Objectionable Posting: You Make The Call...

20.7k · November 9, 2009

After seeing the pic and reading the previous post, I can only conclude (for myself) that the picture was, at the least, racially insensitive and objectionable and should, therefore, be removed. At the worst, it was racist.

Edited November 9, 2009 by sbell111

4.7k · November 9, 2009

yep.

i read the long post.

more convinced now than ever.

racist.

4.2k · November 9, 2009

Hurtful, pathetic, demeaning, mean-spirited, disgusting, divisive.

And yes, objectionable at the least.

November 9, 2009

Interesting...

Some of you need to untuck your panties!

As Atrus posted...he didn't "log" a find. That throws the ALR arguement out, and the topic wasn't about that, anyway.

And I have seen much worse pictures posted in logs. (naked cachers come to mind)

6.5k · November 9, 2009

So by your reasoning someone can post whatever they like to the cache listing and website if it is done as a note and not a find? :laughing:

3.9k · November 9, 2009

...

Methinks you doth protest waaaaaaay too much. About 1367 words too much.

You had a chance to say something like "It was sincerely not my intention to offend anyone. I don't believe that the picture is offensive, but since quite a lot of people do, in the interest of the overall harmony of the group, I'm going to take the high road and replace the picture".

You would have been applauded for that, but you chose not to do it. We'll draw our own conclusions.

Edit to add:

My friends, “black” and “white” are COLORS, not races.

Exactly how many of your non-white friends have you proudly shown that picture to?

Edited November 9, 2009 by sTeamTraen

6.5k · November 9, 2009

I'd suspect that he doesn't have many. They would have advised him that Negro is not how they wish to be labeled; about 15 years ago.

3.9k · November 9, 2009

...
Methinks you doth protest waaaaaaay too much. About 1367 words too much.

You had a chance to say something like "It was sincerely not my intention to offend anyone. I don't believe that the picture is offensive, but since quite a lot of people do, in the interest of the overall harmony of the group, I'm going to take the high road and replace the picture".

You would have been applauded for that, but you chose not to do it. We'll draw our own conclusions.

I'm applauding him for sticking to his guns and telling everyone that he meant no racial offense, but that it was just a funny picture of the President. Those who think it was a racial slur against a black President are assuming too much.

I'm glad he didn't bow down to the super sensitive politically correct folks and remove the picture in the name of "the overall harmony of the group". I'm glad he took the high road and let people that didn't like the picture continue to decide for themselves if they want to see it or not.

8.4k · November 9, 2009

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?

This is where your post jumped the shark IMO. You should have put the stuff about the hyphenated americans (which I agree with in part) before that.

However, the entire post comes off as damage control. :laughing:

FWIW: Archie Bunker was portrayed by Carol O'Connor as a clueless, ignorant bigot. (That's a step down from racism.) A loveable schmuck married to a saintly dimwit with a hippy wannabe daughter. He was a figure to be laughed AT and not with.... Which says a whole lot to me that you used "together."

All in the Family is in fact STILL in syndication which sorta renders your argument there moot.

IMO The best thang you could have done (the real face saving thing) is delete the photo yourself before the CO asks for it or Groundspeak decides to do it for you and say, "My bad."

Your manifesto was interesting reading though. :rolleyes:

3.9k · November 9, 2009

I'm applauding him for sticking to his guns and telling everyone that he meant no racial offense

I would be more convinced that he meant no racial offense, if he hadn't spent 2/3 of his post justifying his belief that people are wrong to be upset about racial offense.

November 9, 2009

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?????

Good point! Obama is NOT black he is bi-racial. His mother white his father african. I know what a speak of. I am also bi-racial. I do not claim to be of one race. This would be disrespectful to the parent that is left out. When Obama says he's black, he's saying his mother does not exist.

20.7k · November 9, 2009

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?????

Good point! Obama is NOT black he is bi-racial. His mother white his father african. I know what a speak of. I am also bi-racial. I do not claim to be of one race. This would be disrespectful to the parent that is left out. When Obama says he's black, he's saying his mother does not exist.

