Jump to content

Objectionable Posting: You Make The Call...


OzGuff
Followers 12

Recommended Posts

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Pick a fight? I was merely asking questions that no one seemed willing to answer. That is VERY telling IMO. As is your defensiveness. :angry:

Link to comment

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

 

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

 

Oh so inflammatory stereotyping isn't a part of this discussion? My apologies to the OP. FWIW, I think your subject is a valid one for discussion but I didn't realize it was only open to racial stereotypes.

Link to comment

What's the matter with half you people?

 

It's a funny picture. Period.

 

If it were a picture of a private citizen, it could possibly be considered slanderous in a civil court, but if a person is well known, and the subject matter is clearly parody which is obvious to any reasonably prudent person, then there is no basis for calling foul... this one was settled long ago by the Supremes.

 

Since before electricity, politicians have been parodied and had their features distorted in cartoon, and later in pictures. I think it's clear that the object of the parody is a politician. Traditionally, political cartoonists who take these kind of toungue-in-cheek shots at the President are invited to the White House during the lame duck portion of a President's tenure. Even the President can find them funny. As a matter of fact, recently, former President Bush gave a speech using a slide show of himself in the oval office looking for something on the floor, under the desk, etc. and he narrated it by continually asking: "Where are those weapons of mass destruction?" "Are they here... are they under here?"

 

Standing alone, and without anything else to examine, there is absolutely nothing racial about the photo. You can muster up something in your conciousness if you want too, but it's pure biased speculation to do so. The motivation behind the comedy is that the President is dumb. I suppose if you voted for him, you're offended... if you didn't, it's funny. Trouble is, as a general rule, you don't have a right not to be offended by something that doesn't have anything to do with YOU personally.

 

The only other issue? Is it ok to do this to a black man? You are absolutely right it is! He enjoys no more right not to be parodied than any other famous person... or are we not still living in a society of equals? It is a self evident truth that this kind of parody is commonly published depicting politicians of all ethnicity.

 

I'm 52 years old. I've written harsh articles in the local newspapers criticising Bob Jones University for their racist policies in the late 70's-early 80's. I'm not just a Republican, I'm a Libertarian, and the only inspiring and uplifting thing I can find about our President is that he is a black man. I am proud that we, as a nation, during my lifetime have shown without a shadow of a doubt that we are one people. I'm comfortable with it, and I don't look for racism in every corner of society. As a nation, have we not grown out of that kind of petty hypersensitivity, or are we doomed to have it loom over every word and every expression?

 

I know the cache owner; I know the person who posted the log; and I know the person who started this controversial thread... and they all know each other.

 

The cache owner is a retired Postman. He and his wife are some of the most beloved cachers in the Southeast. There is only one person in this area that will say anything bad about them, and I'll let you guess who that is.

 

The person that posted the log is highly respected and loved too. It might interest you to know that he has thousands of finds, but does not log any of them. It wasn't the numbers, it was the fun of the cache that he was, and always is interested in. He doesn't have a racist bone in his body.

 

The person who started this thread is one of the most prolific in these kinds of threads. Somehow, it seems that if there is anything slightly controversial, Groundspeak gets a letter from him. 99% of the time, they don't see it his way, and it's off to the forums. To be nice about it, he is the most controversial member of the community in the Southeast. I am dumbfounded that a person who would publish a cache that depicts two cartoon characters made of feces would find offense in anything. His notoriety is such that he himself has been parodied on the internet with a photo depicting him in Natzi-like uniform with the swastikas replaced with a geocaching "G".

 

HE HAS HIJACKED YOUR ATTENTION, AND IS LAUGHING AT YOU ALL WHILE DISPARAGING HIS "ENEMY".

 

 

Geocaching is a sport. Not like football, but like hunting. When is everybody going to get it into their head that it's not a competition. You are never going to know if a numbers leader got his numbers the way you think is "right" or not, so why do you even care? If you don't like what's been done with this cache, then don't hate the player, hate the game. If numbers are that important to you, then get your buds to make a cache so you can log it two, three, four or five times, but I for one am tired of crybabies who think they know what the rules are but don't, and don't want them to be anything that doesn't suit their idea of what geocaching should be.

 

And one last thing before I get off the soap box:

 

These people at geocaching.com know what they are doing. Just a handful of people handle the entire business. They've seen just about everything there is go down the pike. An even smaller crew has to handle all the cry babying that goes on. When they make a ruling, chances are, they've already encountered the situation before, and have lived through their mistakes and successes to build the most facinating, inexpensive hobby you could ever ask for. How 'bout giving them a break? You don't know what they know, and you are an idiot if you think you could do it any better than the people who do it every day. The Reviewers are connected. With each other, and very closely with groundpeak. They do it for the love of the sport. Period. Show some respect when they make a decision for the same reasons I already stated. Just because it might not make sense to you doesn't mean it doesn't make sense... so give your ego a rest when you all of a sudden think you know best.

 

And most of all, have fun! Mind your own business and don't look for something to whine about unless your rig is dead and you ain't got two more AA batteries... now THAT's something to whine about!

