is therefore inappropriate.

Link to comment

objectional by guidelines = yes imo

 

though as a side note i find humor in the picture and that it exagerated the wrong things, its the ears not lips that are big on obama, cmon cant ppl photoshop with some real effort and creativity. make his head huge like its a blown up balloon with big wing ears and your on the right track (no not that his head is big but they always are in cartoon drawings of like type (can't spell for crap so not gonna even try to utter fail on this one))

Link to comment

I had thought that I'd either heard or read somewhere that it is actually illegal to caricature a sitting president. Is this true? I am sure that there is someone on here smarter than me and in the know about such things.

 

For the record, no. I do not object to the picture. I have my own reasons.

 

no, it is not true. were you abroad your tenth grade year, or did you just sleep through it?

 

i'm interested by the odd phrasing you use about "your own reasons". you don't happen to have a rebel flag tattooed on your face, do you?

 

Why must you insult everyone in most of your posts? Were you bullied in school and are now trying to get even?

I only notice it because you post a lot and the majority of your posts are insulting to others. I hope it makes you feel good.

 

But it makes you look small....and sad...

 

 

really.

 

you went through four thousand of my posts to compile that kind of data?

 

how very sweet of you.

 

i don't know why you little people assume i sent my seventh grade year in other people's gym lockers.

 

i was too busy going to parties.

 

but what i did accomplish was to draw you out and shed more light on the topic, which is what i wanted.

 

so thanks.

 

No, thank you for showing yourself. No one said you spent you seventh grade in gym lockers but you... you then made up how popular you were by saying you were too busy at parties? (no one who went to jr high parties feels a need to brag about it(I don't believe you))

 

I am now convinced you did spend your 7th grade in some persons gym locker and have never seen a party (even as a wet blanket)

 

And really? your whole objective was to draw little old me out? wow.... thanks for thinking of me often... don't know if I should feel flattered or stalked...

 

either way... we disagree and the picture is only racist to those who see such things. I see white people with big lips... don't you?

 

BTW: who are/is "you little people" that you speak of? are you large or just think you are more important? thanks for the slip... Nice to know how you detest us "little people" here.

Edited by brslk
Link to comment

While making plans for a cache run I came across Funny Faces (GC1ZHPR). The cache owner offered finders a second find if they loaded a funny face self-portrait to the cache page. I checked out the uploaded photos to see how funny they were, and found something that I considered objectionable. (Click the link to see the photo.)

 

I checked with some other local cachers to see how they felt about the photo/caricature, and based on their responses I alerted Groundspeak about a possible violation of the Terms of Use. They responded,

While it might be considered insensitive by some the president has to have a thicker skin than most people. That picture is no worse than several caricatures I can seen in the political cartoons. Some may not like it but it does not violate the terms of use.

 

My response was,

Fair enough. Two reasonably intelligent folks could agree to disagree here. However, I think that it is incumbent on Groundspeak to look at the bigger picture. I agree that the President -- as a public figure -- needs to have "thicker skin" than most. But I am confident that the Terms of Use were written to protect not only someone appearing in a photo but also those who may view the photo. Are you saying that anyone viewing this photo also needs "thicker skin"? Or are you denying that the photo is racially and/or ethnically objectionable?

 

By allowing this picture to remain visible on the geocaching.com website Groundspeak is giving tacit approval of the photo -- caricature though it may be. It sure seems to me that not allowing a sentence on a cache page asking searchers to spend a minute honoring fallen servicemen and women -- due to an "agenda" -- but allowing this sort of photo -- which also likely has an agenda -- are a little contradictory.

 

I then asked if they minded me taking the issue to the Groundspeak forum -- not to see if the decision should be overruled but to see if there is a consensus one way or the other.

 

So, how do folks see the photo? Objectionable or not? I am not looking for a discussion of the decision itself, but rather whether the photo violates 4.(a) of Groundspeak's Terms of Use.