That's an awfully weak argument.

4.7k · November 9, 2009

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?????

Good point! Obama is NOT black he is bi-racial. His mother white his father african. I know what a speak of. I am also bi-racial. I do not claim to be of one race. This would be disrespectful to the parent that is left out. When Obama says he's black, he's saying his mother does not exist.

not familiar with the concept of the octaroon, are you?

please know your history.

historically people with one black great-grandparent have been considered under various laws and conventions to be black. under jim crow laws anyone with any black ancestors at all was considered black. typically the black community accepts as black anyone with black heritage because of this.

for the purposes of racism , segregation, and slavery historically there was no such thing as half-white. you were either white, or you weren't.

Edited November 9, 2009 by flask

November 9, 2009

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?????

Good point! Obama is NOT black he is bi-racial. His mother white his father african. I know what a speak of. I am also bi-racial. I do not claim to be of one race. This would be disrespectful to the parent that is left out. When Obama says he's black, he's saying his mother does not exist.

not familiar with the concept of the octaroon, are you?

please know your history.

historically people with one black great-grandparent have been considered under various laws and conventions to be black. under jim crow laws anyone with any black ancestors at all was considered black. typically the black community accepts as black anyone with black heritage because of this.

for the purposes of racism , segregation, and slavery historically there was no such thing as half-white. you were either white, or you weren't.

You get 50 percent of your make up from each parent. What don't you understand?

Oh and I knew I would get attacked here.

November 9, 2009

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

4.7k · November 9, 2009

You get 50 percent of your make up from each parent. What don't you understand?

Oh and I knew I would get attacked here.

except that under laws of slavery and segregation your 50 per cent white didn't count for anything. white supremacist groups today still believe that it's miscegenation and that the only thing that counts is the black parent, or grandparent, or great-grandparent.

racism, racist language, and racists masquerading as something more benign have to be taken in historical context.

then there's a whole set of history and politics surrounding distinctions between "colored" and "black" and around "passing" and a whole field of persons who have nothing against blacks (jews, arabs, turks, puerto-ricans, gays, catholics, insert your hated sub-class here) but wouldn't want one to move in next door.

it's that whole group of "i'm-not-racist-but-i-don't-see-anything-wrong-with-race-based-discrimination-and-other-people-need-to-get-a-thicker-skin" people that i find most fully alarming.

4.7k · November 9, 2009

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

the reasons WHY it's objectionable have a lot to do with WHETHER it's objectionable.

if there were no history of using images like that to harm people, a race based caricature wouldn't be so much of a problem.

November 9, 2009

Atrus,

Thank you for your service.

I can't help but admire a person that stands behind their convictions and sticks to their guns.

If you are "guilty" of anything, it is for not being aware of our new political surroundings. We need to be more sensitive. We need to be more understanding. Here illegally? Fifth DUI? Killed a family in Texas because you were driving drunk? That's OK. We love and will take care of you and your family. Don't say Merry Christmas lest we offend someone. Come to America, and if you don't like our customs, language, holidays, or whatever, we'll change them just for you! Push 1 for English.

Every liberal HAS to find the pic offensive. If president obama (small case letters used intentionally) was a Republican, the photo would be comical. It doesn't fit their agenda so they just come up with a plethora of "isms" to stick at the end of any word to make it fit.

My family, too, is from Italy. They came over in 1902 and taught themselves to read and write in our language. I am AMERICAN. I was made in America with Italian parts!

buona sera. :laughing:

4.2k · November 9, 2009

Atrus,

Thank you for your service.

*snip*

Is it so much to ask that this stay relatively on-topic? There are plenty of other threads in the Off-Topic Forum for you to share your multitude of opinions in. This is not the thread for your grocery list of discontent.

November 9, 2009

King takes Castle. :laughing:

November 9, 2009

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?????