 

OH! ... and don't be co-dependent to agitators.

Link to comment

I need a ruling here: Did waypointazoid's post reach the Godwin's law threshold. If so, looks like I win.

 

It also looks like I will have to round up a few of my close, personal caching friends so that they can add posts supporting my position. Oops -- looks like I don't have to as there have already been many, many folks from around the world agreeing that the "photo" is objectionable. As I said before we don't all have to agree that something IS objectionable for it to BE objectionable.

 

There is nothing wrong with a good caricature; most of them aren't racist, racially insensitive, or stereotypical in nature. Many caricatures of President Bush 43 played up his ineptitude and/or lack of intelligence, they did not denigrate his racial background. There are good caricatures of President Obama that aren't objectionable. What makes this particular "photo" -- copyright held by www.moronface.com [i am serious about this.] -- objectionable are the features the editor chose to exaggerate, especially the lips. To understand why this is objectionable a little historical context might be useful. The following is from the Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia, Ferris State University:

Both American slavery and the Jim Crow caste system which followed were undergirded by anti-black images. The negative portrayals of blacks were both reflected in and shaped by everyday material objects: toys, postcards, ashtrays, detergent boxes, fishing lures, children's books. These items, and countless others, portrayed blacks with bulging, darting eyes, fire-red and oversized lips, jet black skin, and either naked or poorly clothed.

Images like that which was uploaded to GC.com remind of us of a time -- not that long ago -- when one's race was much more important and that race had a dramatic impact on one's station in life. Again from the Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia:

Americans created a racial hierarchy with whites at the top and blacks at the bottom. The hierarchy was undergirded by an ideology which justified the use of deceit, manipulation, and coercion to keep blacks "in their place." Every major societal institution offered legitimacy to the racial hierarchy. Ministers preached that God had condemned blacks to be servants. Scientists measured black heads, brains, faces, and genitalia, seeking to prove that whites were genetically superior to blacks. White teachers, teaching only white students, taught that blacks were less evolved cognitively, psychologically, and socially. The entertainment media, from vaudeville to television, portrayed blacks as docile servants, happy-go-lucky idiots, and dangerous thugs. The criminal justice system sanctioned a double standard of justice, including its tacit approval of mob violence against blacks.

I never said that the "photo" was racist, nor did I say that the cacher who uploaded it was racist. I said that the "photo" was objectionable and by uploading it the cacher showed a decent amount of racial insensitivity. Folks may think that this thread was started as a personal attack. Fine. (Though it wasn't.) But I saw the photo before I saw who uploaded it. And I wasn't all that surprised to see the name.

 

I don't plan to join waypointazoid's "my friends like me more then your friends like you" playground squabble -- though they do -- and I don't plan on changing who I am, which is a relatively opinionated individual. The good news here is that there are plenty of cachers out there who agree with my opinion on the objectionable nature of the "photo", even if they don't want to be associated with an "agitator". :) And waypointazoid, please read my posts as I have actually defended the cacher who you refer to as my "ENEMY".

 

Edmund Burke, the philosophical founder of modern conservatism, was thought to have said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing." The quote may be a little overboard for this situation -- and was actually mis-attributed to Burke -- but if folks see something that is wrong and they don't act to right it then that wrong may become ingrained, making it harder to erase in the future. A little bit of racial insensitivity is too much racial insensitivity.

 

The "feces" reference eludes me, and I missed the notorious parody shot -- PM me the web address if you have the time.

Link to comment

Whoa! This thread is no place for logic and broad minded thinking. Are you trying to yank away all our fun in one fell swoop? Begone you purveyor of free thought and rational thinking before you destroy us all. :angry:

 

:) I agree Logic has no place in these forums, I find logical reasoning highly offensive!

 

@waypointazoid If your allegation is true, that the OP has published a cache with images of feces I think we need to see a link... and I definitely think we need to start a new thread to discuss whether the it is objectionable or not.

 

OTOH Outing OzGuff, if the allegation is true, gives him a chance to find the offending cache image and delete it before we get to see it.

Link to comment

Whoa! This thread is no place for logic and broad minded thinking. Are you trying to yank away all our fun in one fell swoop? Begone you purveyor of free thought and rational thinking before you destroy us all. :angry:

 

:) I agree Logic has no place in these forums, I find logical reasoning highly offensive!

 

@waypointazoid If your allegation is true, that the OP has published a cache with images of feces I think we need to see a link... and I definitely think we need to start a new thread to discuss whether the it is objectionable or not.

 

OTOH Outing OzGuff, if the allegation is true, gives him a chance to find the offending cache image and delete it before we get to see it.

 

Well I let my curiousity get the better of me and decided to check out some of OzGuff's older posts.

 

I haven't dug very far but I've discovered one very interesting thread which doth reveal much: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...=184607&hl=

 

It seems there is some odd caching behavior going on in Asheville, logging multiple finds, relocating caches around... and a bitter history between OzGuff and other locals including Atrus and Dear Dora, with OzGuff ocassionally dragging it into the forums.