 

Thanks in advance for your thoughts!

OMG, look at want this county has become, unbelievable! It is quite shocking to hear what people are offended by these days. This photo may be in poor taste, but getting so upset and wanting to attack the person who posted the photo is the most offensive part, who do you think you are! I find the thought of someone who envisions themselves as being capable of judgment of others in such a manor, both ignorant and a bullish! I am offended myself by your outrageous and frivolous actions and postings sir!

 

Sorry fellow cachers, this type of behavior is unexceptionable for me.

Link to comment
(a) Upload, post or otherwise transmit any content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, slanderous, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, embarrassing, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity.

 

According to that line from the TOS...it's in violation.

 

The posted(uploaded) image is certainly "racially" "objectionable" to some "Other persons"...Myself included. Geocaching.com website is not the place for an image like that. Of course, that Term os Service is only written so that GS "Can" remove anything they like, but they do not "Have" to. I would also call the image "Hateful"

Edited by WRITE SHOP ROBERT
Link to comment

killing time....

 

17 vs 15 or 15 vs 17. either way, that is the number of people who found it objectionable vs not-objectionable. A slim majority or a slim minority. I don't think it matters.

Well...

 

or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity.

 

if nearly half of us find it offensive or hateful, that would certainly constitute "Any"

Link to comment

objectional by guidelines = yes imo

 

though as a side note i find humor in the picture and that it exagerated the wrong things, its the ears not lips that are big on obama, cmon cant ppl photoshop with some real effort and creativity. make his head huge like its a blown up balloon with big wing ears and your on the right track (no not that his head is big but they always are in cartoon drawings of like type (can't spell for crap so not gonna even try to utter fail on this one))

and that's exactly what makes the image objectionable. Rather than a true caricature(exagerating the actual features of the subject) the image exagerates the stereotypical features of the race.

Link to comment

I had thought that I'd either heard or read somewhere that it is actually illegal to caricature a sitting president. Is this true? I am sure that there is someone on here smarter than me and in the know about such things.

 

For the record, no. I do not object to the picture. I have my own reasons.

 

no, it is not true. were you abroad your tenth grade year, or did you just sleep through it?

 

i'm interested by the odd phrasing you use about "your own reasons". you don't happen to have a rebel flag tattooed on your face, do you?

 

Why must you insult everyone in most of your posts? Were you bullied in school and are now trying to get even?

I only notice it because you post a lot and the majority of your posts are insulting to others. I hope it makes you feel good.

 

But it makes you look small....and sad...

 

 

really.

 

you went through four thousand of my posts to compile that kind of data?

 

how very sweet of you.

 

i don't know why you little people assume i sent my seventh grade year in other people's gym lockers.

 

i was too busy going to parties.

 

but what i did accomplish was to draw you out and shed more light on the topic, which is what i wanted.

 

so thanks.

 

No, thank you for showing yourself. No one said you spent you seventh grade in gym lockers but you... you then made up how popular you were by saying you were too busy at parties? (no one who went to jr high parties feels a need to brag about it(I don't believe you))

 

I am now convinced you did spend your 7th grade in some persons gym locker and have never seen a party (even as a wet blanket)

 

And really? your whole objective was to draw little old me out? wow.... thanks for thinking of me often... don't know if I should feel flattered or stalked...

 

either way... we disagree and the picture is only racist to those who see such things. I see white people with big lips... don't you?

 

BTW: who are/is "you little people" that you speak of? are you large or just think you are more important? thanks for the slip... Nice to know how you detest us "little people" here.

 

i can't say i'd thought of you often, or even noticed that you exist until you wrote the one obscure message that i thought was in need of a little slice and dice. if you post in ten minutes on a different subject, i won't even recognize your name.

 

you have, however, made a judgment about "most of" my many posts, so either you took the trouble or you're a liar.

 

it's always amusing that people who can't bring substance always fall back on the emotional makeup of those who call them out.