Good point! Obama is NOT black he is bi-racial. His mother white his father african. I know what a speak of. I am also bi-racial. I do not claim to be of one race. This would be disrespectful to the parent that is left out. When Obama says he's black, he's saying his mother does not exist.

not familiar with the concept of the octaroon, are you?

please know your history.

historically people with one black great-grandparent have been considered under various laws and conventions to be black. under jim crow laws anyone with any black ancestors at all was considered black. typically the black community accepts as black anyone with black heritage because of this.

for the purposes of racism , segregation, and slavery historically there was no such thing as half-white. you were either white, or you weren't.

You get 50 percent of your make up from each parent. What don't you understand?

Oh and I knew I would get attacked here.

I have flask on my ignore list as I generally consider his arguments devoid of logic and once he starts to lose he slips into ad hominem attack.

But since flask's post keeps getting quoted, I suggest flask himself removes the log from his own eye and do a bit of research himself. There are a number of sources (Google is your friend) that cite this term, along with quadroon and quintroon, as racist and insulting - not to mention possibly statistically incorrect.

Nice own goal, flask! Keep 'em coming... you will still be ignored by me, but sadly I can't ignore quotes.

24.7k · November 9, 2009

...So, how do folks see the photo? ...

I see the photo as someone’s effort to use photoshop to make Obama's features more traditionally black. Is it funny? To some. Bush as Chimp and Alfred E. Neuman was clearly funny to some because it persists at a much higher level.

Moving on.

When they showed that Bush looked like a Chimp nobody pointed out the race issue. When they said Obamas wife looked like a Gorilla now it's an issue. Alas they both resemble the respective animal after a fashion. It should end there., but nope. Folks have to create race as an issue when it's not, ensuring that it's going to remain an issue for a long, long time. If we are going to live in a world were race doesn't matter, we have to stop jumping the gun.

Of course in my world if you can tell a race joke to that race the same way we tell blonde jokes to blondes then and only then are you non racist. Others would gasp in utter shock that we would ever make fun of a "minority" (Meaning that they feel they are in the advantaged majority and therefore superior and needing to bend over backwards for their inferiors...but that’s another topic).

I'm making the assuming that big lips, cauliflower ears, and a boxers nose on a stereotypical white thug looking dude would not have invoked your sense of objection.

Edited November 9, 2009 by Renegade Knight

9.3k · November 9, 2009

In a desperate attempt to get this back on topic, I'd like to remind folks that the OP asked if the pic violated the TOU. The way that thing is written, any single image or statement could qualify as a violation, since the only requirement is that it be objectionable to a single person. There is no call for common sense. If BillyBobNosePicker finds something objectionable, it automatically violates the terms of use. As such, the only answer that fits the facts is "Yes".

24.7k · November 9, 2009

...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.” ...

Race is a social perception. It gets a lot harder to pin down when you start trying to use science. When you use genetics a lot of folks who think they are one thing, are really the other. Which brings you back to perception. Which is exactly why the entire question came up.

November 9, 2009

...So, how do folks see the photo? ...

I see the photo as someone’s effort to use photoshop to make Obama's features more traditionally black. Is it funny? To some. Bush as Chimp and Alfred E. Neuman was clearly funny to some because it persists at a much higher level.

Moving on.

When they showed that Bush looked like a Chimp nobody pointed out the race issue. When they said Obamas wife looked like a Gorilla now it's an issue. Alas they both resemble the respective animal after a fashion. It should end there., but nope. Folks have to create race as an issue when it's not, ensuring that it's going to remain an issue for a long, long time. If we are going to live in a world were race doesn't matter, we have to stop jumping the gun.

Of course in my world if you can tell a race joke to that race the same way we tell blonde jokes to blondes then and only then are you non racist. Others would gasp in utter shock that we would ever make fun of a "minority" (Meaning that they feel they are in the advantaged majority and therefore superior and needing to bend over backwards for their inferiors...but that’s another topic).

I'm making the assuming that big lips, cauliflower ears, and a boxers nose on a stereotypical white thug looking dude would not have invoked your sense of objection.