 

I haven't dug far enough to discover who started what, or who is provoking who, however I would hazard a guess that OzGuff's reasons for starting this thread were less to do with an objectionable image and more to do with scoring points in the ongoing fued. :angry:

Link to comment

I am dumbfounded that a person who would publish a cache that depicts two cartoon characters made of feces would find offense in anything.

I still have no idea what this line is about. I have a few cache hides so maybe I forgot the caches in question. The only ones that even remotely resemble the above are P.O.O.P. (which referred to the color of the waypoints -- purple, orange, orange, purple -- and which was archived in June 2008), Atypical #09: Moss Turd (the container is a plastic mustard bottle), Big Fat Turd (which is a large brown "dinosaur egg" that used to contain a plush dinosaur; the cache title is reasonably accurate), and a couple of caches in a series titled Side Hill Intermediate Terrain (which are acronymically scatological). None of these caches ever contained any images of feces -- at least no images placed on the cache page by me.

 

Life doesn't occur in a vacuum. Did my experiences with the cacher who uploaded the objectionable image color my reaction to it? Possibly, but I saw the "photo" before I knew who had uploaded it. (And my apologies for using the word "color" in this context.) It has been years since Atrus and I have had a cordial conversation; I can't even remember what precipitated our enmity. (Though I could probably dig out copies of some emails I have received from him that make for very interesting reads.) We will likely never exchange holiday greeting cards. I am definitely fine with that.

 

I'm not sure why waypointazoid got all fired up -- and he didn't mention the brouhaha the two of us had when I pointed out that an SC cache of his was actually located 150 feet inside the NC border -- but he seems to have gotten off track a little. Though he did answer the original question he then veered into the personal. I have thick skin and can take a little name calling. [isn't that another violation of the Terms of Use? :) ] I'm also not sure why he brought up the cache owner; the two of us have bumped heads over the years but I thought we were actually getting along better over the past few months. Maybe I should have contacted him about the "photo" first. Oh well. Should I contact him to ask how he feels about the photo and/or request that he delete it? The CO and the cacher who uploaded the "photo" are very good friends so I doubt that this will have the desired effect.

 

One of the functions of Groundspeak's forums is to provide a place where folks can ask questions of the larger community. Groundspeak itself directs folks here in situations where a disagreement exists. I have utilized these forums a number of times, and in a few cases the debate has become contentious. When reasonably intelligent people disagree, and they have the ability to eloquently discuss the topic, the result often makes for interesting reading. But sometimes out of this process a better understanding emerges. I have had my opinion changed as a result of forum discussions, and have become good friends with some of my antagonists.

 

But as I have said a number of times in this thread I don't believe that the "photo" is racist per se, but more exemplifies a lack of racial sensitivity. Hopefully this discussion will make some people think just a little longer before making that comment or re-telling that joke or uploading that picture.

 

I apologize for derailing my own thread. I now return you to the discussion in progress...

Link to comment

It boils down to this: If my husband were to get done up like over-done British royalty and I were to braid my hair, rouge my already prominant nose and hold up a jug labled "Fire Water" while wearing second-hand clotes (OR worse yet scanty buckskins) in a picture posted to this, would it be "racist" ot just us poking fun at ourselves?

 

Edit on account of my lousy typing skills

Edited by Butterfly Fox
Link to comment

The photo in question is not objectionable to me. I have a pretty high tolerance of the opinions of others. Photos like this of politicians are common. Exaggerated features and goofy looks are the norm for a caricature.

 

It doesn't fit what the cache owner requested though, a funny picture of the cacher's face, unless Obama is a closet cacher that we don't know about. :D

Whether to allow it on that basis is between the cache owner and the person logging the cache.

 

Would you honetly be even asking this question or bringing it to the forums without the past involvement between you and the poster of the image? Would your response have been any different at all if it had been a close friend who posted the image?

 

It takes two sides to keep a feud going. Why not take the higher road and let the past lie in rest peacefully? Ignore folks you don't agree with and play the game nicely. Don't go out of your way to fuel the animosity just to perpetuate the situation.

 

I believe the appropriate response would have been to contact the cache owner if you had any legitimate complaints about the photo and let the cache owner deal with it as they see fit.

 

You are not requied to view any specific cache page if it includes a posted image that you find disagreeable.

Personally, I might find the names of some of your caches disagreeable to me, but they are yours to do with as you please. I would not complain to TBTB about them or comment on them in the forums. If anything, I would contact you via private email to voice my concerns, then let it go, knowing that your response is going to be whatever you feel is appropriate.

That is, unless I wanted to fuel a feud. :)

Link to comment
So, how do folks see the photo? Objectionable or not?

 

I find it no more objectionable than a caricature of Jimmy Carter.

 

You do realize that caricatures generally tend to over emphasize a person's facial features?

 

Comparing caricatures of random individual white people to those of black people is kind of like comparing the word "honky" with the "n" word. It just doesn't carry the same sting for many, many reasons.