 

so, eraser-at-both-ends, do you have a point, or are you just going to make useless generalities and hide behind "my own reasons"?

 

move along. scoot. out with you. go play.

Link to comment

objectional by guidelines = yes imo

 

though as a side note i find humor in the picture and that it exagerated the wrong things, its the ears not lips that are big on obama, cmon cant ppl photoshop with some real effort and creativity. make his head huge like its a blown up balloon with big wing ears and your on the right track (no not that his head is big but they always are in cartoon drawings of like type (can't spell for crap so not gonna even try to utter fail on this one))

and that's exactly what makes the image objectionable. Rather than a true caricature(exagerating the actual features of the subject) the image exagerates the stereotypical features of the race.

 

Here's the issue I have. I don't find big lips a feature of all black people. Though I do find people (black/white/brown/yellow/red) that have big lips.

 

1) Does having big lips somehow imply something -- is this a thin lip world where big lip people are destined to be looked over for jobs, made to stand on buses etc.... What makes anyone think that having thin lips is somehow a superior quality to having big lips?

 

2) The only people I read on this thread trying to convince me that all black people have big lips (i.e. the stereotype) are the very people who are suggesting this image is racist.

 

Let me make it clear - big lips are simply a feature, just like a big nose, big ears, big head. And not all black people have big lips. So stop trying to convince everyone that they have to believe in a stereotype that all black people have big lips.

Link to comment

My original post said that I found something "objectionable". The words "racist" and "racism" were never used by me. And the Terms of Use do not use those words either. In order to be consider a violation of the Terms of Use the content must be "...racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity". The content doesn't have to rise to the level of racism in order to violate the Terms of Use. Racial and ethnic insensitivity would also seem to qualify.

 

I have enjoyed reading the opinions of all!

 

And to keep this post on-topic, I do find the "photo" objectionable. It may not be racist per se but it is definitely racially insensitive.

 

The fact that this lively discourse exists proves that the photo is objectionable. Your last line says it all for me.

 

I am not part of the PC crowd, but I find it in very poor taste. Racism exists in the intent. Since that is not a factor we can truly KNOW if we did not post the pic ourselves then I'll count myself in the poor taste/racially insensitive column. :laughing:

Link to comment

I received an email last night from a local geocacher friend who alerted me to this thread. Until then, I was completely unaware that the cacher who started it had done so. I must admit it provided some interesting reading. Since I am the target of the thread, I figured I just might throw in my two cents worth. In these days of inflation, though, it just may wind up being three or four cents worth…

 

My first question/point is WHY was I unaware of the existence of this thread? 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.

 

So, now on to the picture and how “offensive” it is perceived to be, and whether or not it should be deleted. When I was growing up, kids often called each other names, and poked fun at each other for any reason under the sun. We had two “chants” that worked for us. One was, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” The other was, “I’m rubber and you’re glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.” Either or both were usually followed by a sour face, the extending of your tongue, and the sound, “Nyaaaaaaa!” Somehow, we figured this out by ourselves, on the playground as children, and we all managed to survive the teasing and banter. Perhaps, even more importantly, we learned a valuable lesson of the true meaning of “tolerance.” In today’s world, where we are supposed to be so enlightened, and so “tolerant” of each other, it seems that “Political Correctness” has had the exact OPPOSITE effect, and has made us so much more IN-tolerant of anything which WE describe to ourselves as “offensive.” My God, Don Rickles and Archie Bunker would be BANNED from TV in today’s world, but EVERYONE laughed TOGETHER at their jokes back when they were in their day. What happened? I am reminded of the times when we had the Equal Employment Opportunity Act (EEOC), and had to have “quotas” for each race and gender, so we could have a “balanced” work force, representative of the racial content and gender of our society. I always thought that the very act of COUNTING each race, and making sure that we had a certain “number” of each, was itself an act of racism.