:laughing: Speaking of telling 'racist' jokes, your post reminded me of this classic, RK!

4.7k · November 9, 2009

In a desperate attempt to get this back on topic, I'd like to remind folks that the OP asked if the pic violated the TOU.

i actually went back and checked.

the OP asked if people thought it was objectionable and therefore in violation of the TOU. so i guess by the terms of the question, our opinion on whether it adheres to TOU depends on opinion regarding the objections to the photo, so like it or not an awful lot of this thread is quite firmly on topic.

there is no better way to gather information on both sides of a debate than to have a lively conversation about it.

if you poke people enough, you get to see where their biases really lie.

24.7k · November 9, 2009

So the cache owner now gets to decide what gets a smiley? No signed log, just funny face pictures?...

The find is the sighed log. The bonus find is a funny face. There is no ALR to log the cache. The ALR is optional, but if you do it you get a bonus find. Cheesy, yes. Against the rules? No.

20.7k · November 9, 2009

I see the photo as someone’s effort to use photoshop to make Obama's features more traditionally black. Is it funny? To some. Bush as Chimp and Alfred E. Neuman was clearly funny to some because it persists at a much higher level.

Moving on.

When they showed that Bush looked like a Chimp nobody pointed out the race issue. When they said Obamas wife looked like a Gorilla now it's an issue. Alas they both resemble the respective animal after a fashion. It should end there., but nope. Folks have to create race as an issue when it's not, ensuring that it's going to remain an issue for a long, long time. If we are going to live in a world were race doesn't matter, we have to stop jumping the gun. ...

Seems like the person who altered the image so that it would meet the stereotype and then shared it on the cache page is the person who is making it a race issue and ensuring that race remains an issue, not those who call foul.

It's sort of like those who complain about drunk driving. Are they at fault for DUI remaining an issue, or is that the fault of those bozos who insist on drinking and driving?

November 9, 2009

How about this test:

Did you HONESTLY chuckle when you first saw the picture?

If so, then, to you, it isn't objectionable.

November 9, 2009

How about this test:

Did you HONESTLY chuckle when you first saw the picture?

If so, then, to you, it isn't objectionable.

It isn't objectionable to *you*. Keep it up and us angry bitter atheistic, new age, latte-swilling, merlot-sipping, cheese-eating, prius-driving, over-educated, tree-hugging, fur-abhoring, terrorist-supporting, America-hating, vegan commie socialist liberal elitist coastal dwellers are going to start believing it's true that people out your way go around barefoot all the time.

4.8k · November 9, 2009

Here is a good question...

Would TPTB want that picture showing up on the front page of Geocaching.com?

As near as I can tell, the pictures that show up on the front page are randomly picked by software. Even if that is not the case, the question still remains as to whether or not GS would want that picture used as a representation of geocaching, in general.

3.9k · November 9, 2009

Here is a good question...

Would TPTB want that picture showing up on the front page of Geocaching.com?

As near as I can tell, the pictures that show up on the front page are randomly picked by software.

That is not the case.

Even if that is not the case, the question still remains as to whether or not GS would want that picture used as a representation of geocaching, in general.

Those pictures are hand picked because TPTB realize that some pictures are okay for cache pages but are not pictures they want on the front page. That doesn't mean that TPTB think pictures which are not acceptable on the front page are not acceptable anywhere.

In my opinion the picture is a funny face of a guy the person posting it didn't like, and there was no racial or bigoted meaning behind it. The people shouting against this picture are the same ones that laughed when they saw the picture of Sarah Palin in a bikini holding a machine gun, and didn't think for a second it was a sexist picture or that it was inappropriate in any way.

November 9, 2009

How about this test:

Did you HONESTLY chuckle when you first saw the picture?

If so, then, to you, it isn't objectionable.