 

There is a history of black caricatures in this country that were drawn for reasons of hate and ignorance. When you fail to recognize this history you are doomed to repeat it.

 

 

I would like to see Groundspeak make a call on this ultimately. It seems the moderators are avoiding some very important issues lately like they are radioactive. Frankly, considering their volunteer status, I can't say I blame them. The Lackeys, if not Jeremy will need to address this at some point. It's not going to go away and it would be better dealt with sooner than later.

Link to comment

Whoa! This thread is no place for logic and broad minded thinking. Are you trying to yank away all our fun in one fell swoop? Begone you purveyor of free thought and rational thinking before you destroy us all. :(

 

:) I agree Logic has no place in these forums, I find logical reasoning highly offensive!

 

@waypointazoid If your allegation is true, that the OP has published a cache with images of feces I think we need to see a link... and I definitely think we need to start a new thread to discuss whether the it is objectionable or not.

 

OTOH Outing OzGuff, if the allegation is true, gives him a chance to find the offending cache image and delete it before we get to see it.

 

Well I let my curiousity get the better of me and decided to check out some of OzGuff's older posts.

 

I haven't dug very far but I've discovered one very interesting thread which doth reveal much: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...=184607&hl=

 

It seems there is some odd caching behavior going on in Asheville, logging multiple finds, relocating caches around... and a bitter history between OzGuff and other locals including Atrus and Dear Dora, with OzGuff ocassionally dragging it into the forums.

 

I haven't dug far enough to discover who started what, or who is provoking who, however I would hazard a guess that OzGuff's reasons for starting this thread were less to do with an objectionable image and more to do with scoring points in the ongoing fued. :)

 

I haven't dug far enough into your own profile but I would hazard a guess that YOU don't have any real idea that there is isn't a feud. :)

 

In any geocommunity there are fringe types that don't play well with others. :D I KNOW Graeme (Oz) personally and I have been to Ashevill twice, attended an event there and sampled the local continuum. Just a buncha great folks and Oz is NO fringe type. Asheville is Plan B for my retirement. Seriously, the place is that good.

 

Don't blame Oz for some perceived fued that you know nothing about to defame him in this thread. Stick to the facts or at the very least make a disclaimer on your OWN perceptions. M'kay. :)

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment

OK, here it is.

Apologies if someone found it faster and already posted it.

 

Logging of All Physical Caches

Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed.

 

If it is appropriate for your cache location or theme, you may ask the cache seeker to accomplish an optional and simple task, either close to the cache site (normally within 0.1 miles or 161 meters) or when writing their online log. For example, wear the goofy hat inside the cache container and upload a photograph. Cache finders can choose whether or not to attempt or accomplish optional tasks. Cache owners may not delete the cache seeker's log based solely on optional tasks.

 

This guideline change applies immediately to all logs written from April 4, 2009 and going forward. Older caches with "additional logging requirements" (ALRs) are not grandfathered under the older guideline. If you own an existing cache with mandatory additional logging requirements, we request that you:

 

Cease deleting logs based on additional logging requirements.

Review your own cache listing to see if the ALR can be made into an optional and simple task, or whether it must be removed altogether.

Adjust your geocache listing by editing the text then contact a reviewer to change the cache type, if appropriate.

 

If you notice it states:

RULES FOR LOGGING A SECOND SMILEY

 

1. You must take of photo of yourself and upload it with the find

log.

 

2. It must be a close up shot so hold your camera only about 9 to

12 inches from your face.

 

3. It is not necessary to put your GPSr in the picture.

 

4. You MUST make a funny face.

 

5. If I decide you have not followed the above simple rules OR if I

decide you have not made a funny face I may delete your second find log

at my discretion.

 

There is no ALR for the find but only if you want a Second Smiley.

 

As for the picture Yes it should be deleted because the rule the owner put himself says a "1. You must take of photo of yourself and upload it with the find

log."

I don't think Obama caches, do you?

Link to comment

If you notice it states:

RULES FOR LOGGING A SECOND SMILEY

 

1. You must take of photo of yourself and upload it with the find

log.

 

2. It must be a close up shot so hold your camera only about 9 to

12 inches from your face.

 

3. It is not necessary to put your GPSr in the picture.

 

4. You MUST make a funny face.

 

5. If I decide you have not followed the above simple rules OR if I

decide you have not made a funny face I may delete your second find log

at my discretion.

 

There is no ALR for the find but only if you want a Second Smiley.

 

As for the picture Yes it should be deleted because the rule the owner put himself says a "1. You must take of photo of yourself and upload it with the find

log."

I don't think Obama caches, do you?

 

If any of you notice...Atrus DOESN'T LOG CACHES!!!! He only logs notes...

 

What part of "Reading Comprehension 101" did you miss?

Link to comment

I haven't dug far enough into your own profile but I would hazard a guess that YOU don't have any real idea that there is isn't a feud. :D

 

This doesn't make sense is or isn't - clearly there is if YOU look at the previous posts, I'm stating my observations of previous posts which have been posted onto an open forum on the internet which anyone can click and read.