 

I see many references in this thread to the “black” and “white” races. My friends, “black” and “white” are COLORS, not races. If you are going to be racial, at least use the correct names for the races, “Caucasian” and “Negro.” (Not to imply that any single race is better or less than any other, I hope I didn’t offend anyone with the proper name of the race, “Negro.”) It seems to me that in today’s world, we have far too many “letter” words and “hyphenated” races. We have the “A-word,” the “B-word,” the “F-word,” along with all the rest of them. Whenever any one of these “letter words” surface, we all know EXACTLY what word is being replaced, (which has the EXACT SAME MEANING as the letter word,) but somehow, the letter word is acceptable, whereas the FULL word is not. What’s the difference? We have so many “hyphenated Americans” these days that it’s hard to keep up. All of my ancestors came from the Naples area of Italy, however, I was born in New Jersey. Does that make me an “Italian-American?” No, I am an AMERICAN. Period. When I joined the military to serve my country, did I pledge my allegiance to the flag of Italy? No, I pledged it to the flag of The United States Of America. I am PROUD to call myself an American. Period. I served four years in the United States Air Force, and spent one year of it in Vietnam. I served to uphold the rights of every single person in this country regardless of their race, creed or color to have the freedom to form their own opinions, say whatever they like, and not be dictated to by any foreign, or overbearing American government.

 

So, back to the picture. Was it racist or offensive? Only the person making that claim can answer that question for themselves. For each person who found it offensive or racist, there are just as many who found it funny and NOT offensive or racist. The point is that it’s too vague and subjective to make one ruling and apply it to everyone. But if one single person finds it “offensive” or “racist,” what gives that person(s) the right to impose THEIR opinion on everyone else, and demand that it be removed? If you find it offensive, then YOU should not look at it. Period. Today, it seems as if no one can say anything without it offending someone else. Do you know what offends me? People who are so easily offended by nothing.

 

Anyone who knows me (REALLY knows me) what I stand for, and what I believe in knows that I am neither racist nor bigoted. They would know that I might have a “different” sense of humor,” but definitely not racist or bigoted. I posted a picture which I found on the Internet, and thought was funny. It depicts a president whose policies I do not agree with and think is leading the country down the wrong path. My objections with this man have absolutely nothing to do with his race, but rather with his policies. But, that is MY opinion, and I am entitled to it whether or not anyone else agrees with me. Another thing that I find interesting, is that so many posters in this thread have already labeled me as racist, without ever having met me, and not knowing anything about me. But, this is America, and every one of you is entitled to the freedom which allows you to do exatcly that. But, if you chose to exercise that right, you cannot reserve it only for yourself and those who share your views. It applies to ALL Americans, me included. Since you are free to form your own opinion of me, then you must also grant the same right to me, to BE whatever you claim I am, even though I am not! If you think I am racist, so be it. Make note of it, then move on to more important things in life than worrying about whether someone posted a picture on a website which YOU may think is offensive. I am only a racist if YOUR OPINION of me is such, and YOUR opinion does not stand for everyone else.

 

Now, on to the other point. As to whether or not multiple “finds” are offered on a cache, that is up to the owner of the cache. Previously, whenever I had expressed concerns regarding what a cache owner was doing with his cache, I was quickly informed that a cache owner is a “god” (of sorts) on his own cache and can pretty much do whatever he pleases. If he is allowing multiple finds on his cache, and you don’t agree with him, then simply log one find, and move on. As long as the cache owner and finders are not doing anything illegal or immoral, what’s it to you what happens on any given cache page after you have logged your (single) find and moved on? Why should everyone else be forced to play by YOUR interpretation of the rules? Where’s the “tolerance?” And BTW, I did NOT log a SECOND “find” on this cache. In fact, I did not log a FIRST find, either! I don’t log “finds” on ANY caches. But that’s just MY way of playing the game. I guess anyone who doesn’t agree with the way I play it has yet another “label” for me. So be it. I have far greater concerns in life other than what other people think of me.

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