It isn't objectionable to *you*. Keep it up and us angry bitter atheistic, new age, latte-swilling, merlot-sipping, cheese-eating, prius-driving, over-educated, tree-hugging, fur-abhoring, terrorist-supporting, America-hating, vegan commie socialist liberal elitist coastal dwellers are going to start believing it's true that people out your way go around barefoot all the time.

ROFLMAO!!! I truly stand in the presents of greatness! :laughing: :rolleyes:

Now THAT'S entertainment!

November 9, 2009

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.

His trying to say it's like an election (For each person who found it offensive or racist, there are just as many who found it funny and NOT offensive or racist) is weak to the extreme. This isn't an election. There were a number of people who posted to this very thread that they thought the doctored photo was objectionable. The right thing to do is to acknowledge the photo is in poor taste, and take it down. Period.

All of the attempt to justify it or tell others that they need thicker skin is just so much damage control.

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.

Welcome to the 21st century. That dog don't hunt anymore. Get with the program.

3.9k · November 9, 2009

Here is a good question...

Would TPTB want that picture showing up on the front page of Geocaching.com?

As near as I can tell, the pictures that show up on the front page are randomly picked by software. Even if that is not the case, the question still remains as to whether or not GS would want that picture used as a representation of geocaching, in general.

It's a great question, and I'm pretty sure that Groundspeak would not want it displayed. However, since the pictures on the front page are selected at random from a subset of the photos on the site - that subset being chosen, not at random, but by careful perusal of the galleries - there's no risk of that. The subset contains mostly pictures of great landscapes and people having fun at the cache site. (At one point, Groundspeak actually contacted the owner of every photo which they intended to use on the site; I don't know if they still do that, but it's pretty classy since, according to the ToU, they can do pretty much what they like with your pictures.)

Edited November 9, 2009 by sTeamTraen

November 9, 2009

How about this test:

Did you HONESTLY chuckle when you first saw the picture?

If so, then, to you, it isn't objectionable.

No, actually my first reaction was a *gasp*... Followed by "I can't believe this!"

At no point did that doctored photo make me "chuckle" or anything like that.

November 9, 2009

It isn't objectionable to *you*. Keep it up and us angry bitter atheistic, new age, latte-swilling, merlot-sipping, cheese-eating, prius-driving, over-educated, tree-hugging, fur-abhoring, terrorist-supporting, America-hating, vegan commie socialist liberal elitist coastal dwellers are going to start believing it's true that people out your way go around barefoot all the time.

Wow.

I'm mortally offended.

While that *was* pretty darned funny, I must admit that it was also pretty off-topic.

Besides, us God-fearing, Mama-loving, deer-hunting, snuff-dipping, catfish-eating, beer-drinkin, Nascar-watching, textile-mill-working flag-waving, Americans don't have the time to waste on the likes of you...or your beliefs!

Edited to add that we also love Charlie Daniels and Ted Nugent, just in case you were wondering...

(By the way...I wear work boots. Someone has to support all of you on welfare.)

Edited November 9, 2009 by Hockeyhick

November 9, 2009

4. Use of Publishing Tools and Forums

All features, functions and areas of the geocaching.com website, including the Groundspeak Forums (http://forums.Groundspeak.com), are governed by this Agreement and are also subject to such additional terms and conditions as Groundspeak may, from time to time, publicize.

You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site. You agree not to:

(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.

Is this picture:

harmful? No.

unlawful? No. It's free speech.

threatening? No.

abusive? To whom?

harassing? No. Remember the Bush monkey pictures?

tortuous? you kidding me?

defamatory? No.

slanderous? Nah.

vulgar? maybe.

obscene? Mmmmm... not really

libelous? No.

invasive of another's privacy? Not at all.

hateful? potentially.

embarrassing, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity? NO! IS THIS DEGRADING A SINGULAR RACE? NO. ITS JUST A PICTURE MADE TO POKE A LITTLE FUN AT OUR SITTING PRESIDENT! IS THIS ANY WORSE THAN SNL SKITS POKING FUN AT HIM? NO! SO JUST LEAVE IT BE!

Thank you.