 

I'd prefer not to, but I can cut n' paste the parts of the thread that lead me to this conclusion - from OzGuff's own posts (unless his account was hacked - in that case it wasn't him).

 

In any geocommunity there are fringe types that don't play well with others. :)

 

Wow, thankyou for enlightening me on how geocommunities work! If YOU ever care to venture out of the geocommunity and into other communities either on the internet or in the real world you will find that this applies everywhere.

 

I KNOW Graeme (Oz) personally and I have been to Ashevill twice, attended an event there and sampled the local continuum. Just a buncha great folks and Oz is NO fringe type. Asheville is Plan B for my retirement. Seriously, the place is that good.

 

So you have no vested interest in defending his position then.

 

Don't blame Oz

 

No one's mentioned blame for anything. I stated "I haven't dug far enough to discover who started what, or who is provoking who."

 

Try not to put words in my mouth.

 

for some perceived fued that you know nothing about

 

As stated, I'm offering my observations on what I've read from previous posts on this forums after about 5 minutes of digging. I can quote the relevant posts here if you proceed with your condemnation... it would be a heck of a large post and waste of time but I can do that.

 

to defame him in this thread.

 

You misread my intention, but that figures because YOU didn't even care to read my post properly.

 

Stick to the facts or at the very least make a disclaimer on your OWN perceptions. M'kay. :)

 

As stated, the facts can be reproduced here from the other thread - however I thought a link would suffice - clearly not since some people cannot be bothered to click on a link and read for themselves before making hasty rebuttals.

 

Oh and here's my disclaimer:

 

It seems...

 

and

 

I would hazard a guess...

 

 

If YOU want to take this thread off topic and make it about me then bring it, otherwise I suggest you back off and let your friend defend his own words.

 

Edit: Cleared the previous quotes that were causing html errors.

Edited by _TeamFitz_
Link to comment

Boys... Play nice.

 

Any "feud" (or even "fued") between myself and anyone else might be a topic for a separate thread. Stuff happens.

 

To get back on track I really liked a line from Castle Mischief's post a little higher up this page:

There is a history of black caricatures in this country that were drawn for reasons of hate and ignorance. When you fail to recognize this history you are doomed to repeat it.
This pretty much says it all.
Link to comment

HH:

 

This thread is about one particular photo many are finding objectionable and therefore a violation of the Terms of Use.

 

But assuming the photos uploaded to that cache page are included in this discussion, they might be violations and they might not. If a photo was loaded without the permission of the pictured cacher then it would be a violation. If the photo was deemed vulgar or obscene then it would be a violation. (And what is vulgar and/or obscene would likely get a similar range of reactions from the larger geocaching community as the caricature being discussed in this thread.)

 

Photos of people in various states of undress versus a caricature of an African-American based on years and years of hate and ignorance. Are these equivalent situations? I think not.

Link to comment
So, how do folks see the photo? Objectionable or not?

 

I find it no more objectionable than a caricature of Jimmy Carter.

 

You do realize that caricatures generally tend to over emphasize a person's facial features?

 

Comparing caricatures of random individual white people to those of black people is kind of like comparing the word "honky" with the "n" word. It just doesn't carry the same sting for many, many reasons.

 

There is a history of black caricatures in this country that were drawn for reasons of hate and ignorance. When you fail to recognize this history you are doomed to repeat it.

 

 

I would like to see Groundspeak make a call on this ultimately. It seems the moderators are avoiding some very important issues lately like they are radioactive. Frankly, considering their volunteer status, I can't say I blame them. The Lackeys, if not Jeremy will need to address this at some point. It's not going to go away and it would be better dealt with sooner than later.

 

It wasn't a random white caricature. It was chosen because 1) it is of a past president and 2) it exaggerated that past president's rather large lips.

 

I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of caricatures I've seen of Carter do not over inflate his lips because he is a black man, seeing as he is clearly white. They do so because his lips happen to be a prominent feature of his face.

 

Groundspeak has spoken on this issue. Read the reply OzGuff posted at the beginning of this thread. They told him it was not a violation of the TOS. That is why he brought it the forums to see who agreed with him and not Groundspeak.

 

This feud with OzGuff and other local cachers has been brooding since at least the end of 2005. Some people cannot seem to let things go, but instead insist on keeping things stirred up.

 

The image may or may not really be offensive to OzGuff, but it certainly does not rise to the level of a TOS offense.

 

It looks to me like just another way to poke at the local GeoOfficers.

Link to comment
Snip

 

Fitzy,

 

My rebuttle wasn't hasty. You couched a definiteve statement of the existance of a feud in with your observations. You don't need to be an English teacher to see that. That is what compelled me to respond to your post.

 

From personal experience I have had a fringe type(s) try to jack with me several times. Had I rightfully caught this person(s) doing something I found objectionable and called attention to it some could perceive a feud and I would just as quickly dispell it.

 

My bad on the missing "or" between is and isn't. That's an innocent mistake of sonic intention just as your type-o of fued. :D My bad for mocking your misspelling. :):)

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment

I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of caricatures I've seen of Carter do not over inflate his lips because he is a black man, seeing as he is clearly white. They do so because his lips happen to be a prominent feature of his face.

 

Groundspeak has spoken on this issue. Read the reply OzGuff posted at the beginning of this thread. They told him it was not a violation of the TOS. That is why he brought it the forums to see who agreed with him and not Groundspeak.

 

Caricatures of President Carter DO tend to exaggerate his lips and teeth, as you so correctly point out, due to their prominence on his face. But this exaggeration is likely not racially-motivated. So tell me this -- what would you say are some of the prominent features on President Obama's face? Most folks would offer his ears and maybe his smile. His lips appear to be in proportion and are not an especially prominent feature on his face. So why would someone produce such a caricature? Caricatures are not inherently racist, but they sure can be depending on the features that are chosen to be exaggerated.

 

Groundspeak HAS spoken, but that doesn't mean that their decision is the correct one. History is full of examples where sizeable chunks of the population held differing views but the status quo was changed after public discussion convinced enough of one side that they were wrong. I understand that this is actually a very tough topic to tackle as it is a cultural morass. This particular "photo" may be a relatively tame example of racial insensitivity, but it wouldn't take much more to really make it incredibly offensive.

Link to comment
So tell me this -- what would you say are some of the prominent features on President Obama's face? Most folks would offer his ears and maybe his smile. His lips appear to be in proportion and are not an especially prominent feature on his face. So why would someone produce such a caricature? Caricatures are not inherently racist, but they sure can be depending on the features that are chosen to be exaggerated.

 

Personally, I would say his smile is his most prominent feature. But his lips and ears are quite prominent.

 

obama-face.jpg

 

obama_smile.jpg

 

And I've seen many caricatures of all three.

 

barack-obama-caricature-barack-obama-749115_348_450.jpgbarack-obama-caricature-11.jpg

 

barack-obama-caricature.jpgcandidates-web.jpg

 

ObamaCaricature.jpgBarack_Caricature.jpg

 

What I find really interesting is how every president gets turned into Alfred E. Newman.

 

barack,obama,caricature,illustration,mad,poilade-f68c88a2f2802fd25b06df1667193b7a_m.jpg

Link to comment

Godwins law? Hardly. I don't think you understand the theory. I compared you to nothing, Grame. I only stated an incidental fact. And Snoogans, Thank you sincerely, but I have perceived nothing. I've witnessed it. You see, I live in this area. You might think you know someone, but until you have spent some time with the people throughout the Eastern seaboard who have dealt with this behavior it might be you who is unaware.

 

My point is that this thread has a hidden agenda. It was a deliberate attempt to defame a member of the local geocaching community. Atrus, Paperman1 and catlover are some of the most gentle, kind and fun loving geocachers in this community. I know them personally, and I am telling you that I know the OP just as well.

 

This isn't about an objectionable photograph, it's about drama... it's about slander by proxy. Those of you who this OP have appealed to, and have responded in defense of decency are to be commended for it. But if you only knew the background of everyone concerned, you would be angry about how you have been used.

 

Read his words carefully. See how he continuously says he isn't "going there" but does anyway. Observe how he awkwardly says that he isn't accusing someone of racism, but nakedly implies it over and over. Open your mind and look, and you will see the hidden agenda.

 

Why does this matter to me?

 

Because it never ends. Time and again the sport is spoiled and our area defamed with shameless drama by one who abuses the system and the forums to get even for petty differences. And this time, it's gone too far. A good man's character has been assasinated.

 

Atrus, a gentle man who has been a champion for the more conservative type of geocaching... so much so, that he refuses to log caches and only leaves a note to show that he puts his money where his mouth is when he says "it's not about the numbers"...who has been an active and supporting player who doesn't have an enemy in the community save this one...

 

...has had his geocaching name seriously drug through the dirt... for the fun of revenge in a petty dispute.

 

Did the OP intend to have you label him a racist? You bet he did.

 

And it's been done by one who time and again, upsets the local community with unpopular ideas, complaints and harrasments. Sometimes valid, sometimes not, but always with a carefully targeted individual. Relentlessly, he is alone in the Southeast with his adventurism... and always labels his monkeyshines as "just being opinionated".

 

I respectfully ask you to reconsider your opinions towards Atrus. I stand here to tell you that what has been implied and said about him in this thread that would lead you to believe that he intended any disrespect towards any ethnic group is a slanderous untruth, and I submit to you that this thread was initiated with malice and aforethought in deceptive purpose.

 

Has the OP made an accusation of racism? Not at all... he is leading YOU to do that for him. It's his modus operandi.

 

If there is any indecency that aproaches the ugliness of racism, it is to accuse or imply it of another when you know in your heart it isn't true, and in so doing, to rob an innocent person of their dignity.

 

What's it to me?

 

To paraphrase someone who posted earlier: all that is needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

Link to comment

Here is what I assume is the original source.