3.2k · November 9, 2009

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?

A very valid point.

Except that now, another day has passed – a full business day – and not only is this very active thread still hovering at the top of the board index, but the photo is also still there.

I really think that if there had been any major concern on Groundspeak’s part, the photo would have been long gone by now.

November 10, 2009

I'd suspect that he doesn't have many. They would have advised him that Negro is not how they wish to be labeled; about 15 years ago.

I am surprised, wimseyguy, that you would make such an UNFOUNDED statement as to how many 'non-Caucasion" persons Atrus may have as friends. Also, one can prefer to be 'labled' anyway they like, but that does not change reality. 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.

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!

November 10, 2009

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.

3.2k · November 10, 2009

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.

4.7k · November 10, 2009

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.

i'm not sure why, but it reminds me of a thing i read when i was in high school:

les mulatres ne font pas ça; laissez donc ça aux negres.

2.1k · November 10, 2009

As the guy who started this thread I just want to remind folks of my original request:

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!

Edited November 10, 2009 by Maingray

November 10, 2009

As the guy who started this thread I just want to remind folks of my original request:

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!

The words GATE, HORSE, CLOSING, BOLTED and AFTER spring to mind.

38.2k · November 10, 2009

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)

Edited November 10, 2009 by briansnat

9.3k · November 10, 2009

The question still remains as to whether or not GS would want that picture used as a representation of geocaching, in general.

I wouldn't think that, in their hand selection process, they'd include any pictures depicting only a persons face. Maybe a grinning face in a lovely background to depict where caching could take you, or a child's happy face holding a trinket, to depict family values, etc, etc. But just a face? No other reference? I don't think it'd need to be a caricature for it to be skipped in the selection process.

The right thing to do is to acknowledge the photo might offend a certain segment of our society, harboring invented guilt, and take it down.

Fixed. :lol:

Is this picture:
harmful? No.

unlawful? No. It's free speech.

threatening? No.

abusive? To whom?

harassing? No. Remember the Bush monkey pictures?

tortuous? you kidding me?

defamatory? No.

slanderous? Nah.

vulgar? maybe.

obscene? Mmmmm... not really

libelous? No.

invasive of another's privacy? Not at all.

hateful? potentially.

embarrassing, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity? Apparently so.

I agree with all your answers except the one I changed and bolded in red. The list of folks who find it "otherwise objectionable", just in this thread, is a long one. Should they be offended? I don't think so. Folks get offended at the silliest things these days, but to them, their offense is real.

Is it okay to publicly parade someone on a family forum as a racist without informing them first?

Of course! In our hyper vigilant PC society, all you need to do is insinuate that someone is a racist. At that point, your job is done. All the hand wringers will leap on the bandwagon. Facts become irrelevant at that point. All that matters is the emotions. Any later defense by the subject in question will be seen as them trying to defend their racism. Those who express an opinion that doesn't fit the vitriol of the hand wringer's will likewise immediately be branded as racists.

Branding someone is so much easier than understanding them.

November 10, 2009

Briansnat, the many photos of W that went around portraying him as a chimp made me uncomfortable. The ones you posted of Condeleeza Rice are even worse, IMO.

The fact that the photos are mean-spirited, nasty or even racist do not depend on the political affiliation of the person as far as I'm concerned. Objectionable and inappropriate is just that. It has nothing to do with a "Hypervigilant PC society", rather it's about the fact that people like me are no longer afraid of being bullied into silence by those who think that equal treatment of all is a threat to the "American Way of Life"...

It's sad that there are those who are being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. But they will eventually get there. At least their kids might.

4.8k · November 10, 2009

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)

We aren't talking about major media outlets. We are talking about Geocaching.

Personally, I would be embarassed to have to answer the question, if asked, "Isn't that the website that had that offensive caricature of Obama" and explain why the website gave the person who posted the photo an extra smiley.

3.9k · November 10, 2009

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?".

Objectionable Posting: You Make The Call...

Recommended Posts