 

Obama-Barack-funny2.jpg

 

Looking at the original, the lips are indeed poked out. You can also see that they crossed the eyes and pulled the ears out. I see this as no more than someone exaggerated the features of a picture they found.

 

Have you actually looked at the other pictures on moronface.com? I like this one in particular.

 

Joey___Candy_2.jpg

 

It's a site for making goofy faces. It's a simple as that. And given the original material the Obama image was created from, it makes complete sense that it was caricatured the way it was.

Link to comment

Here is what I assume is the original source.

 

Obama-Barack-funny2.jpg

 

Looking at the original, the lips are indeed poked out. You can also see that they crossed the eyes and pulled the ears out. I see this as no more than someone exaggerated the features of a picture they found.

 

Have you actually looked at the other pictures on moronface.com? I like this one in particular.

 

Joey___Candy_2.jpg

 

It's a site for making goofy faces. It's a simple as that. And given the original material the Obama image was created from, it makes complete sense that it was caricatured the way it was.

 

I think it's up to morons to judge whether those images are merely "goofy" or truly offensive.

 

Morons, how do you feel? :)

Link to comment
First they came for the double smiley finders, and I did not speak out-because I was not a multiple find poster;

Then they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;

Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Link to comment
Comparing caricatures of random individual white people to those of black people is kind of like comparing the word "honky" with the "n" word. It just doesn't carry the same sting for many, many reasons.

So far, this statement takes the prize as the most racist thing posted in this thread.

One of the best definitions of "racism" I've heard came from actor/comedian Bill Cosby: "Any decision you make, any action you take, be it a positive or a negative, if your decision is influenced by race, you've just committed racism. If you decide to deny a person a job because of his skin tone, that's racist. If you decide to give a person a college scholarship because of his skin tone, that's equally racist".

 

Both the term "Honky" and the "N" word are negative descriptions based upon skin tone. By deciding to assign a greater insult value to one of those words, simply because of the skin tone of the people it is often directed at, is an act of racism. Both words have been spewed in hate. Both words have been spoken in jest. Both words have been utilized by the group they were meant to insult.

 

Yet one is worse than the other? :)

Link to comment
My point is that this thread has a hidden agenda. It was a deliberate attempt to defame a member of the local geocaching community. Atrus, Paperman1 and catlover are some of the most gentle, kind and fun loving geocachers in this community. I know them personally, and I am telling you that I know the OP just as well.

I see... it was really the OP that uploaded that offensive photo? How sneaky of him!!
Link to comment

Fitzy,

 

My rebuttle wasn't hasty. You couched a definiteve statement of the existance of a feud in with your observations. You don't need to be an English teacher to see that. That is what compelled me to respond to your post.

 

 

Are we just arguing over semantics now or what? OzGuff has not denied a feud/rift/bad history/bad blood/quarrel/prolonged falling out/enmity.

 

In fact OzGuff has replied in as much (emphasis mine):

 

Did my experiences with the cacher who uploaded the objectionable image color my reaction to it? Possibly, but I saw the "photo" before I knew who had uploaded it. (And my apologies for using the word "color" in this context.) It has been years since Atrus and I have had a cordial conversation; I can't even remember what precipitated our enmity. (Though I could probably dig out copies of some emails I have received from him that make for very interesting reads.) We will likely never exchange holiday greeting cards. I am definitely fine with that.

 

My bad on the missing "or" between is and isn't. That's an innocent mistake of sonic intention just as your type-o of fued. :D My bad for mocking your misspelling. :(:)

 

Touché.

 

<snip>

 

waypointazoid I Think some links would be pertinent about now.

 

Here is what I assume is the original source.

 

Looking at the original, the lips are indeed poked out. You can also see that they crossed the eyes and pulled the ears out. I see this as no more than someone exaggerated the features of a picture they found.

 

Have you actually looked at the other pictures on moronface.com? I like this one in particular.

 

It's a site for making goofy faces. It's a simple as that. And given the original material the Obama image was created from, it makes complete sense that it was caricatured the way it was.

 

I think this basically ends the debate over whether the picture was racist or not both in intent and in material. For those who still want to argue the toss, whatever you feel about a site such as moronface.com, can you consider a policy where moronface.com was to exclude images of black people - talk about segregation? Is that where you want this to go?

 

Everyone has focused on the lips so far, no-one has responded to my comment on thin lips, no-one has mentioned his eyes. If we are to take the whole warped picture, what effect do the eyes have on racial stereotyping....

 

When I first laid eyes on this image, I didn't see anything stereotypical about black people. Maybe it's because I don't even know of any stereotypes for black people. Most of the black people I know are just like me apart from their pigmentation differs.

 

If anyone insists on singling out the lips as a form of racial stereotyping, then it is they who are seeing and propogating a race issue. This is speculation on my part, but could it be that when they look at the picture in their eyes it's a stereotype of black people because for some reason they have it in their own heads that all black people have big lips?

 

So far, this statement takes the prize as the most racist thing posted in this thread.

One of the best definitions of "racism" I've heard came from actor/comedian Bill Cosby: "Any decision you make, any action you take, be it a positive or a negative, if your decision is influenced by race, you've just committed racism. If you decide to deny a person a job because of his skin tone, that's racist. If you decide to give a person a college scholarship because of his skin tone, that's equally racist".

 

Both the term "Honky" and the "N" word are negative descriptions based upon skin tone. By deciding to assign a greater insult value to one of those words, simply because of the skin tone of the people it is often directed at, is an act of racism. Both words have been spewed in hate. Both words have been spoken in jest. Both words have been utilized by the group they were meant to insult.

 

Yet one is worse than the other? :)

 

Absolutely spot on!

Link to comment
Comparing caricatures of random individual white people to those of black people is kind of like comparing the word "honky" with the "n" word. It just doesn't carry the same sting for many, many reasons.

So far, this statement takes the prize as the most racist thing posted in this thread.

One of the best definitions of "racism" I've heard came from actor/comedian Bill Cosby: "Any decision you make, any action you take, be it a positive or a negative, if your decision is influenced by race, you've just committed racism. If you decide to deny a person a job because of his skin tone, that's racist. If you decide to give a person a college scholarship because of his skin tone, that's equally racist".

 

Both the term "Honky" and the "N" word are negative descriptions based upon skin tone. By deciding to assign a greater insult value to one of those words, simply because of the skin tone of the people it is often directed at, is an act of racism. Both words have been spewed in hate. Both words have been spoken in jest. Both words have been utilized by the group they were meant to insult.

 

Yet one is worse than the other? :)

 

You're honestly telling me that the word "honky" has the same effect and sting of the "n" word? You're telling me that the same history of hate, prejudice, ignorance, stupidity, slavery, oppression, violence, and crimes against man are the same for one as they are for the other?

 

I'm not assigning a greater value to one or the other. The people these words have been spoken by and directed to have already done that.

Link to comment

Absolutely right Riffster! Logic can be so logical sometimes, can't it? There is a distinct difference between racial respect with equality and the condecending political correctness that passes for it. And don't think that people will hesitate to use it as a weapon, or to make themselves feel superior to those who don't get in step with it. Political correctness only diminishes the object of it's affection!

 

And let me ask you Castle... when is enough? How long do we have to suffer the discrimination of a double standard like that before it becomes politically incorrect? You can't make a right with a wrong, no matter how noble it makes you feel.

Edited by waypointazoid
Link to comment

To OzGuff, if I find this picture posted in a user's profile offensive, do you think that it's appropriate for me to ask Groundspeak to have the user remove the picture from his/her profile?

 

http://img.geocaching.com/user/2812d0e0-80...e6d8265e6c5.jpg

 

According to the Terms of Use you would likely have to make a case that the picture is vulgar and/or obscene. I don't see any of the other possible ways to violate the Terms of Use coming into play here, unless the photo was copyrighted. Hope this was of help...

Link to comment
Personally, I think EVERYONE needs to lighten up a bit- not just Francis... :)
This applies here too...
This looks like a job for Captain Chlorox.

 

Just curious...

 

Are any of these pictures offensive?

 

The Birthday Suit Cache

OMG... LOL! That was like a train wreck. No matter how bad it may seem, you just can't look away!
I tried BrainBleach, but there's some things that you simply cannot unsee.
Link to comment

To OzGuff, if I find this picture posted in a user's profile offensive, do you think that it's appropriate for me to ask Groundspeak to have the user remove the picture from his/her profile?

 

http://img.geocaching.com/user/2812d0e0-80...e6d8265e6c5.jpg

According to the Terms of Use you would likely have to make a case that the picture is vulgar and/or obscene. I don't see any of the other possible ways to violate the Terms of Use coming into play here, unless the photo was copyrighted. Hope this was of help...

Thanks for your response. It was helpful.

 

I would think that based upon some of the objections in this thread using this part of the TOU that you cited

the picture I linked could be equally as objectionable to some as the picture linked in your OP.

 

"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."

Link to comment

To OzGuff, if I find this picture posted in a user's profile offensive, do you think that it's appropriate for me to ask Groundspeak to have the user remove the picture from his/her profile?

 

http://img.geocaching.com/user/2812d0e0-80...e6d8265e6c5.jpg

According to the Terms of Use you would likely have to make a case that the picture is vulgar and/or obscene. I don't see any of the other possible ways to violate the Terms of Use coming into play here, unless the photo was copyrighted. Hope this was of help...

Thanks for your response. It was helpful.

I would think that based upon some of the objections in this thread using this part of the TOU that you cited

the picture I linked could be equally as objectionable to some as the picture linked in your OP.

"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."

I have some serious problems with the language, "ANY OTHER PERSON". There is always somebody that will take exception to almost anything. Heck, there is probably somebody here that feels that it is wrong to put glasses on a dog. There are others that have saved that picture you posted, and made it their desktop wallpaper. I was raised with the belief that I had to tolerate other's often objectional opinions and statements so that I was free to state my own opinions and statements, even if they were objectionable to THE MAJORITY, much less any one individual.
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 12
×
×
  • Create New...